The climate change protestors did nothing wrong. We desperately need more attention on climate change or the human race will die out. There is literally nothing else anywhere near as important. Literally everything matters less.
To equate those two things is disingenuous and offensive.
I also agree that we desperately need more attention on climate change. In addition to that, to my knowledge no art was actually damaged by climate change protestors (who mostly projected soup on a glass, not directly on paintings...)
> ...Like the other targeted artworks, the painting was not damaged by the stunt...
This means that the artwork was not actually damaged, which is also exactly what the person you replied to said, so this article doesn't back up your claim at all
> We desperately need more attention on climate change or the human race will die out.
Imo renewable energy and and EVs are worthwhile because of air pollution, but we can do without the fearmongering about the world ending. Historically every time people have done that it was a load of BS
Yes and no. CFCs were going to end poorly without global action.
Venus would be inhabitable without a runaway greenhouse effect. That can happen here. No one knows the future. We should default on taking reasonable precautions.
Attention and support aren’t the same thing. Their stupid behaviour makes it less likely the general population will support climate action—few people want to be associated with these morons.
Our genetics probably won't die out. (There are a lot of us, and we're pretty resilient as a species.) But our culture? Our ideas, stories, values, history, even our technology stack? Those seem likely to be far more fragile that mere survival. I think "could be disruption" is selling it short - as a species, we've invested thousands of years into a particular pattern of fairly stable climate. Now, we're going to see that pattern change and simultaneously become less stable.
I don't think collapse of modern civilization within the next century is guaranteed, but it seems a dangerous level of possible.
That makes no sense. How is defacing art helping fight climate change? How does that reduce emissions or remove CO2 from the atmosphere? It doesn't. Also, it's terrible PR for anyone advocating for people to change behaviour in order to reduce their environmental impact. So, I think it's safe to say they are doing more harm than good.
> The painting is unharmed – the action was planned knowing it was properly protected. But there’s still been a huge outcry with people asking: why attack art? Why go after something as precious as human creativity, culture and beauty?
Tesla started 15 years ago, which is when it needed to to push through all the incredible issues needed to be solved to have electric cars being viable.
We are seeing great breakthroughs in renewables, and - partly thanks to Putin, ironically possibly the top attention-raiser - in nuclear, as burning gas beats burning coal, but not when someone else can turn off the tap.
People glueing their hands to priceless paintings do not feature in any of these decades-long progressions. They convince no one who isn't already convinced, and put everyone else off.
To equate those two things is disingenuous and offensive.