“Climate activists” deface Van Gogh at NGA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

+1
I believe in climate change and I am sure the activist fervently does too. But I am routinely floored at the hypocrisy of rich “thought leaders” who live in huge houses and fly all around the world all the time lecturing people that they need to do X or y small things to save the planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly though what will the Van Gogh really be worth once the planet is on fire?

I am a climate activist. I go to museums to take inspiration in how artists throughout history have been inspired by the natural world as one of many reasons we must act to protect it. The making and viewing of art are not activities that cause or accelerate the climate crisis. Why would you want to destroy something that brings people joy and hope, and often depicts natural objects reverently, to "bring attention" to the climate crisis? It makes no sense.

I would support large and small scale protests outside museums to bring attention to the issue. I'd even participate. But defacing art that brings people joy is not the way.

Congrats for having a firm grasp of the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Conspiracy theory time: these "activists" are paid by a government or corporation that has an interest in making climate activists look insane.

[Anonymous]

These kids never got enough attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It says there's no damage. It's all good. People suck though.

Who cares that there is no damage. The clearly meant to cause damage and make a “statement”. They should go to jail.

I don’t even understand the “statement”. What does this have to do with climate change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

+1
I believe in climate change and I am sure the activist fervently does too. But I am routinely floored at the hypocrisy of rich “thought leaders” who live in huge houses and fly all around the world all the time lecturing people that they need to do X or y small things to save the planet.

Yes. Like thought leader, Al Gore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure they knew it would not damage the painting and wanted to get people thinking about the value of things (or of things vs a livable climate).

They are young and pretty stupid. They probably had no idea it was protected by glass

They totally knew it wouldn't really be damaged. That is why they picked that piece. The whole thing was filmed - they must have tipped off the journalist in advance and he let the whole thing play out.

Actually, several pieces HAVE been damaged this year, so I don’t care if they thought it was no problem. They should definitely face jail time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly though what will the Van Gogh really be worth once the planet is on fire?

The planet is not in fire. Calm yourself, Greta

The only thing that could set the planet on fire is an asteroid or comet. Fund the space program instead of throwing paint on art.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

+1
I believe in climate change and I am sure the activist fervently does too. But I am routinely floored at the hypocrisy of rich “thought leaders” who live in huge houses and fly all around the world all the time lecturing people that they need to do X or y small things to save the planet.

Or buy oceanfront mansions while telling us the seas will rise a hundred feet by the time I’m 65.

Which makes me ask “WTH would I think you’re credible if you just spent $20m on a house that will be underwater soon? Doesn’t that make you dumb? Why would I listen to you?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

+1
I believe in climate change and I am sure the activist fervently does too. But I am routinely floored at the hypocrisy of rich “thought leaders” who live in huge houses and fly all around the world all the time lecturing people that they need to do X or y small things to save the planet.

I mostly agree with you but isn’t it also the case that most of those people aren’t flying alone? I mean, if you are bill gates going to Africa for some grant project, you are probably taking a bunch of people from the foundation, and would need security, and catching three connecting flights from Seattle might be more resource intensive than just putting everyone on a private jet.
Brangelina flying private with their kids from France to LA is another story, though.

[Anonymous]

The most recent and famous activism actions against works of art did not damage any of them, since activitists picked paintings that were covered by glass. They just want to draw attention to climate change (in a way I don't really care for), but they're not stupid enough to face significant jail time over their actions.

All in all, a footnote in the news of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

Exactly. To quote someone else — “I’ll believe it’s a crises when those who are telling me it’s a crises start behaving like it is.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

+1
I believe in climate change and I am sure the activist fervently does too. But I am routinely floored at the hypocrisy of rich “thought leaders” who live in huge houses and fly all around the world all the time lecturing people that they need to do X or y small things to save the planet.

Yes. Like thought leader, Al Gore.

TBH, he did invent the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So glad they have glass over the painting to protect it. I hope these dumb dumbs are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Were they both Trump supporters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

+1
I believe in climate change and I am sure the activist fervently does too. But I am routinely floored at the hypocrisy of rich “thought leaders” who live in huge houses and fly all around the world all the time lecturing people that they need to do X or y small things to save the planet.

I mostly agree with you but isn’t it also the case that most of those people aren’t flying alone? I mean, if you are bill gates going to Africa for some grant project, you are probably taking a bunch of people from the foundation, and would need security, and catching three connecting flights from Seattle might be more resource intensive than just putting everyone on a private jet.
Brangelina flying private with their kids from France to LA is another story, though.

No way.

Flying to London from Seattle in economy emits 1.2 tons of carbon.

A Gulf Stream 500 in the air for for 9.5 hours emits 41 tons of carbon. The max seating of a Gulfstream 500 is 19. Even if a celebrity is carrying 18 other people in his plane (which I seriously doubt), it would still be 2.2 tons of carbon per passenger. The more common load is more like 4-5. In which case the tons of carbon per person is 8x vs. “only” 2x.

The average carbon emissions per year per person in the US is around 14 tons.

Any celebrity who claims to care about climate and flies private has zero credibility. (For what it’s worth, I’ve been told Bill Gates used to fly commercial quite frequently. Don’t know if that’s still true.)