That source doesn’t say that 80% of rivers do not support life anymore. It says that 78.8% of rivers in the dataset are showing signs of deoxygenation.
I was gonna say that seemed a little extreme. Rivers are defintely degrading, are having some species go extinct, and other serious problems but life is still quite persistent. Even extremely damaged ecosystems can bounce back relatively quickly with the proper care.
During the (biologically) short two years of the COVID-19 pandemic when everyone was inside and factories were shut down, a lot of rivers and other natural ecosystems pretty much recovered to near pre-industrial health. Even the River Ganges started clearing up if I remember correctly.
Factories didn’t work, Suez was blocked. We did alright
Love a properly-sourced meme ❤️
Genuinely who has characterised environmental policies as “just wanting chaos”? I have never heard anyone of significant note say that.
Not the policies, but certainly activists like Greta Thunberg have been characterized as angry extremists (by people who are financially interested in maintaining the status quo).
With Thunberg in particular, while I agree broadly with her on pretty much all of her policy stances, I can’t help but also think that a lot of what she does is performative and doesn’t really accomplish much on a practical level. I’m not stupid enough to think the goal is chaos but I think I understand how some people could be led to think that.
Then you are simply uninformed about her work. I do agree that she is portrayed that way by the media you consume.
I am informed. I can see her activities. They range from very productive performatism to useless but mostly inert lip service.
For example her Gaza aid ship stunt I believe falls in the category of “very productive performatism”. Obviously she is a kind of international political celebrity, and by forcing Israeli authorities to either arrest her (and cause a diplomatic incident) or allow a hole in their Gaza blockade, she’s forcing the issue in a way that is both a good use of her infamy and also disproportionately impactful.
her activities. They range from very productive performatism to useless but mostly inert lip service
You seem to be using the word performatism in both senses of it’s meaning, as performative has become a contranym. Here you are contrasting it to “inert lip service” as opposed to your earlier comment that implied the opposite meaning:
what she does is performative and doesn’t really accomplish much
Putting the confusing nature of your comments aside, I do think it’s worth highlighting very clearly that - as you yourself pointed out - performative action can be quite useful in the original sociological sense of the word. It means bringing something into being through speech/action, which is the polar opposite of “inert lip service”.
Many of Thunberg’s actions have inspired and informed others precisely because they include a performative aspect (in the sociological sense), and she doesn’t do anything that is “inert lip service” as far as I am aware. In fact, based on interviews I’ve seen of her, I suspect that “inert lip service” is incredibly annoying to her as well.
Perhaps this is an issue of grammar. I use the word “performative” to describe actions where more effort is paid to the publication of the process of performing the actions, rather than any effect of the actions themselves.
And, of course, I do think that being performative does not on its own make a behaviour socially useless. That’s why I distinguish between “useful performatism” and “useless performatism”, which is typically just done with the goal of generating the feeling of having done something, without actually making any significant effect.
As another example, most peaceful protests are inherently performative, but they can be usefully so if they actually provoke positive policy changes.
And of course, by “lip service”, I mean speeches and declarations which merely talk about the existence of an issue and one’s support/opposition of it without actually taking any concrete action towards achieving one’s stated goal. For example (though not Thunberg-related), I consider a city council resolution condemning Israeli atrocities in occupied Palestine to be a form of useless lip service, unless it is paired with actual actions in furtherance of that view, such as sending aid to Palestine or cutting ties with Israeli companies.
US presidents ordering flags flown at half-mast after mass shootings without offering substantial policy changes is a notorious example of useless lip service.
it might be about characterising anarchists as “just wanting chaos”, because a lot of people use anarchy and chaos as synonyms…?
i’m not certain, the “you guys” in the picture could be referring to someone else entirely and not anarchists at all!
Dealing with those environmental problems requires breaking the corporate power the profits from and perpetuates those problems, and breaking corporate power does get characterized as “just wanting chaos” by plenty of people.
Do you have an example? I haven’t even seen the Washington Post characterise it that way. Most opponents just talk about how these policies will “destroy the competitiveness of our industry” or “raise prices for consumers”.
Ask any right-winger what they think about protests about things like BLM or Palestine.
Also rainwater is no longer drinkable everywhere.
Guess a small price to pay for a few individuals to please their ego
