Skip to main content

View Diary: Occupy the Tar Sands Pipeline literally (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, it is stupid (4+ / 0-)

    For some of the reasons mentioned above: supply-side protests rarely work. For all the media attention it gave them, Greenpeace in the past (and Paul Watson and his ego now) didn't do a damn thing to stop whaling with their inflatable boats, it was pressure on land with politicians that had real effects. Whether one agrees or not with the ban on seal products in some countries, that had more of an effect  than did all the protests on the ice trying to screw with the hunts by reducing the demand for sealskin.

    They're great for media attention, and I suppose they give a feeling of warm fuzziness to the people carrying them out, but in the end they typically don't work compared to the far less glamorous and media-less work on dealing with reducing the demand.

    I'll let you in on a secret: resource companies are not, in fact, villains from Captain Planet who do what they do for the shits and giggles, it's because there's a demand. You take away the demand so there's no profit, they don't do whatever it is you are opposed to.

    •  There's no logical connection (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      between virtue and demand, sorry.  There's a demand for chocolate; there's a demand for contract killers.

      Otherwise I'd say that such actions are indeed "great for media attention," which has an at least indirect effect on such matters as demand, mass action, legislation, etc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site