and it would certainly make me uncomfortable if they weren’t.
I was going to be very mean to you, then I took a deep breath and realized that it wasn’t worth it.
I would invite you to realize that for every 10 articles detailing how bad climate change is, there are maybe 1 of these articles. Tell me, what exactly are you doing by poking holes here? This organization has the potential to create far more lasting change than you being vegan ever will. What do you gain by pointing this out?
Tell me, what exactly are you doing by poking holes here?
I simply asked a question. It would make sense that any climate change or environmental group would be made up of vegans, especially after looking at the values they list on their website.
Let’s ignore the vegan question for a moment, since it seems to strike a particular nerve in people.
If they are trying to end fossil fuels, should I instead ask how they plan to support regular folks? Because “ending fossil fuels” has the unfortunate side effect of negatively and disproportionately impacting low and middle income families, who may rely on their gas powered vehicle to survive (many don’t even have alternative infrastructure to not have a car).
And I say that as a cycling advocate. I’m not naive. A group wanting to “end fossil fuels” is either out of touch with reality or has extremely privileged members who can afford to not depend on fossil fuels. Should we work towards developing alternatives to fossil fuels? Absolutely. But “ending fossil fuels” is a strange thing to be putting energy towards without a greater plan.
Just to contrast, Greenpeace is trying to end crimes committed by fossil fuel companies, while actively advocating for alternatives and greener energy sources. Big difference in their approach, and it seems to make far more sense than “ending fossil fuels” (as a product).
They would be far better off trying to get government to better support active transportation, which would have the impact of reducing fossil fuel use (and promoting e-bikes does more than promoting electric cars).
Your self-described “simple questions” are a textbook example of concern trolling, aimed not at gaining insight but at undermining efforts to address climate change. You position yourself as a reasonable skeptic—an advocate for the underrepresented, a cycling enthusiast concerned about the impracticalities of immediate fossil fuel cessation. Yet, your arguments selectively ignore the robust initiatives that organizations implement alongside the push to end fossil fuels, not to mention the extensive literature that outlines transitional strategies which are sensitive to socioeconomic disparities [IPCC, 2021].
Furthermore, your juxtaposition of environmental groups against Greenpeace creates a false dichotomy, one that oversimplifies the diverse tactics within the environmental movement. Both types of efforts—ending crimes by fossil fuel companies and phasing out fossil fuels—are critical and complementary, not oppositional [Greenpeace, 2023].
By framing necessary environmental actions as “strange” or “out of touch,” you’re not just questioning logistics; you’re implying a deliberate disconnect by these organizations, thus painting them as elitist or naive. This isn’t a critique; it’s a strategic misrepresentation designed to discredit. If you were genuinely interested in resolution or progress, your dialogue would include recognition of ongoing efforts to develop sustainable, equitable alternatives and would perhaps offer constructive suggestions rather than thinly-veiled disparagement.
This approach does nothing to further the conversation or contribute to real solutions—it merely perpetuates a cycle of doubt and delay at a time when urgent action is most needed. Concern trolling undercuts serious discourse, exploiting legitimate anxieties for the sake of argument rather than resolution. If the goal is truly to enhance the effectiveness of climate action, then engagement should be aimed at fostering understanding and progress, not fomenting skepticism and strife.
I was going to be very mean to you, then I took a deep breath and realized that it wasn’t worth it.
I would invite you to realize that for every 10 articles detailing how bad climate change is, there are maybe 1 of these articles. Tell me, what exactly are you doing by poking holes here? This organization has the potential to create far more lasting change than you being vegan ever will. What do you gain by pointing this out?
I simply asked a question. It would make sense that any climate change or environmental group would be made up of vegans, especially after looking at the values they list on their website.
Let’s ignore the vegan question for a moment, since it seems to strike a particular nerve in people.
If they are trying to end fossil fuels, should I instead ask how they plan to support regular folks? Because “ending fossil fuels” has the unfortunate side effect of negatively and disproportionately impacting low and middle income families, who may rely on their gas powered vehicle to survive (many don’t even have alternative infrastructure to not have a car).
And I say that as a cycling advocate. I’m not naive. A group wanting to “end fossil fuels” is either out of touch with reality or has extremely privileged members who can afford to not depend on fossil fuels. Should we work towards developing alternatives to fossil fuels? Absolutely. But “ending fossil fuels” is a strange thing to be putting energy towards without a greater plan.
Just to contrast, Greenpeace is trying to end crimes committed by fossil fuel companies, while actively advocating for alternatives and greener energy sources. Big difference in their approach, and it seems to make far more sense than “ending fossil fuels” (as a product).
They would be far better off trying to get government to better support active transportation, which would have the impact of reducing fossil fuel use (and promoting e-bikes does more than promoting electric cars).
Your self-described “simple questions” are a textbook example of concern trolling, aimed not at gaining insight but at undermining efforts to address climate change. You position yourself as a reasonable skeptic—an advocate for the underrepresented, a cycling enthusiast concerned about the impracticalities of immediate fossil fuel cessation. Yet, your arguments selectively ignore the robust initiatives that organizations implement alongside the push to end fossil fuels, not to mention the extensive literature that outlines transitional strategies which are sensitive to socioeconomic disparities [IPCC, 2021].
Furthermore, your juxtaposition of environmental groups against Greenpeace creates a false dichotomy, one that oversimplifies the diverse tactics within the environmental movement. Both types of efforts—ending crimes by fossil fuel companies and phasing out fossil fuels—are critical and complementary, not oppositional [Greenpeace, 2023].
By framing necessary environmental actions as “strange” or “out of touch,” you’re not just questioning logistics; you’re implying a deliberate disconnect by these organizations, thus painting them as elitist or naive. This isn’t a critique; it’s a strategic misrepresentation designed to discredit. If you were genuinely interested in resolution or progress, your dialogue would include recognition of ongoing efforts to develop sustainable, equitable alternatives and would perhaps offer constructive suggestions rather than thinly-veiled disparagement.
This approach does nothing to further the conversation or contribute to real solutions—it merely perpetuates a cycle of doubt and delay at a time when urgent action is most needed. Concern trolling undercuts serious discourse, exploiting legitimate anxieties for the sake of argument rather than resolution. If the goal is truly to enhance the effectiveness of climate action, then engagement should be aimed at fostering understanding and progress, not fomenting skepticism and strife.
This is delicious. Thankyou very much.