[GHung]

The new film Disobedience, about the global movement to break free from fossil fuels, is now available for free download and streaming at watchdisobedience.com!

Disobedience is a new film about a new phase of the climate movement: courageous action that is being taken on the front lines of the climate crisis on every continent, led by regular people fed up with the power and pollution of the fossil fuel industry. It tells the story of 4 communities preparing to participate in Break Free from Fossil Fuels actions in May 2016.

Video URL: https://youtu.be/Tdtc7ltYB8E ... about 41 minutes.

[onlooker]

Thanks G. Better late than never.

[Plantagenet]

Why is this film called "Disobedience"? Who is disobeying what? Its like the film-makers think somebody gave an order to use fossil fuels and people are just following orders when they gas up their cars or turn up the thermostat on a cold day instead of buying gas to go to work and heating the house so the baby doesn't cry.

Wouldn't it make more sense to call this film something like "Independent thinking" or "The right decision" or "Save the Climate" instead of "Disobedience?"

[Hawkcreek]

Wouldn't it make more sense to call this film something like "Independent thinking" or "The right decision" or "Save the Climate" instead of "Disobedience?"

Yeah, that would make more sense to me too.

[Ibon]

I agree with that also. It is part of that trap I mentioned on the climate change thread where you frame your narrative based on this duality you set up between evil industrialists and the rest of us as if the rest of us are somehow victims and not willing participants.

We need to move beyond that.

[GHung]

Disobedience is simply their marketing catch-word. I assume they are trying to compete with fossil fuel industry catch-words/phrases like "energy voter" to get viewers. I'm pretty sure they will be preaching to the choir for the most part, though "Disobedience" is likely aimed at younger generations..

The fossil fuel industry has a much bigger choir, unfortunately, and some of us who are less willing 'participants' looking for alternatives.

Anyone actually watch the movie? I'm about halfway through; life interrupted, but will finish watching tonight. Pretty good so far, though all of the "disobedience" I've seen was/is reliant upon fossil fuels in some way.

[onlooker]

I think a better word than Disobedience would be a rupture as in a separation from the Fossil Fuel matrix. Easier said than done. I watches some of the movie, I was struck by the Filipino response as they are already recognizing that GW is all too real.

[Hawkcreek]

I liked what the Filipino Archbishop had to say.
But in general, I don't think peaceful protest will change too much in the world. Even after the people got rid of Marcos in the Philippines, the new government is still controlled by the privileged, and still rife with corruption.
Things are especially hard to change, now that the elite control the major media. I would bet that most MSM never showed the true extent of the protests displayed in the video.
I believe that a better world will only be built on the ashes of this one. I just hope that people will become smart enough to make sure that the "talkers" don't slant the new system towards the same pyramid of wealth and power that we have now. In fact, I sincerely hope that the cap stone of the existing pyramid is crushed to powder as the first part of the new revolution.
No, I am not a communist. I just believe that "uncontrolled Capitalism" is a system that grows to be tyrannical in nature, just like the other "isms".

[ROCKMAN]

First, let's point out the 800# gorilla in the corner: it's the global consumers who DIRECTLY PRODUCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF GHG...not the fossil fuel
industry. And as pointed out none of the consumers were ever ordered to do so: it's not been done VOLUNTARIALLY but also DEMANDED.

Second: US consumer have sat back and provided very little resistance to the govt expending thousands of lives and $Trillions in revenue trying to stabilize oil producing regions while doing virtually nothing to bring peace to other suffering regions.

Those folks can pretend they're being defiant. Yet it's almost 100% certainty that no matter how much they might reduce their ff footprint they are still creating some GHG. For instance: how much ff energy was used to make that film...and how many tons on GHG did that create?

[ennui2]

I liked what the Filipino Archbishop had to say.

What, did they finally embrace contraception?

[onlooker]

Yet it's almost 100% certainty that no matter how much they might reduce their ff footprint they are still creating some GHG.

Therein lies the real problem that a comprehensive replacement for fossil fuels does NOT exist. Yes some people with spare money can somewhat get off the grid. Yet we all know that it is a limited substitution. That even those people still are reliant to some degree on FF. People are still going to be reliant in some measure on products and services that are FF derived. Also, if all the people say of the US tried to as much as possible go off grid the current Renewable system as it exists would NOT suffice. I do not think I am wrong about that. Finally, realistically we know some people either could not transition or would not be interested in a more austere life. Really, we can play all the theoretical games we want but reality is what it is.

[Hawkcreek]

I liked what the Filipino Archbishop had to say.

What, did they finally embrace contraception?

Yes - 100%.
From now on, the clergy will only have sex with little boys. No more procreation!

[Hawkcreek]

First, let's point out the 800# gorilla in the corner: it's the global consumers who DIRECTLY PRODUCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF GHG...not the fossil fuel
industry. And as pointed out none of the consumers were ever ordered to do so: it's not been done VOLUNTARIALLY but also DEMANDED.

Second: US consumer have sat back and provided very little resistance to the govt expending thousands of lives and $Trillions in revenue trying to stabilize oil producing regions while doing virtually nothing to bring peace to other suffering regions.

Those folks can pretend they're being defiant. Yet it's almost 100% certainty that no matter how much they might reduce their ff footprint they are still creating some GHG. For instance: how much ff energy was used to make that film...and how many tons on GHG did that create?

You are correct in most of that, Rock. But remember that the average, little guy consumer doesn't have any real control over most of what happens in the world, other than where to spend his wages. He feels that every day.
And when you combine that with the fact that 50% of those powerless consumers are under 100 IQ, and half of the ones remaining are functionally illiterate, you have a world that is controlled by the ones who want, and use power, only to help themselves.
None of those powerless idiots really wanted to give trillions to corporations and for foreign wars.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You are correct in most of that, Rock. But remember that the average, little guy consumer doesn't have any real control over most of what happens in the world, other than where to spend his wages. He feels that every day.
And when you combine that with the fact that 50% of those powerless consumers are under 100 IQ, and half of the ones remaining are functionally illiterate, you have a world that is controlled by the ones who want, and use power, only to help themselves.
None of those powerless idiots really wanted to give trillions to corporations and for foreign wars.

So lets not pretend a relative handful of protesters are going to make a big difference, like this film does.

It's not like the masses (high IQ or not) are going to willingly turn off their heat, their AC, stop driving cars, stop buying consumer cr*p they don't need, or even stop going on long distance vacations. Like Rock pointed out, as long as the reality is consumers producing a large carbon footprint, all the hollering and blaming of the fossil fuel industry is a moot point -- too much GHG's will continue to be produced, by far.

[ROCKMAN]

Hawk - "But remember that the average, little guy consumer doesn't have any real control over most of what happens in the world, other than where to spend his wages." Very true, of course. But the "little guy consumer" does have much control over what choices they make: like buying low fuel efficient vehicles, buying homes that are 5 times larger than the global average, driving tens of thousands of miles every year alone in a car, etc. etc.

Again something many here are too guilt ridden to admit out loud: it's the "little guy consumers" who are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for a huge portion of the GHG generated today. Individually they might like to minimize their personal impact but can't escape the cumulative effect of the CHOICES they make every day. Which is why some so desperately try to lay the blame elsewhere.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - I live in a nice quiet townhome across the highway from the second largest refinery in the US and have lots of nice fresh air blowing in from the GOM most of the time. No need to drive. LOL. But again back to my original point: those consumers chose to live in those "suburban hell holes" because they derive the benefits of living there. Otherwise they would pack up and head to the country, right? But that accept the trade off which includes an expanded fossil fuel footprint from those long drives in the country. LOL

[ennui2]

None of those powerless idiots really wanted to give trillions to corporations and for foreign wars.

I continue to hear this dichotomy, like the person such as yourself is positioning yourself above humanity, and humanity are helpless little children who are only capable of being victimized and should never be judged for their individual action. There has to be some middle-ground where people should be asked to bear some personal responsibility rather than constantly laying any and all the blame on TPTB.