Not just attention, but increases risk so companies avoid such activities if they know the reward (dividend paid to shareholders) doesn’t justify the risk (equipment being damaged, assets being burned)
Don’t forget the cost of insurance. That’s the big one. If it stops being possible to insure fossil fuel infrastructure, then investments shift to renewables that can be insured. It’s pretty simple economic math.
Edit: that also works in all levels of the economy. Pipeline constitution vehicle get torched every time there’s a pipeline built? Uninsurable therefore reduce or stop investment. Cas in cities always get flat tires and vandalized? People won’t buy cars they can’t insure.
Because violence and sabotage brings attention
I’ll be even more frank: because it’s the only thing that works.
No it doesn’t. You don’t see protests in North Korea don’t you?
Just because it’s the only thing that works doesn’t mean it works every time.
Also, WTF do “protests” have to do with anything? Protests aren’t violence.
I’ll point out even then violence is working - it’s just that the violence comes from the government instead.
Not just attention, but increases risk so companies avoid such activities if they know the reward (dividend paid to shareholders) doesn’t justify the risk (equipment being damaged, assets being burned)
Don’t forget the cost of insurance. That’s the big one. If it stops being possible to insure fossil fuel infrastructure, then investments shift to renewables that can be insured. It’s pretty simple economic math.
Edit: that also works in all levels of the economy. Pipeline constitution vehicle get torched every time there’s a pipeline built? Uninsurable therefore reduce or stop investment. Cas in cities always get flat tires and vandalized? People won’t buy cars they can’t insure.
Also insurance companies that provide insurance for such companies are themselves valid targets for direct actions to cause economic loss.