You’re totally right, direct action for ecological/environmental/etc is not something new.

And thank you for your input. You mention some stuff I did not know and I will gladly look into.

You are totally right saying:

We need to reduce burning fossil fuels

Still, we live in a triple planetary crisis, which includes 3 issues:

• climate crisis
• biodiversity loss
• garbage/pollution

Please, do keep in mind that these issues intersect and this is why they need to be tackled in the same time.

Check out this archived link of the article

The Materson book was easy to find, which is great. The introductory course was a great idea, so I’ll try to find free online lectures and take it from there (I do have some background in math, so differential equations won’t be an issue). I’m pretty sure I won’t get everything, but I’ll get a better grasp. Well, an introductory grasp, that is and I’m fine with it. Thanks again for your input.

Thank you very much for taking the time to wright all the above. A lot has been clarified and you gave me input to further my quest. Btw do you have any recent book/documentary/etc to suggest on the topic for a non-scientist reader?

I will address some of the points you make.

After the Fukushima Daiichi accident, there has been an increasing preference for passive safety features in the nuclear power industry. To my understanding, it’s not that all modern designs include this feature. Not only that, there are many ways to implement it, with different evaluations on their effectiveness.

For the US nuclear waste I could suggest the following article:

Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan? | Scientific American | March 2023

The U.S., which led the way on managing nuclear waste in the 1980s and 1990s, has now fallen to the back of the pack. About 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors remain stranded at reactor sites, and this number is increasing by some 2,000 metric tons each year. These 77 sites are in 35 states and threaten to become de facto permanent disposal facilities.

Finally I believe that

While nuclear champions claim that nuclear energy can work hand-in-hand with renewables, it is becoming increasingly clear that nuclear power acts as a significant hurdle to energy efficiency investments, the roll-out of renewables and fossil fuel phase-out in three spheres: the EU political debate, energy system planning, and decentralisation.

More on this, in the source

I noticed your comment is based on the title and not on any of the arguments in this article. May I suggest to take a look at the article itself? You might change your mind.

For capitalism: horizontal organizing

For plastic waste: plastic-eating fungi

Edit: In relation to your question, I’m pretty sure that you could find such texts, if you look into Scandinavian relevant studies.

Some other readings would be in relation to Social Ecology

I will not directly reply to your question, but use it as an input to share a couple of thoughts…

The current economic model has infinite growth embedded in it and the planet is finite. In a way, it is expanding in a colonialist manner. Also, it is the predominant one all over the world. This is why we have a triple planetary crises: climate change, biodiversity loss, as well as pollution/waste.

Personally, I don’t think we need an economic model to organise societies. We need a societal organisational model, or many actually, that are based on horizontal decision-making processes, as well as sustainability. How to get from here to there, I suppose it’s whole another topic.

I am a bit surprised that they “only” have water shortages. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future the water supplies will be proven to be contaminated.

A draft text of the European Commission’s Clean Industrial Deal sets out plans to strengthen the markets for sustainable products and provide greater assistance for heavy industry to cope with energy costs, rather than easing decarbonisation targets.

Prioritising energy cost, instead of decarbonisation sounds alarming to me.

Those bicarbonate ions are great for combating ocean acidification

In this context tho, what you say reminds me of geoengineering and I consider it to be an extremely dangerous approach.

The method essentially speeds up the natural process of silicate weathering. In this process, CO2 in the atmosphere dissolves in rainwater to form a weak acid. This reacts with common minerals in rocks called silicates, breaking them down into other compounds such as bicarbonate ions (HCO3–), which flow into the ocean and stably store carbon for thousands of years.

Although the carbonation process took weeks to months to occur, it was still thousands of times quicker than natural processes.

If I understand this correctly, it sounds like a terrible idea because this method speeds up a natural process and sees the ocean as a sort of a stable dumpster. If I got this wrong, please let me know.

Btw:

Guide to Investigating Fossil Fuels: Greenwashing | Global Investigative Journalism Network, Feb 2025

The fossil fuel industry promotes solutions such as carbon capture and storage, liquefied natural gas, hydrogen, and renewable natural gas, which critics argue are far more focused on preserving industry profits than significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The tactics they use include funding university research that skews public discourse and policymaking in the direction of their preferred solutions. They have hired management consultancies to conduct skewed analysis supporting those solutions and funded lobbyists, and advertising and public relations firms to promote them.

I thought of linking a recent podcast from The Great Simplification:

Jean-Baptiste Fressoz: “Always Adding More: The Unpopular Reality about Energy Transitions”

To where? Where will they go? Who will take them?

(To) Hospitals

How will they even be let out?

According to the article : “Under this ceasefire agreement, there is supposed to be a mechanism in place for medical evacuations. We’ve still not seen that process spelled out,”

Now that you mentioned the Luddites, last year I listened to a very informative podcast from Margaret Killjoy:

• Part One: All Hail King Ludd: How the Luddites Almost Saved Us

• Part Two: All Hail King Ludd: How the Luddites Almost Saved Us

I was under the impression that:

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US accounted for 69% of Israel’s imports of major conventional arms between 2019 and 2023.

And that:

In May 2024, the US confirmed it had paused a single consignment of 2,000lb and 500lb bombs over concerns Israel was going ahead with a major ground operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. But Biden immediately faced a backlash from Republicans in Washington and from Netanyahu who appeared to compare it to an “arms embargo”. Biden has since partially lifted the suspension and not repeated it.

From Biden plans to send $8bn arms shipment to Israel - BBC - 4 January 2025

I was not aware of the existence of Shut the System and I like their approach, so I find it’s great you included their link to your post @silence7@slrpnk.net

Edit: Did a sort of repost to In Person Activism@slrpnk.net

Once more then. In the picture you see Sasol petrochemical plant.

Sasol’s Secunda CTL plant is, as of 2020, the world’s largest point source of greenhouse gas, at 56.5 Mt/a CO2,[54] a status which persists during the 2020s, with the complex producing more carbon dioxide than the country of Portugal at the close of 2023

Not too sure how this comment is relevant to the article?

If you just saw the picture, there is something written bellow it:

A garbage dump in Secunda, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa near the Sasol petrochemical plant, the world’s largest single-point emitter of CO2