"Just do it" - movie about direct action environmentalism
 

Just Do It | The film

I have not seen it but the content sounds interesting.

So they don't actually do anything... they just inconvenience people and break the law...

So what exactly would you consider "doing something" then? I think super glueing themselves to bank floors is certainly doing more than to be super-glued to a couch in front of a TV or PC screen.
A lot of it is symbolic, yes, but so is most of the protesting - if a writer writes an inspiring book that leads to thousands to "do something", that is also "doing something" , is it not?

Sounds like a bunch of extremists nuts without the guts to actually break the law.

Enviromental activists would have a much more positive image if they didn't do that kind of stuff.

They also would not have any success...
Even Greenpeace, the most mainstream and influential environmental group has ships going to oil drill rigs and have people tie themselves under the platform to stop arctic drilling.

Still, being annoying isn't going to suddenly change the mind of financial giants. Of course, the ways you could make them reconsider, those of which don't involve money... they're considerably harder to accomplish.

All these laws, authoritarian police forces and whatnot...

Those kinds of protests don't give environmentalists a good reputation.

The problem is that there just isn't enough bodies yet.

And I'll leave it at that...

I bet that dude drives a car...

Because when the minority forces their views on the majority, they need to use force. Get it yet?

Yet over and over direct action proves to be working. see the movie. And see the grass growing in the place where the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Germany was to be built...
It changes their minds when it starts to cost a lot of money and public relations to go up against the will of the people.

As the financial giants only care for finances, there is not really a way to make them behave in any way that does not involve them profiting from it. Unless using laws and regulations - but that is not really "changing their mind", it is just another type of force.

Yet greenpeace has I would say quite a good reputation with the people. Yet the green party in Germany, who openly endorsed direct action protests against the nuclear industry and of which many members take part in such actions now have the position of a prime minister in one of Germanys countries and the support of about 25% of the voters all over Germany. And millions of people watch "sea sheperds" on TV.

That is a) not what is happening - many of these actions are designed to wake people up to the problems, they are often symbolic actions rather than targeted at direct results. The goal of many of these is to either get people to notice the problem (e.g. by spectacular media coverage) and/or to delay a project until there is a larger opposition forming against it.
And b) who is the minority? 100 people doing direct action, supported by 100000 people signing the petition, acting in the interests of millions and millions of nonhumans - or the handful of privileged who profit from these projects plus the ones who get a little share of it. On Pandora - who gets to vote - just the NA'Vi and the Humans? Just the Humans? The 13 billions of humans on Earth? Or also the Ikran and the Stormbeest and the trees?

EDIT, PS: Another thing on that "imposing" issue. Do you think it is justifyable for a "white" person to mistreat a "coloured" person just because the majority of people in the country think this is a good idea? Or to enslave them or to exterminate them? Is genocide justifyable if just the majority of the people in the country are in favour of that? Then is it justifyable to do large scale biocide on the Earth just because a majority of people in some of the countries think it is a good idea? Dont you think there are some basic, fundamental things that are not justifyable even if the majority would like to have them? And would that not make anyone standing by these principles look like being nondemocratic?

Maybe it's different where you live but where I am Greenpeace is seen as being overly aggressive and inconsiderate.

But once again that may be out of context.

People watch sea shepherd for all sorts of reasons, from morbid fascination about terrorism to supporting them to opposing them.

As iron jones said, possibly it's different in other countries, but here Greenpeace are seen as borderline nutters, who love to complain but never offer any solution, and many people will point out that although they claim to distance themselves form terrorism, they aren't averse to it from time to time.

But you're the one going against the "will of the people". If the majority supported these movements, they wouldn't have to use force. Terrorists need to use terror because without it, they're just a fringe group with ideals nobody likes. These groups are all the same.