You do realize that you replied to a comment just now that raised the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, and the effect those have on the price and thus consumption of oil? Just ending those subsidies would already have a dramatic effect.
It’s true that the discussion is currently centered on freedom of speech, most notably because of the most recent developments, but the issue that is being protested is constantly present in the background. I’m betting that after the criminalization of protests stops being news, that issue gets back into the limelight.
Direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure would be less in the public due to a less central location. Sitting on a street works because it’s a nuisance to many, thus generating a lot of interest among the press and that way the message gets amplified. Gaining publicity via industrial sabotage would be difficult unless they did somehting very drastic, which would only turn them from a mere “nuicanse” into actual villains in the press. Especially so if some such drastic measure leads to the unintended death or injury of a worker at a refinery etc. This would also turn the fossil fuel companies from crooks into victims and I’m betting that they’d also try to frame it as sabotage hurting the blue collar workers they employ. All this while affecting the actual price of oil in a miniscule way at most and alienating the majority of their members who don’t accept these acts. Nonviolence is held in high regard.
I’m not sure how you managed to misunderstand, but by disruptions I was referring to precisely the kind of disruptions of the lives of ordinary people that - and I’m sure we can at least agree on this - they have quite successfully caused.
Our two parallel discussions are about the methods of protesting against the use of fossil fuels. Our discussions here exists because of JSO. It got you thinking about what should be done to get rid of the use of fossil fuels, even if this was just for the purposes of making counterarguments.