Right: Although many of the protesters are under thirty, they are supported at rallies by older people who are often conservative in their politics.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments claiming radical climate activists do not benefit their cause
1. Radical climate activists alienate many potential supportersCritics of radical climate activist groups have argued that their disruptive and confrontational protest strategies have alienated both the general public and supporters who might otherwise join these groups.
It has been claimed that the prospect of confrontation with police and appearing before the courts with the possibility of fines or imprisonment has prevented some potential supports from becoming active members of radical climate activist groups. In January 2023, Marijn van de Geer, the media director of Britain's Extinction Rebellion indicated that the group was temporarily shifting away from disruptive protests in 2023 to draw in more supporters including those who would be afraid of getting arrested. The climate group's radical protests have included activists gluing themselves to public buildings and roads, blocking newspaper deliveries, smashing windows, and spraying fake blood on government buildings. Van de Geer said the group realized their activism turned away less 'privileged' supporters who were wary of the police. Van de Geer stated, 'As a White middle-class person in a quite privileged position my experience with arrest has been fairly normal, but there are people from other backgrounds who might have a very different experience and who have very different association with getting arrested. They are, with our tactics, automatically excluded from joining us on the street.'
Among the groups that are particularly vulnerable to arrest and possible deportation through taking part in radical climate protests are those who are not permanent British citizens. One former activist who has lived in the United Kingdom for four years since the age of 18 and is Russian born, revealed to interviewers that 'I made the decision to put my direct-action ambitions on hold while my personal geopolitical security is in the hands of the Home Office.' Critics have also claimed that the disruptive actions of radical climate activists are losing them the support of not only potential new active members but of the public as a whole. In April 2023, this claim was made about the German radical activist group, Last Generation, by more moderate German climate activists. Green parliamentary group leader Irene Mihalic said Last Generation's 'elitist and self-righteous protest achieves the opposite of what we need in the current situation.' Mihalic further asserted, 'The activist group undermines social unity regarding climate action and alienates people by making their already difficult everyday life even more difficult.' Other critics have stated that Last Generation has become notorious for its repeated acts of disruptive civil disobedience, such as blocking roads during rush hours. The more moderate German climate activist group Fridays for Future which is comprised substantially of students and was founded in Sweden by Greta Thunberg has condemned Last Generation. Fridays for Future has managed to generate broad societal support for stronger climate action with peaceful street protests led by school students. A Fridays for Future spokesperson, Annika Rittmann, has claimed that the more radical climate activist group has set 'people against each other.' She has also argued that tackling the climate crisis 'requires solutions that include all of society - and we will only find and agree on them together.'
Those who oppose radical activists protesting through actions like blocking roads claim that such protests only serve to anger ordinary commuters and effectively punish them while not putting pressure on the governments whose policies the protesters want to change. Critics claim that these protests frustrate and irritate those who are their misplaced victims. In October 2019 an Extinction Rebellion protester was hauled off the roof of an underground train in London at Canning Town tube station by irate commuters. The man was then attacked and had to be rescued by London Underground staff.
In December 2021, Last Generation protesters blocking roads in Rome were attacked by motorists. Protesters claim they were slapped, kicked, and spat at by angry drivers after they assembled along the Maglianella viaduct on the A90 motorway. Similar scenes have occurred in Australia where Sydney motorists were photographed hauling protesters off a road they were blocking. The then New South Wales premier Dominic Perrottet advised the protesters, 'If you really want to lose support in the community for your cause, keep acting like that.' Critics claim that such negative public responses to radical activists show that their protests are counterproductive. Robert Habeck, Germany's vice chancellor and economy minister (and also a prominent supporter of climate action) has criticised the disruptive protests staged by Last Generation. He claims they are 'not only unhelpful, but downright wrong.' He accuses Last Generation and other radical climate activists of forgetting that they live in democracies and cannot afford to alienate voters. He states, 'In a democracy it's always about creating majorities. And that is recognizably not the case [here].'
Survey results published in July 2023, suggest that Germans' support for the climate movement has halved following the rise of highly controversial street blockades by more radical activists. The conductors of the survey, More in Common Germany, claim, 'All parts of society are much more critical of the climate movement today than they were two years ago - it has not gained or maintained ground with anyone... It seems to many that the most important point is that it is not right to want to hit citizens directly in their everyday lives with actions.' More in Common Germany suggests that street blockades have the capacity to split the protest movement off from the support base it is supposedly seeking. They state, 'Once a culture war gets going on the basis of false or unnecessary antagonisms - such as the supposed dividing line between activists on the one hand and commuting workers on the other - it can sweep away the . . .climate protection potential that exists in people's minds.' 2. Radical climate activists divert attention from the issues they are supposedly promoting
Critics of radical climate activists claim that their actions are confronting and confusing and tend to divert media attention toward the protest itself rather than the cause the activists are intending to advance.
It has been claimed that many people do not recognise what current protests have to do with addressing the climate crisis. Some members of the public are confounded by the nature of the actions being taken. When Extinction Rebellion staged a series of disruptive demonstrations in the London Underground many commuters could not understand the rationale of the protest. Some were quoted expressing their confusion at electric transport being targeted by a group whose prime objective was to stop the use of fossil fuels. One commuter was reported asking a protester, 'Is an electric train good or not? Is this train good for the environment?'
Similarly, people do not understand what interrupting major sporting competitions has to do with making a statement about the climate crisis. Many people see no connection between the protest action and the cause being promoted and so actively reject what has been done. This was shown when two Just Stop Oil activists disrupted the Snooker World Championships. One of the competitors commented, 'I feel like even talking about it is giving them airtime they don't deserve because they are just idiots. What are they trying to gain from what they have done?' A lack of clear focus and purpose is a frequent criticism made of sports-related climate protests. In April 2023, Last Generation disrupted the E-Prix in Berlin. Some of the drivers were left confused as to why the protesters chose an electric race to raise their concerns. Porsche's Antonio Felix da Costa stated, 'I think we are all fighting for the same, right? I'm not sure what they are trying to do because we are probably the worst category in motorsport for them to come and do this at. We are by far the most ecological, sustainable, and net zero series that ever existed.' A major criticism of radical activist protests is that the protest itself becomes the focus of attention. Attacks made on art works become news events because of the potential to harm valuable and famous cultural icons. Media coverage focuses on what was done rather than why the action was taken. There may be some discussion of whether the action was appropriate, but the issue the activists were seeking to promote is generally not covered. This point was made on November 3, 2022, by Nikhil Kamath writing in the Indian opinion and current affairs publication YKA. He stated, 'If you pick up any media coverage on such acts, you will see more mentions of how an artwork or public property was defaced and how the public stood against them. Such reports carry maybe one or two lines mentioning that the act was a protest against the climate crisis. It only dilutes the cause many are fighting for, putting climate action in a bad light.'
The same point was made by a student commentator, Angelina Padilla-Tompkins, whose opinion was published in Northern Star through Northern Illinois University. Padilla-Tompkins wrote, 'Reporters and readers are not talking about climate change or how to solve the issue. Instead, they discuss how bizarre the activists are acting and how individuals should not attempt to destroy classic art pieces.' Jonathan Jones, who writes on art for The Guardian, has explained further that such attacks are a dangerous distraction and are not advancing an informed discussion of the climate emergency. Jones states, 'Attacking "iconic" art gets attention and purportedly causes a debate. Yet, the only debate here is one about protest. I am yet to see evidence of renewed thought or sensitivity about the climate crisis. Instead, they spawn articles...about the rights and wrongs of the act. Dramatic gestures in museums do not express and heal the pain of the planet, collective action does. That has to be based on democratic agreement, not coercion by a man with a petrol bomb standing by Picasso's Guernica. Which is where we appear to be heading.'
The concern is that the nature of these radical protests is beginning to overwhelm or obscure their message. Sofia Phillips, writing for Medium, explained, 'Simply put ... people are now beginning to associate activism with sensationalism and theatre, instead of optimism and passion. In their opinion, protests should be directed towards the systems of power that cause injustice, rather than targeting something precious which offers a momentary escape from reality.'
Similarly, Marsha Lederman, writing for The Globe and Mail, has noted, 'The issue needs to be addressed in a way that doesn't overshadow the point. Has this led to meaningful conversation about the climate catastrophe? Or just a bunch of finger-pointing at these Gen-Z activists who are being painted as having no respect for fine art and the institutions that preserve it?' The distracting effect of these protests was summed up by Steve Kee in an opinion piece published in The Choate News on October 2, 2023. Kee stated, 'It's difficult for people to empathize with activists when they're disrupting, scaring, and irritating society. To the general population, vandalizing paintings and gluing people to cars are unrelated to climate change; they only make these protests appear irrational and unreasonable.' 3. Radical climate activist groups have a potential for violence that will further reduce their support
Some of those who object to radical climate activists are concerned about their potential for violence that may become more extreme as they seek greater media attention and influence on governments. Several critics claim that the use of violence by activists reduces support for their cause.
Social commentators note that many climate activists appear to be motivated by anger and frustration. Three psychologists at the Norwegian Research Center and the University of Bergen's Norway Center for Climate and Energy Transformation have found, via survey, that the chief motivating factor that gets people to participate in climate activism is anger. In their study, reported in the journal Global Environmental Change, Thea Gregersen, Gisle Andersen and Endre Tvinnereim, surveyed more than 2,000 Norwegian adults about their feelings regarding climate activism related to slowing climate change.
Commentators have suggested that being motivated by anger was likely to lead to growing extremism. Similarly, numerous climate activists have shown a mounting frustration with traditional forms of protest and have declared a need for more extreme measures. Indigo Rumbelow, a Just Stop Oil activist, has stated, 'I've tried all the conventional main means of creating change - I've had meetings with my MP, I've signed petitions, I've participated in public consultations, I've organised and taken part in marches. The conventional ways of making change are done.' From a related perspective, Marion Walker, spokesperson for the Tyre Extinguishers, has claimed, 'We want to live in towns and cities with clean air and safe streets. Politely asking and protesting for these things has failed.' Critics note that some radical climate groups appear prepared to place others at risk through their actions. Although groups such as Just Stop Oil have a declared position of 'non-violent civil resistance'
this appears only to mean not deliberately harming people or causing what they regard as unnecessary destruction. The group disputes claims that their road blockades have delayed ambulances and caused deaths. They also claim that they have a policy of moving to let ambulances with blue lights through. However, they have stated 'nevertheless, we accept that our actions do cause disruption.' The implication seems to be that some unintended deaths may occur. Other groups have shown a greater readiness to possibly endanger lives. The German climate activist group, Last Generation, part of the international A22 network that includes Just Stop Oil, claims to have sabotaged 30 fuel pipelines across Germany in the spring of 2022. The group showed a preparedness to adopt extreme measures to achieve their objectives. Its spokesperson, Lars Werner, stated, 'We asked ourselves, what can we do to really put pressure on the government to give us a reaction towards our demands?' The only reason the group later reverted to its previous strategy of blocking roads was that neither the government nor the gas corporations reacted to the disruption of the pipelines and the sabotage attracted little media coverage. Werner stated, 'The government could ignore what we were doing because there wasn't much attention.' German prosecutors are investigating the group for closing a valve on the Transalpine Pipeline in Bavaria and staging a disruptive protest at a refinery in Brandenburg. Interfering with fuel supplies is seen as potentially endangering lives. In May 2023, French riot police used tear gas and pepper spray against hundreds of climate activists seeking to block shareholders from accessing Total Energies' annual shareholder meeting. This is one of several violent interactions between climate activists and police that have occurred recently in France, some of which have involved injuries on both sides. Some commentators have observed that radical climate activists' attacks on famous artworks show an increase in violence. Initially almost all the paintings which were daubed with paint or food were being displayed behind glass and generally the only damage that was done occurred to frames when protesters stuck themselves to them.
However, the nature of these attacks seems to be shifting. Jonathan Jones, art writer for the Guardian, has described a recent attack in which protesters for Last Generation Austria smeared 'non-toxic fake oil' all over the glass covering Gustav Klimt's 'Death and Life'. Jones notes, 'The aggression of the attack takes this wave of action a step further than tomato soup on Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers and mashed potato on a Monet.' Jones argues that this protest comes significantly closer to threatening to damage the piece. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/16/klimt-climate-activists-crisis-petrol-picasso In November 2023, two activists from the group Just Stop Oil targeted Velázquez's 'The Toilet of Venus,' also known as 'The Rokeby Venus,' with small hammers. Photographs showed the protective glass panel punctured with several holes. Conservators were reported to be assessing any damage. Ben Davis, Artnet News's national art critic, has speculated that if activists are seeking to shock, they are going to have to begin taking more extreme action in order to keep attracting attention. He states, 'But because these actions are based on shocking people into paying attention, the campaign has only two ways to go-to peter out as the media begins to treat them as PR stunts, or to escalate to keep up the momentum.' Some climate activists have confirmed Davis's suggestion. In an interview with Sky News, Just Stop Oil spokesperson Alex De Koning said that his group has considered following the example of suffragettes who 'violently slashed paintings in order to get their messages across. If things need to escalate, then we're going to take inspiration from past successful movements and we're going to do everything we can.' Some critics of radical climate activists argue that any use of violence will reduce public support. A study first released by the American Sociological Association in 2018 concluded 'the use of violence leads the general public to view a protest group as less reasonable, a perception that reduces identification with the group. This reduced identification in turn reduces public support for the violent group. Furthermore, the authors argue that violence also leads to more support for groups that are perceived as opposing the violent group.'
4. There are more effective ways to encourage individuals and communities to support measures to reduce climate change
Those who oppose radical climate activists claim that more moderate, positive, and collaborative measures, focused on educating the public, are likely to have greater effect in changing popular attitudes and behaviours.
Social commentators claim that a general desire for climate action is dependent on the public being well informed. Dr Anthony Leiserowitz, Senior Research Scientist and Director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication Research has noted that 'public will' - strong public demand for climate change measures - 'increases the likelihood that governments will prioritize climate change action.'
Research has indicated that information and public education are vital in forming this 'public will'. Survey work undertaken by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) indicates that people across the world worry about climate change, but that concern alone does not translate into support for policies to reduce the climate crisis. These policies involve change, dislocation, and sometimes significant loss (including job losses and increased taxes) for sections of the population. Studies have found that most people will not accept these policies unless the relative benefits and gains are explained to them. A recent IMF survey of almost 30,000 people in 28 countries showed that providing information on policy effectiveness and benefits - including co-benefits, such as improved air quality and better health - can create greater popular support among the public for the actions needed to slow global warming. Many of the policies associated with greenhouse gas reduction, such as carbon pricing, are not immediately attractive to people. The IMF survey showed that people are more supportive of carbon pricing if they know the revenues it generates will be used to shield economically vulnerable groups from the adverse impact of climate policies. Multiple studies have indicated that if the public is informed of the effectiveness of carbon taxes in reducing emissions and is shown that the taxation revenue will be used equitably, they are likely to accept the taxation. The United Nations has declared, 'Education is a critical agent in addressing the issue of climate change. Education can encourage people to change their attitudes and behaviour; it also helps them to make informed decisions.' The IMF recommends that governments and climate advocates should educate the public about the causes and consequences of climate change and the costs of inaction. They recommend widespread public discussion about the costs of pollution and extreme weather events, and the benefits of addressing these, like improvements for air quality, health, and protection of low-income households.
The UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) has stated, 'In a green economy, growth in employment and income are driven by public and private investment into such economic activities, infrastructure and assets that allow reduced carbon emissions and pollution, enhanced energy and resource efficiency, and prevention of the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.' This is a vision of a clean future which suggests that losses can be offset by other gains. Critics of radical climate activists complain that they are not undertaking this necessary education work. Instead, they are disrupting people's lives and spreading alarm, without spreading information which would help people accept, let alone demand, policy changes by government. Tom Comez, writing in The Speaker in an opinion piece published on November 2, 2022, argued for a dramatic change of approach among radical climate activists. He stated, 'If Just Stop Oil wants to win over hearts and minds... it needs to move away from noisy and disruptive demonstrations and start focusing on more constructive methods of protest. The group would be better off hosting informative events.' The successes achieved within the current Biden administration in enacting policies to reduce the impacts of climate change have been partly attributed to climate activists who focused on popular education and the development of publicly acceptable policies. Critics of alarmist climate advocates have claimed that the more co-operative and conciliatory tactics being used in the United States are more successful. Climate activists in the United States have encouraged the Biden government to adopt a positive climate agenda which has been far more attractive to the American public. The policy focus is on 'Lowering utility bills, creating American jobs, leading the world to a clean energy future.'
It has been claimed that climate activists would be more effective in winning popular support if they focused on solutions rather than dramatising problems. Leah Thomas, founder of Intersectional Environmentalist and environmental and climate action lobby group, has stated, 'Climate doom messaging has been used to compel people to act. We've had a humongous amount of climate organizing, but unfortunately it has also led to an extreme amount of climate fatalism. That leads to apathy and inaction, because if you feel like there's no hope for the future, why are you going to act? What's really worked for me is showing people that there is hope.'
Thomas suggests that activists should highlight local solutions. In that way, those listening see a direct pathway for action in their own community. This strategy involves drawing on people's pre-existing social commitments and concerns, such as the health of their children and their future employment prospects, or social and racial inequality within their communities, and linking these to the climate change agenda. In 2028, Tabitha Whiting, a specialist in climate communications, has stated, 'The best methods of communication demonstrate positivity (gain) rather than negativity (loss), as well as being local and relevant to the individual. The current language and conversation around climate change isn't doing this, and instead is spreading a narrative of doom, gloom, and despair.' 5. There are more effective ways to lead governments and corporations to reduce the impact of climate change
Those who criticise radical climate activists who focus on direct protest action argue that there are more effective ways of influencing governments and the corporations who have so much power in determining fossil fuel production and the level of emissions.
Some critics suggest that people who want to affect what governments do to address the climate crisis should either join political parties or run as independents. In a letter published in The Guardian (British edition) on March 16, 2023, Paul Chandler argues that working within the political system can achieve greater results than campaigning outside it. He writes, 'I would love to see some academic work try to quantify the effect of publicity-seeking "stunts" against patient political footslogging. Having spent most of my life doing the latter, I feel politics does work. I was born into a world where homosexuality and abortion were illegal and mixed-race marriage regarded as immoral. That has changed. Conventional politicians ...did their stuff - and succeeded.'
Commentators have noted the success of many Green parties around the world in having members elected, expanding their policies and support base and being able to directly shape governments' climate crisis policies. In Australia and many other countries worldwide, many established parties are no longer able to achieve a majority and are having to work in coalition, either permanent or intermittent, with a Green party. Commentators claim that this has given these climate-conscious parties growing influence in determining climate policy. Bob Brown, founder, and former leader of the Australian Greens, has stated that the Labor Party needs to 'get over this idea that it is going to have solid majority power in the future. It is going to need to share it with the Greens.' Climate-conscious independents can also be in a position to affect government policies. After the success of a loosely aligned group of climate-focused independents, the Teals, in Australia's last federal election, the Albanese government structured the first fortnight of parliament to satisfy demands by the independents that they would be able to join the debate on Labor's climate change legislation. One effective strategy that climate activists can use to change the behaviour of corporations is to become shareholders. In an article published on April 23, 2023, Monash University's Centre for Commercial Law and Regulatory Studies stated, 'Australian listed companies are experiencing increasing levels of climate change-related shareholder activism.' As an example, it notes that in March 2023 'activist shareholders filed formal member statements with Woodside Energy, calling for the company's other shareholders to vote against the re-election of Woodside directors at the company's 2023 AGM in response to Woodside's perceived inaction on climate change.'
In an article written by Dr Tim Bowley and published by the Energy & Resources Law Association, the author explains that activists now expect companies to do more than simply provide disclosure about how they are addressing the implications of climate change. They also expect companies to demonstrate concrete action to adapt their business models to address the implications of climate change and will seek to hold companies and their directors directly accountable for any apparent failure to act. A similar pattern is emerging worldwide with Climate Action 100+, an investor-led initiative to ensure the world's largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change, moving from climate-related disclosure to pushing companies to lay out strategies and climate transition plans. This strategy is having some success. More than 30 percent of shareholders at JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs (with Bank of America not far behind at 28.5 percent) have voted in favour of resolutions filed by United States shareholder advocacy group As You Sow asking the banks for detailed climate transition plans on how they will align their financing activities with their 2030 emissions targets. Another strategy available to climate activists is to encourage large investing institutions to withdraw their investments in fossil fuel megaproducers. In June 2023, the Church Commissioners for England, which manages the influential Church of England's 10.3 billion pounds endowment fund, announced it had decided to exclude all remaining oil and gas majors from its portfolio, concluding that none is aligned with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, as assessed by the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI).
Withdrawing investment from a corporation is termed 'divestment'. Divestment is reducing the viability of major fossil fuel projects. Protest action can encourage divestment. This can be seen with the troubled progress of the Adani corporation's Adani's Carmichael coal mine in central Queensland. Thousands of protester actions against the project have led to a growing international list of banks, investors and insurance companies withdrawing from involvement in the project because of the serious reputational risk involved. Over 100 major companies have ruled out working with Adani. Rather than taking further physical action, protesters have now published the names of those companies connected with Adani, either directly or through investment, and those who have publicly declared they will not be involved.