Right: Some protesters have taken steps to assure the public that they do not want to inconvenience anyone.
 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 benefit their cause
1. The climate situation is critical and more moderate action has been ignoredThose who support or defend climate activists' use of more extreme forms of protest argue that these measures are being adopted because more moderate measures have not succeeded. They argue that the climate catastrophe is now so urgent that more moderate and, so far, unsuccessful appeals to governments, corporations and communities should be abandoned.
It is claimed that extreme protest is employed only as a last resort, after more restrained protest action had been ignored. Governments and corporations are accused of paying no attention to moderate protests and making decisions based on their own economic self-interest. Guardian columnist and author Nesrine Malik claims, 'Protests happen in the first place because the "proper channels" have failed... When Extinction Rebellion occupies central London, you don't see the...corporate lobbyists, complacent politicians, indifferent bureaucrats...that marginalised these concerns for so long that activists knew there was no other way.' Malik explains that protesters need to act outside conventional channels because they are usually closed out of the centres of power where significant policy choices effecting climate are made. She writes, 'The very nature of being excluded from the spaces in which decisions are made means that the process of managing grievances is already rigged against you.'
Kate Yoder, news editor at Grist, a nonprofit environmental news site, has stated, 'Many activists feel that more conventional means of protesting won't bring results. A phenomenon called the "activist's dilemma" illustrates the problem. Protesters often have to choose between moderate actions that are easily ignored or more extreme actions that might alienate the public.' Many protesters believe that the climate crisis is so urgent that they cannot continue to employ restrained measures that have not worked in the past. A Tyre Extinguisher activist has explained, 'It isn't fun: I hate disrupting people's lives, and it's upsetting that it's come to this. But it has come to this. We feel that nothing else will work - we don't have any more time for letters or marches or waiting for more elections. We've had those strategies for 30 years and they're not working. It's time to shake things up.'
(Tyre Extinguishers is an international climate direct action group which deflates the tyres on sport utility vehicles as a protest against the excessive petrol consumption these vehicles are claimed to represent.) This sense of urgency and the lack of other viable protest options is seen in the same activist's comment, 'The UN says we're 'firmly on track for an unlivable world'; our leaders are making it worse; they're still expanding our emissions because that's where the money is. And it's not future generations that will pay the price, not anymore - it's us, it's happening now. Millions are already dying from extreme weather, crop failure, war, and this is just the start. Now it's the only thing I ever think about: it shapes every decision I make. I'll do whatever works, and if that means upsetting people, then that's where we are.' Many scientific bodies have stressed the failure of governments world-wide to adequately address the climate emergency. On March 31, 2022, the Australian Climate Council stated, 'Climate change is accelerating, and Australia's overall contribution to this crisis has substantially increased... Since 2013, fossil fuel production has expanded by 19 percent with a negligible reduction in our national emissions. Delaying action has not made the problem go away. It has only shortened the time we have to reduce emissions to avoid catastrophic outcomes and made it harder to do so.'
Similar comments have been made regarding Britain's failure to address climate change strongly enough. On June 28, 2023, Lord Deben, the head of Britain's Climate Change Committee, highlighted that the previous 12 months was 'the UK's warmest year on record'. He condemned the government for its 'failure to act decisively in response to the energy crisis'. He also stated, 'Inaction has been compounded by continuing support for further unnecessary investment in fossil fuels.' He concluded, 'Our children will not forgive us if we leave them a world of withering heat and devastating storms where sea level rises and extreme temperatures force millions to move because their countries are no longer habitable. None of us can avoid our responsibility. Delay is not an option.' Commentators and researchers have noted that an increasing sense of crisis is promoting activists to take more extreme action and that this trend is likely to increase as the consequences of climate change become more severe. In July 2023, Dana Fisher, senior researcher with the Brookings Institute in Washington stated, 'As the climate crisis worsens and more and more concerned activists lose confidence that institutional politics can address the problem, the radical flank will grow...For those who believe they can stop this wave of confrontational activism by prosecuting one group or imprisoning one activist, think again.'
In September 2023, Fisher paraphrased the views of radical climate protesters: '"We tried going to a legally permitted march, we tried carrying signs, we tried going to our elected officials' offices." And I can tell you from data I've collected that they do all of those things. And what they'll say is, it doesn't work. It's not gotten the attention. It hasn't helped change the conversation.' The urgent message some of the current radical protesters are offering was stated by a Just Stop Oil activist, who had taken part in vandalising a work by Vermeer in The Hague. He stated, 'How do you feel when you see something beautiful and priceless apparently being destroyed before your eyes? Do you feel outraged? Good. Where is that feeling when you see the planet being destroyed?' 2. Radical climate activism succeeds in attracting media, public and government attention
Radical climate activists argue that their first aim is to attract media attention and, as a result, government and public attention. They claim that their more extreme actions have succeeded in making them a focus of media attention.
The term 'media hype' once used to refer to a particular episode that was made the focus of intense and sustained media attention not justified by its significance. Originally the driving force for this hyperbolic or exaggerated media blitz was the media itself, usually seeking readers, viewers, and advertising revenue. The independent academic publisher IGI Global defines this type of 'media hype' as 'a deliberate and sustained effort of the mass media to exaggerate a particular subject in order to get audience attention...'
In December 2005, the European Journal of Communication similarly referred to 'media hype' as 'self-inflating media coverage'. More recently, however, it has been recognised that the subject of the media attention, in this case radical climate protesters, are actively seeking the media attention they receive. Groups such as Just Stop Oil stage disruptive protests at events that they regard as 'culturally relevant' because this will attract media attention. They stage protests at events that the public considers important and that automatically gain them publicity. The group says its reason for targeting sporting events is to raise awareness of the climate crisis and to prompt action to stop new oil, coal and gas licences being issued. Protesting at events that are televised ensures a ready-made audience. Radical climate activists have adopted a range of strategies to attract widespread media attention. On April 17, 2023, the Snooker World Championships being played in London were disrupted when two Just Stop Oil activists infiltrated the competition, and one poured a yellow powder over a snooker table. Just Stop Oil chose this event because of the wide international audience it draws. The final of the competition was watched by a television audience of 3.6 million.
The BBC was covering the competition and continued to telecast the protest as it occurred. A BBC spokesperson noted, 'We reacted as quickly as possible during the live snooker broadcast and, just like other national news outlets, decided to cover [the Just Stop Oil protest action] as a news story across the BBC to keep audiences informed.' The BBC subsequently also posted the coverage on their social media channels. Just Stop Oil spokesperson, James Skeet, has claimed that the snooker disruption 'made the front page of every major newspaper'. In Britain over the course of 2022-23, Just Stop Oil has disrupted a series of sporting events with worldwide audiences. The English rugby union Premiership final at Twickenham was delayed by 20 minutes after two male protestors invaded the pitch and threw orange paint on it. The second cricket Test match between England and Australia at Lord's - the most prestigious cricket venue in the world - was interrupted when two men ran onto the field, clad in white T-shirts displaying the same message, 'Just Stop Oil', and attempted to throw orange powder over the wicket. In the first week of the Wimbledon tennis championships, orange paper petals were thrown over the court during a match between Katie Boulter, the British women's No 1, and Daria Saville, as well as the men's tie between 21st seed Grigor Dimitrov and Sho Shimabukuro. Many millions of people witnessed these events.
Radical climate activists have similarly attacked other cultural icons unrelated to sport to draw a different but equally wide audience. Two activists from Just Stop Oil entered London's National Gallery and covered Constable's painting 'The Hay Wain' with an image of environmental destruction before gluing their hands to the frame and awaiting arrest. Another pair of activists went to the National Gallery and threw tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh's 'Sunflowers.' In the Netherlands, one activist glued his head to Johannes Vermeer's 'Girl with a Pearl Earring,' while another poured something red over him. In Vienna, members of Last Generation, an organisation named to make the point that we are the last generation able to prevent catastrophic climate change, poured black oily liquid over Gustav Klimt's 'Death and Life.' And in Potsdam, others smeared mashed potatoes onto Claude Monet's 'Haystacks.'
All these actions are intended to draw media coverage and public attention. They are intended to outrage people. Radical climate activists claim that public attention is the first step on the path to raising public awareness of the urgency of the climate crisis. Most activists believe that public awareness will then lead to government, corporate and private action to address the crisis. Just Stop Oil spokesperson James Skeet has stated, 'What we're attempting to do is force the issue to the forefront of public consciousness, and up the media agenda. If you haven't got millions of eyeballs, you're not in the ballpark of achieving significant societal change.' Moderate, peaceful climate protests are far less successful in gaining media coverage. In an article published on October 4, 2023, Kara Anderson writing for Greenly noted, 'The fact of the matter is that peaceful climate protests are no longer headline-grabbing, and civil disobedience tends to attract more public attention.'
As an example of this occurred shortly after Just Stop Oil staged its widely covered protest at the Snooker World Championships. Extinction Rebellion (XR) held four days of peaceful protest in central London attracting an estimated 60,000 people. XR received front page coverage only twice over the period of the peaceful protests and each of these front-page reports was negative. There was very little television coverage. 3. Radical climate activists have been misrepresented; they are rational and informed
It has been argued that radical climate activists are environmentally knowledgeable, have logical policy positions, diverse backgrounds, and are deliberately misrepresented by their opponents and many media outlets.
Defenders of radical climate activists claim that despite their often-disruptive protests, they are not, as their critics frequently maintain, 'completely crazy'.
A 2020 study conducted by British and Danish researchers noted the environmental knowledge and the policy sophistication of radical climate protest groups. The researchers found that radical groups actively engaged with climate policy dilemmas and made policy choices which prioritised the measures most likely to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Insulate Britain has been noted as a radical climate activist group showing practical knowledge of measures which would reduce the United Kingdom's emissions. The group has blocked major roadways in support of its demands that the government fund insulation in all social housing by 2025 and retrofit insulation in all other inadequately insulated homes by 2030. Though the group's protest actions have been condemned, its demands have received widespread endorsement from climate change authorities in Britain and Europe. A September 2022 report from the Institute for Government found homes in the United Kingdom to be less energy-efficient than those in Europe. Jan Rosenow, the European director of the clean energy think tank, the Regulatory Assistance Project, has stated that other countries, including Germany and France, have longstanding government-funded programs in place to support retrofitting and improving home insulation. He claims, 'It works in other countries.' Defenders of radical climate activists also note that they are a diverse group that have among them many educated and experienced people. Many young people with varied backgrounds are members of radical climate action groups, drawing on their passion and concern for the future to motivate their actions. However, studies in the United States have found that radical environmental activists are a more mixed group than the media's 'young activist' stereotype suggests. In America, radical environmental activists are predominantly female (61 percent) and educated (33 percent have completed masters or doctorate degrees). Most are middle-aged, with an average age of 52; 25 percent are 69 or older.
Older people also figure prominently among Australia's radical climate activists. On September 16, 2023, the ABC published a report on the part played by older people taking direct action in climate protests. One of those interviewed was Alan Glover, a 62-year-old volunteer firefighter who, in April 2022, used a firetruck to block part of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a protest staged by Fireproof Australia. Glover has stated, 'My background as a firefighter is important because I'm not speaking from a place of ignorance, I'm coming from a place of great knowledge and hands-on experience. That's a very important thing about who I am and why I'm speaking up.' Another group, the Knitting Nannas, now an international organisation, was founded over ten years ago, in 2012, in opposition to gas mining in New South Wales. Its members have been climate activists for all the subsequent decade. All are middle-aged women and older. The Knitting Nannas have been involved in road blockades and other direct action; however, they refuse to have their actions cast by the media as 'extreme'. Their 'Nannafesto' states, 'The Knitting Nannas aims are to bring attention to the issues surrounding unsustainable resource exploitation; to show the people, the media, the politicians, and the exploiters just how far from radical the "extremists" who oppose their practices are.' A pair of British researchers drew the following conclusions about the climate activists they studied: 'They are typically well-informed about the climate and ecological crisis: they have read peer-reviewed scientific papers, listened to respected scientists, and acknowledged changes happening in the environment. They are engaged and aware. They look beyond the mainstream headlines and are mindful of the largely unreported consequences of climate change unfolding across the globe.' Defenders of radical climate activists claim that the most common tactic used against direct-action climate protesters is to present them as 'insane' or 'idiots'. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) has analysed the language being used by British and European media. ISD found 'climate hysterics' to be the most prominent anti-climate activism narrative among the 8,698 media stories it looked at, published between 1 November and 15 December 2022. Mocking language of this kind included descriptions of 'idiots', 'freaks' or 'nuts'. When climate activists focused on museums and art galleries towards the end of 2022 references to the protesters being 'hysterical' became more common. Alternative outlet InfoWars used 'More Idiots Allowed to Damage Priceless Art...' in its coverage of Last Generation throwing flour on an Andy Warhol work in Milan. French-language mainstream outlet BFMTV referred to the protests as 'une explosion de crétins' (an explosion of morons).
Defenders of radical climate activists also note that these protesters and their actions are frequently demonised or falsely reported by their opponents and the media with a strong emphasis placed not just on their 'insanity' but on the danger they represent to ordinary people. A recent study of media representations of radical climate activists in Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy found the actions of these groups were generally heightened and cast negatively. Jennie King, Head of Climate Research and Policy at the non-profit Institute for Strategic Dialogue, noted the protesters were presented as threats to civil order and in some cases as a 'security threat'. Over the period of the study, some 400 headlines described the activists as a 'security threat'. Among other terms used to depict the protesters as violent and dangerous were 'sociopaths', 'vandals', 'eco-anarchists', 'fear mongers' and 'fanatics'. It has been claimed that the media frequently tends to adopt these antagonistic and polarising terms because they add to the drama of the story and help to attract readers.
Governments and others who oppose the demands of the protesters for climate action, often also deliberately exaggerate the risks to public order that the demonstrators' actions present. Giancarlo Sturloni, communications director at Greenpeace Italy, has noted that false claims and negative language can be used to fuel the perception that these are 'violent' groups and are, ultimately, 'enemies of society'.
In Britain, in October 2022, The Sun and the Daily Mail reported that two Just Stop Oil protesters who shut down the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge in East London for two days had prevented ambulances from quickly responding to an incident on the M20 in which two women died. The ambulance service has since stated that its crew was not delayed and arrived at the crash - which was more than 10 miles from the protest - 'well before' the 40 minutes reported by the newspapers. A spokesperson also pointed out that an air ambulance attended the scene. A similar false claim was made by New South Wales Police who pressed charges against Fireproof Australia activists for obstructing an ambulance when they took part in a protest action that blocked the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The sentencing magistrate rejected this 'false fact' and New South Wales Police subsequently withdrew the allegation that the four climate change protesters had obstructed an ambulance, acknowledging that the claim was inaccurate. 4. Some radical climate activists have succeeded in having governments begin to act on their demands
Those who support radical climate protests argue that they are beginning to be effective in compelling some governments to take action to reduce the effects of climate change. Those who hold this view argue that by disrupting citizens' lives, some radical protest groups can force governments to agree to their demands. Currently, the mechanism by which they are effective appears to be that the radical group makes relatively moderate demands that governments can meet. Some governments have chosen to acquiesce so the disruption will cease.
Germany is a key example of a country where radical climate protests are beginning to affect governments' actions. The primary radical climate protest group in Germany is Last Generation. The organisation was founded in August 2021, when a group of seven climate activists, frustrated by the slow progress on reducing carbon emissions in Germany, set up tents in Berlin's seat of government, the Regierungsviertel, and began a hunger strike. After unsuccessful negotiations between hunger strikers and Germany's next Chancellor, in January 2022, Last Generation began blocking roads in Berlin. Last Generation's first wave of protests in Berlin lasted five weeks. The organisation recorded 69 blockades, 254 arrests, and over 100 cumulative hours in police custody.
Protests by Last Generation in Germany greatly increased in number and impact throughout 2022. Activists repeatedly disturbed inner city traffic by gluing themselves to the asphalt, or startled museum visitors by covering exhibition pieces with washable paint and other substances. Despite the disturbance caused by its actions, Last Generation has deliberately presented national and local governments with modest climate demands - a 100 km/h speed limit on motorways; a ¬9 ($14.50 AUD) public transport monthly ticket; a citizens' council to plan how to scrap fossil fuels by 2030.
Hanover, the state capital of Lower Saxony with a population of more than half a million people, was the first major city to strike a deal with Last Generation. Smaller towns, such as Marburg, followed Hanover's example. A ZDF survey found that more than half of the people in Germany (55 percent) support brokering deals with the activists. German government attitudes toward the demands of Last Generation seem to be softening. The 9¬ a month public transport ticket was introduced by the German government for three months during the summer of 2022 to relieve the German population from high energy, food, and transport prices, and it was used by over 52 million people. Studies have shown that this strategy of coupling highly disruptive protest with demands to government that are relatively easy to achieve has proved to be successful. Britain's Extinction Rebellion (XR) has some similar demands which are beginning to influence current and potential governments. Extinction Rebellion is demanding that the British government 'must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency.' It is also demanding that government's give truthful and accurate statements of their progress toward emission reductions. Finally, it wants the creation of citizens' assemblies to guide climate policy and action. There has begun to be some limited action toward the achievement of these demands.
In January 2019, Oxford City Council became the first UK local authority to establish a citizens' assembly to help address the issue of climate change and consider the measures that should be taken in Oxford. City Council members unanimously declared a climate emergency and agreed to create a citizens' assembly in Oxford to help consider new carbon targets and additional strategies to reduce emissions. The Oxford City Council is commissioning research to develop options and timescales for carbon reduction in areas such as housing and transport, which will be put to the citizens' assembly. The citizens' assembly will involve a randomly-selected representative sample of Oxford residents. The British Labour Party has also spoken in support of Extinction Rebellion. Jon Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, has pledged to make climate change a central focus of Labour's health and wellbeing policy and expressed his support for a citizens' assembly. In 2020, both France and Britain held citizen assemblies to advise government on the framing of climate policies. 5. Radical climate activists can change attitudes to the climate crisis and create acceptance for more moderate campaigners
It has been claimed that though some governments may refuse to negotiate with radical climate activists and many members of the public may disapprove of their demonstrations, these protesters can succeed in creating wider acceptance of their views.
It has been found that the public does not turn against proposals to solve a social or environmental issue because they dislike the radical actions of protesters. This has been demonstrated by several groups of researchers. Social Change Lab, a group of international researchers, conducted a survey to gauge the effect of Just Stop Oil's disruptive campaign in April 2022. They found high levels of awareness (over 60 percent of the British public had heard of the campaign); however, support for Just Stop Oil as an organization fell across three surveys, leading to only 18.1 percent of respondents saying they supported the Just Stop Oil protests. Despite this, they found no reduction in support for the climate policies backed by Just Stop Oil, or any reduction in the belief that climate change is a global emergency.
Historical studies looking at the impact of radical, non-violent protest have found other more positive effects. One of these is 'agenda seeding', that is, the high-profile protests increase the visibility of the issue and help to put it on the agenda or action plan of governments, political oppositions, and other organisations. These other organisations can be very varied and may include investor groups, corporations more generally, education bodies including schools and universities, non-government organisations, cultural groups, churches, and civic groups. These groups all have the capacity to influence both governments and public opinion. Omar Wasow, a professor in UC Berkeley's Department of Political Science, has found that nonviolent direct action during the United States 1960-1972 civil rights movement positively influenced public opinion, media coverage and congressional discussion of civil rights.
Radical, non-violent protest can also help to shift the language used to discuss issues. Groups such as Extinction Rebellion have it as part of their agenda that the way the world talks and thinks about the climate must change. Their first demand is 'Tell the truth. Governments must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.'
The actions of climate change activists are intended to make the public and governments recognise the urgency of the threat the world faces. Alan Glover, a 62-year-old climate activist who is part of Fireproof Australia used taking part in a blockade of Sydney Harbour Bridge to promote the idea of an emergency. He told ABC reporters, 'I have known for decades about climate change, global warming, or whatever term you want to use. Now "the climate emergency" is the appropriate one, because we should be on a war footing. This is not a joke.' The activists' actions appear to be changing language and thinking. Several juries around the world have rejected charges of criminal activity against climate activists because they have accepted the 'climate emergency' as a 'necessity' defence justifying the activists' actions. In 2018, a United States judge downgraded the charges against pipeline protesters to civil infractions and then found them not responsible based on the necessity of their actions.
A British peer, Lord Deben, head of a climate change advisory committee reporting to the British government, has similarly accepted the urgency argument put by climate activists. Defending the position of climate activists, Deben urged the government to treat climate change as an emergency. Another more subtle way that radical tactics can support the goals of an overall movement is by a mechanism called 'the radical flank effect'. This refers to the way radical tactics, such as those employed by Just Stop Oil or Last Generation, can increase support for more moderate groups within the climate movement, such as Friends of the Earth. It is speculated that when the public is exposed to a group whose protest actions seem particularly extreme (a radical flank), supporting more moderate groups seems quite reasonable in comparison. The difference is usually more apparent than real as moderate, and 'more extreme' groups generally have similar policy agendas. The distinction lies in the way the radical group goes about drawing attention to an issue.
Research published in 2022 by academics working out of the University of South Carolina, Sandford University and the University of Toronto substantiates the existence of a 'radical flank effect.' The results of two online experiments conducted with diverse samples, including a study of the animal rights movement and the climate movement, showed that the presence of a radical flank increases support for a moderate faction within the same movement. Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. These results suggest that activist groups that employ unpopular tactics can increase support for other groups within the same movement, pointing to a hidden way in which movement factions are complementary, with the more extreme actions of one group advancing the agenda of the more moderate group.