48 | New Scientist | 30 October 2021
movement behaves in a very gentle and polite
fashion. The International Energy Agency said
just a few months ago that we cannot have any
new installations in coal and oil and gas [if the
world is to avoid more than 1.5°C of warming],
and still that’s going on without any mass
backlash against it.Most protest movements emphasise peaceful,
non-violent resistance as the only way to
overcome tyranny. Is that true?
No. I find it very hard to accept the reading
of history that people from the leadership
of Extinction Rebellion, for instance, have
promoted – namely the idea that in past social
struggles for progressive causes, those that
have succeeded have steered clear of any kind
of violence and only engaged in absolutely
peaceful civil disobedience.
You can very easily find significant
components of militant confrontation,
ranging from the very obvious case of the
abolition of slavery – which in the US happened
through a very bloody civil war – to property
destruction at the hands of the suffragettes,
to rioting in the case of the poll tax in the UK.
It’s peace-washing. Militant methods are
written out of the history of these struggles.
It’s very difficult to make a well-founded,
substantiated historical case for strategic
pacifism. In the climate movement, we are
facing an uphill battle. We are struggling
against an extremely powerful enemy that
has enormous material forces at its disposal,
so why do we believe that the climate struggle
could be victorious with less effort and less
pressure than any of these previous struggles?One worry is that if the climate movement starts
on an illegal and destructive path, it would lose
public support. Look at the UK – the protest
group Insulate Britain has just been blocking
roads, but people and politicians are very upset.
I feel torn about Insulate Britain. Obviously,
I sympathise with its demands and with the
idea that we need to disrupt business as usual.
But the scenes where working-class mothers
are begging these activists to get out of the way
so they can go to their workplaces and put food
on the table for their kids, not to mention theExtinction Rebellion
protesters blocked busy
London streets in 2019TOLG
A^ AKMEN/AFP^ VIA^ GET
TY
IMAGESwoman who was trying to get to the hospital,
these scenes drive me crazy because these
people aren’t your enemy.
My wish would be for activist groups
to do something to draw attention to their
demands and disrupt business as usual, but
not target working-class people. Imagine if
Insulate Britain had instead gone after the
ultra-rich – and we know they are the worst
climate offenders – by, for instance, I don’t
know, setting off stink bombs in the richest
neighbourhoods in London or throwing dunginto the gardens of the rich or something
like that. I’m just speculating here. But that
would probably have drawn quite some
attention. You need to develop a tactic that
doesn’t antagonise the people that you’re
supposed to help.Doesn’t destructive activism always risk
alienating the public and the media though?
My argument isn’t that we should go out
and engage in indiscriminate disruption
or property damage. The ideal is where you
target fossil fuel infrastructure, not necessarily
through property destruction. The bulk of
it, perhaps all, would have to be through
disobedience and mass action of the Ende