[✔️] December 1, 2022 - Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*December 1, 2022*/

/[ //Yale study //on the effectiveness of individual behavior and 
activism  - //Anthony Leiserowitz press release  ]/
*“Does personal climate change mitigation behavior influence collective 
behavior? Experimental evidence of no spillover in the United States.”*
Both personal and collective action are needed to reduce carbon 
emissions and limit the impacts of climate change. Even so, solutions to 
climate change are often presented as a trade-off between personal and 
collective behavior. Some argue that people taking individual actions to 
reduce climate change may be less willing to participate in collective 
actions because they feel like they’re already doing enough, and vice 
versa.

Does reminding people of the personal mitigation actions they have taken 
(e.g., reducing food waste, using low energy light bulbs) reduce their 
willingness to take collective action (e.g., engaging/participating in 
political behavior and supporting policy change)? Alternatively, does 
reminding people of their past personal mitigation behavior lead to an 
increase in (i.e., positively “spill over” to) willingness to take 
collective action?

To answer these questions, we conducted two experiments. Participants in 
each experiment were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In one 
condition, participants were provided a checklist of personal 
climate-related actions (such as turning off electronic devices when not 
in use), and indicated which of those actions they currently take 
(Checklist-only condition). In another condition, participants read a 
message emphasizing the importance of both personal and collective 
climate mitigation behaviors (Message-only condition). In a third 
condition, participants completed the checklist and read the message 
(Checklist + Message condition). And finally, we included a control 
condition in which participants read a message unrelated to climate 
change (Control condition). After completing one of these four 
conditions, participants answered questions about their environmental 
identity, willingness to perform collective behaviors, support for a 
carbon tax on individuals, and support for a carbon tax on companies.

The design was similar across the two experiments, except that different 
messages were used in the Message-only and Checklist + Message 
conditions in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, the 
message emphasized that both individual and collective behavior 
contribute to the goal of reducing climate change. In Experiment 2, the 
message emphasized the benefits of collective behavior for both human 
health and the environment (i.e., plant and animal species). We then 
examined whether there were spillover effects of the checklist and/or 
messages on behavioral willingness and policy support.

Results: first, looking at behavioral willingness, we found that 
reminding people of the behaviors they have personally done in the past 
(Checklist condition) had no influence on their willingness to adopt 
collective mitigation behavior (e.g., joining a campaign to convince 
elected officials to take action to reduce global warming). Likewise, 
the message in Experiment 1 that emphasized the similarities between 
individual and collective behaviors had no effect on behavioral 
willingness. In contrast, in Experiment 2, the message explaining that 
reducing carbon emissions through collective behavior is beneficial for 
human health and the environment (Message-only condition) increased 
willingness to adopt collective mitigation behaviors (however, this was 
not the case in the Checklist + Message condition). These results are 
illustrated in the figure below...
- -
Second, looking at policy support, in Experiment 2, reminding people of 
the behaviors they had personally done in the past (Checklist condition) 
increased their support for a carbon tax paid by companies. 
Additionally, in Experiment 2, participants who read about the health 
and environmental benefits of collective climate action (Message-only 
condition) reported higher levels of support for a carbon tax paid by 
companies. However, neither of these effects were observed in the 
Checklist + Message Condition or in Experiment 1. In both experiments, 
support for a carbon tax that requires individuals, rather than 
companies, to pay, was not affected by reminding people of the 
climate-related behaviors they have done. Results are illustrated in the 
figure below...
- -
These two experiments offer a new explanation for the absence of 
spillover effects on collective behavior. Specifically, we examined two 
possible mechanisms of behavioral spillover: the perception that one has 
already done enough, which is likely to reduce willingness to adopt 
collective behavior, and environmental identity, which is likely to 
increase willingness to adopt collective behavior. The overall results 
suggest that reminding people of the behaviors they have done in the 
past increases both their perception that they have already taken enough 
action and their environmental identity. This suggests that the 
simultaneous effects of mechanisms that promote both negative (“I 
already do enough”) and positive (“I am a pro-environmental person”) 
spillover might be responsible for the overall lack of spillover effects 
often found in the literature because, in effect, they cancel each other 
out.

These results suggest two takeaways for climate change communicators. 
First, reminding people of their personal mitigation behaviors does not 
reduce their willingness to perform collective behaviors. Instead, 
reminding individuals of the actions they have already taken can, 
depending on the message, increase support for a carbon tax paid by 
companies while having no negative effects on support for a carbon tax 
paid by individuals or on their willingness to take collective action. 
Second, directly targeting collective behaviors with a message about the 
benefits of those behaviors might be more effective than reminding 
people of behaviors they have already done, because the mechanisms of 
behavioral spillover of the latter are complex and may cancel each other 
out.

The full article is available here to those with a subscription to 
Energy Research & Social Science. If you would like to request a copy, 
please send an email to climatechange at yale.edu with the subject line: 
Request Spillover paper. A pre-publication version is also available 
here 
{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622003784?via%3Dihub}..
- -
Specifically, we examined two possible mechanisms of behavioral 
spillover: the perception that one has already done enough, which is 
likely to reduce willingness to adopt collective behavior, and 
environmental identity, which is likely to increase willingness to adopt 
collective behavior. The overall results suggest that reminding people 
of the behaviors they have done in the past increases both their 
perception that they have already taken enough action and their 
environmental identity. This suggests that the simultaneous effects of 
mechanisms that promote both negative (“I already do enough”) and 
positive (“I am a pro-environmental person”) spillover might be 
responsible for the overall lack of spillover effects often found in the 
literature because, in effect, they cancel each other out.

These results suggest two takeaways for climate change communicators. 
First, reminding people of their personal mitigation behaviors does not 
reduce their willingness to perform collective behaviors. Instead, 
reminding individuals of the actions they have already taken can, 
depending on the message, increase support for a carbon tax paid by 
companies while having no negative effects on support for a carbon tax 
paid by individuals or on their willingness to take collective action. 
Second, directly targeting collective behaviors with a message about the 
benefits of those behaviors might be more effective than reminding 
people of behaviors they have already done, because the mechanisms of 
behavioral spillover of the latter are complex and may cancel each other 
out...
https://mailchi.mp/yale/new-study-reminding-americans-of-their-personal-climate-actions-does-not-decrease-their-willingness-to-take-collective-action?e=ff9625264c

- -

/[ Original research article--  studies say individual actions fail to 
make collective action  ]/
*Does personal climate change mitigation behavior influence collective 
behavior? Experimental evidence of no spillover in the United States*
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102875Get rights and content

    Abstract
    Both lifestyle and structural changes are needed to reduce carbon
    emissions and limit the impacts of climate change. In a series of
    three studies, we examine whether undertaking behaviors at the
    personal level affects (i.e., spills over onto) people's willingness
    to engage in behaviors at the collective level. In Study 1, we find
    that none of the personal behaviors measured are negatively
    associated with collective behavior intentions (willingness to join
    a campaign to convince elected officials to take action to reduce
    climate change), but some of the personal behaviors are positively
    associated with collective behavior intentions. In Study 2, we find
    that increasing the salience of past personal behaviors does not
    spill over to collective behavioral intentions. In Study 3, we find
    that increasing the salience of past personal behavior does not
    spillover to collective behavioral intentions but does increase
    support for a carbon tax on companies. We also find that increasing
    the salience of past behavior increases environmental identity and
    the perception that one is already taking enough action to reduce
    climate change. Overall, the results suggest that there are no
    spillover effects of personal mitigation behaviors on collective
    mitigation behavioral intentions. Messages that directly encourage
    collective mitigation behaviors may be more effective at promoting
    these behaviors than messages that emphasize past personal behaviors.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622003784?via%3Dihub



/[ meanwhile, in France ]/
*Civil disobedience only way to protest climate change, say French 
activists*
Issued on: 26/11/2022
Sarah Elzas

While some climate activists have been throwing food at famous 
paintings, a French group has been shutting down roads. Their acts of 
civil disobedience have drawn anger and criticism, but they say it is 
the only way to get people to pay attention to what they see as an 
existential threat.

Every few days, a handful of activists walk onto a highway or busy 
street somewhere in France and sit down, blocking traffic, facing 
insults from the angry drivers being held up.

Videos show drivers yelling and gesturing aggressively, sometimes 
physically picking up some of the activists and dragging them, while 
police try to clear the roads.

“The only way that we everyday people have left to put pressure on the 
government is to literally go and sit on the road,” says Victor, 25, who 
participated in his first act of civil disobedience at the end of June, 
when he and six other people, wearing orange reflector vests, blocked 
traffic on the A13 highway outside of Paris for about an hour.

“Blocking roads is the most effective way to put pressure on the 
government and also have a platform.”
Victor is part of Dernière Rénovation (Last renovation), an 
environmental group that formed in early 2022 as part of an 
international network of movements calling themselves the “last 
generation” that will do “whatever it takes to protect our generation 
and all future generations”.

Their mode of action is civil disobedience to draw attention to very 
specific issues having to do with climate change. For Dernière 
Rénovation, the issue is building renovations.

Housing is the sector that uses the most energy in France, and it 
produces the most carbon emissions after transportation. The group 
stages acts of civil disobedience to draw attention to the need to pass 
more aggressive legislation to force the renovation of 5 million 
so-called “thermal sieves” – buildings that leak copious amounts of heat.

Since April, members of the group have blocked roads and interrupted 
sporting events, notably the Tour de France cycling race, which was 
interrupted by activists in the Alps in July.

*'Everything else has failed'*
Victor spends most of his days in front of two screens in his studio 
flat in the centre of Paris, working his day job in tech. He is a recent 
convert to the climate cause and its urgency.

“I don't actually think I'm doing anything for the climate. I'm doing 
something basically for my survival and the survival of the people I 
love,” he says.

He joined Dernière Rénovation because he found other parts of the 
climate movement inefficient.

“Direct action comes from the fact that everything else failed,” he says.

“We have tried political discourse, we have tried scientific discourse, 
we have tried petitions, we have tried marches – literally everything, 
and to literally no effect. It's just heartbreaking that we have to do 
crazy actions and annoy people, because all we have left is to try and 
disturb the economy to put pressure on the government.”
*Opera house protest *
Victor recently interrupted a performance of The Magic Flute at the 
Paris Opera. During the second act, he got up onto the stage and 
attached himself to a ladder that was part of the set with a bicycle lock.

“If I’m here tonight, it’s not out of pleasure,” he told the audience, 
wearing a white T-shirt on which was handwritten in block letters, “We 
have 879 days left”. The slogan refers to the three years the group 
believes are left to avoid a climate disaster.

He said he had prepared a personal speech, but the curtain dropped 
before anyone could hear it, and the whole intervention “was very badly 
received, but that was expected”.

A quiet, unassuming person, Victor is not used to putting himself into 
the limelight, and facing the audience’s booing onstage was unnerving. 
He was taken offstage and into police custody.

“It's absurd that I have to interrupt an opera and I really did not want 
to be there, because it was a magnificent performance and I don't like 
people interrupting things,” he says.

“But at some point we have to ask ourselves what is happening, and we 
cannot keep living our lives as though everything is all right.”
Getting attention
“I know I'm angering the wrong people but I'm so deeply convinced that 
the government isn't taking enough actions and that's that what I'm 
doing is the right way – or at least the least bad way – to put pressure 
on the government,” says Victor.

These actions do draw attention. The day after he was released from 
police custody, Victor was a guest on a radio and a television 
programme, where he was grilled about his tactics.

This is not the kind of media attention he and the group are seeking, 
but they will take what they can get.
- -
The same reasoning is what has driven activists to throw substances at 
art in museums, like the members of Just Stop Oil who threw soup at Van 
Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery in London, or the Austrian 
activists who threw black liquid on a Klimt painting in Vienna to 
protest against the government’s use of fossil fuels.

For Victor, such methods are justified to shock people into thinking 
about what is at stake.

“I know these [paintings] are maybe the most beautiful things that 
humanity has made, but they will not exist if we keep the word 
functioning as it is functioning right now,” he says.

Two Dernière Rénovation activists recently threw orange paint on an 
outdoor sculpture in Paris.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20221126-civil-disobedience-only-way-to-protest-climate-change-say-french-activists



/[ Aljazeera on activism -  Interview with Andreas Malm - 21 m in 
podcast and clips from transcript  ]/
*A radical antidote to climate despair*
In a burning world, How To Blow Up a Pipeline argues peaceful protest is 
not enough.
Fossil fuels are a time bomb, and humans are entitled to stop them. That 
is the argument of How to Blow Up a Pipeline, a book by Andreas Malm 
calling for activist groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion 
to adopt radical tactics against the fossil fuel industry, including 
property damage. As COP27 enters its second week, greenwashing is rife, 
protest is limited, and fossil fuel emissions are still rising. After 
over a quarter-century of UN-sponsored talking, Malm argues it is time 
for people to take action into their own hands.
- -

    Halla Mohieddeen: Whether it’s taking on petrol stations, paintings,
    or private planes, direct action has drawn more attention than any
    COP. So I’m talking to Andreas Malm to understand what’s become a
    new front for climate activism. He’s written multiple books on the
    climate crisis, and he’s a professor of human ecology at Lund
    University in Sweden.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Let’s cut to the chase then. Your book is called
    How to Blow Up a Pipeline. What is it about? I mean, is it an
    instruction manual?

    Andreas Malm: No, it’s not, and that’s probably the most common
    criticism I’ve received. It doesn’t actually teach us how to blow up
    a pipeline. No, the title is somewhat metaphorical and perhaps a
    little bit provocative. It’s about what tactics the climate movement
    should use, and if perhaps the time has come to consider more
    militant forms of action than what we’ve used so far, including
    sabotage and property destruction.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Well, before we talk about blowing up pipelines,
    let’s talk about COP. You protested at the very first COP back in
    1995. Fast forward to today, we are being told that we’re nowhere
    near where we need to be to avoid destruction on a scale humans have
    never known. Do you think these COPs are just a waste of time then?

    Andreas Malm: Well, yeah, that’s what they’ve been so far. That’s
    what they’ve proved to be, because emissions have just continued to
    rise and COPs have done nothing to limit them. So yes, it’s
    fundamentally a way to sustain an illusion, but it’s hard to
    envision any kind of agreement about this in another context in the
    United Nations. What needs to be changed fundamentally is the
    balance of forces worldwide, between the vested interests of
    business as usual and all of us who want to change this catastrophic
    trajectory that we’re on.
    Halla Mohieddeen: Now, Andreas, you spend a fair amount of time
    discussing groups like Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future,
    which have been considered pretty radical. But you say these groups
    actually have a quite limited view of civil disobedience.

    Andreas Malm: Yes. Well, the idea that was very prominent back in
    2019, and to an extent still is in the climate movement, that you
    can change society only by using absolutely peaceful methods.

    Halla Mohieddeen: This is Roger Hallam, a UK co-founder of the
    Extinction Rebellion climate movement, also known as XR.

    Roger Hallam: It’s not like, not saying the people that use violence
    are bad or good. That’s neither here nor there. What we’re saying is
    it doesn’t work, right?
    Andreas Malm: That idea rests on a very skewed reading, I would say
    misreading, of the historical evidence about how social movements
    tend to work and what makes them successful.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Just to be clear, what is it that you’re
    advocating for? And perhaps also, what are you not advocating for?
    Because to criticise a group like Extinction Rebellion for only
    having peaceful means could sound like you’re advocating violence.

    Andreas Malm: The point is not so much to criticise what XR has
    done, but to question the doctrine that the only thing that the
    climate movement can ever do is absolutely peaceful civil
    disobedience. I am advocating for going beyond that, into destroying
    the machines that are destroying this planet, as a matter of self
    defence, and even more, defence of other people. I’m against any
    idea of the climate movement using violence against individuals –
    say, I don’t know, assassinating fossil fuel executives or something
    like that. And I don’t know anyone in the climate movement who is
    actually even considering that. The discussion is, should we
    diversify into targeting the machines, the dead things, the
    inanimate objects that are the cause of the destruction of this planet.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Well, we’ve also seen groups like Just Stop Oil in
    the UK take a step in that direction. They’re known right now for
    throwing various substances at different works of art, but earlier
    this year, they were also smashing petrol stations.

    Just Stop Oil protester: We went to petrol stations and smashed up
    petrol pumps and destroyed the machines that are destroying us.
    Halla Mohieddeen: Now, it is fair to say that that tactic hasn’t won
    them many fans among people you’d think they’d want to win over. So
    how are these tactics supposed to mobilise people and endear people
    to your cause?

    Andreas Malm: Well, I am sceptical, or I would even say I’m critical
    of the idea of throwing substances on works of art as a tactic for
    promoting the climate cause. Perhaps doing it once with that Van
    Gogh painting was a way of drawing attention to the cause of Just
    Stop Oil, and it did that pretty successfully. But if you
    continuously, repeatedly target something, you send the signal that
    you’re against that, as if the climate movement were against art...

    Halla Mohieddeen: But there are, Andreas says, other forms of
    action, like one the day before COP, at the international airport in
    Amsterdam.

    Newsreel: Climate protestors block private jets from leaving
    Amsterdam Schiphol Airport.

    Andreas Malm: Hundreds of climate activists dressed in white suits
    breached the perimeters to the runways and blocked private jets and
    bicycled around the cops to draw attention to the fact that these
    private jets cause luxury emissions, that is emissions that do not
    fulfil any human need.

    Halla Mohieddeen: More than 200 activists were arrested...
    Protester: We need to start cutting down emissions, which means
    flying less. We need to tackle the ones that we absolutely don’t
    need, the most unnecessary ones.

    Andreas Malm: It pinpointed a source of the trouble that has to be
    closed down. And it did so in a perfectly disciplined fashion,
    targeting the luxury emissions of ultra-rich people. And that’s what
    we need more of.

    Halla Mohieddeen: I see your point, but there is always, even with
    an action like this – and I find it very funny watching people on
    bicycles riding around private jets, there is a lot of sympathy for
    that –

    Andreas Malm: Yes.
    Halla Mohieddeen: – but if you’re a commuter trying to get a plane
    somewhere else and you have a delay, that impacts ordinary people
    who would probably agree with you. Similarly, when people glue
    themselves to motorways and ambulances can’t get to hospitals, those
    actions are impacting everyday people who will find themselves
    disinclined to support your wider cause. Is that not a concern?

    Andreas Malm: Yeah, of course it is, but we have to remember that
    airports are generally not frequented by working class people. I
    mean, there’s very few forms of consumption, so heavily
    disproportionately used by rich people as flying.

    Halla Mohieddeen: But working class people –

    Andreas Malm: When it comes to commuting in cars, working class
    people commuting in cars, that presents a real problem. And we have
    seen that playing out over on highways in the past year. That is a
    real tactical problem, and perhaps we should do something that more
    immediately targets the actors and the sources behind the problems,
    such as company headquarters, new installations for fossil fuel
    extraction, or indeed luxury emissions.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Okay. Let’s head back to the book. There is one
    action you describe as a positive example, and this was back in 2016...
    Halla Mohieddeen: Thousands of activists, including yourself, broke
    into a power station in Germany known as Schwarze Pumpe or black
    pump. Let’s start with the basics. This was about coal, yes? Why is
    coal so important to the climate debate in Germany?

    Andreas Malm: Germany is the world’s largest producer of lignite
    coal, or brown coal, and this is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels.
    That is the fossil fuel that produces most CO2 emissions in the
    process of combustion. And it still makes up a very significant
    chunk of the energy mix in Germany.

    Andreas Malm: And it can’t go on like this. Germany has to rid
    itself of brown coal. Bizarrely, what’s happening right now is that
    it’s increasing its reliance on lignite coal, to the extent that
    RWE, the big German energy company, recently tore down wind turbines
    to make place for one of its expanding lignite coal mines. I mean,
    how absurd can it get in 2022?

    Halla Mohieddeen: It’s surprising to hear that they’re the biggest
    producers of this lignite coal, but a lot of the fight was from this
    group Ende Gelende, which translates to something like “end of the
    line” in German.
    - -
    Andreas Malm: So Ende Gelende is a climate movement in Germany that
    has since 2015 struggled against these mines and conducted an
    absolutely remarkable series of mass actions where people have gone
    into these mines and shut them down.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Back in 2016, there was a debate about whether
    brown coal sites in Germany would be phased out, or even shut down,
    but the investment kept coming in.
    Andreas Malm: The decision of the climate movement in Germany was to
    try to establish itself as what was referred to as the investment
    risk. So, to signal to these investors that if you keep pouring your
    money into fossil fuel installations – of which we can have no more
    – then you should take into account that you might very well lose
    your fixed capital because we might go into those sites and destroy it.
    Halla Mohieddeen: In May that year, activists with Ende Gelende
    occupied the area near Schwarze Pumpe for two days.

    Protester: So we’re here physically stopping the transporting of
    coal between a coal mine and a coal power plant.

    Protester: The scientific fact behind climate change says that we
    must keep 80% of fossil fuels in the ground, and we cannot keep
    mining this coal.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Breaking into the power station, though, wasn’t
    part of the plan. More on that, after the break...
    - -
    Halla Mohieddeen: Andreas describes the break-in at the power
    station as spontaneous: a couple of hundred people who’d been camped
    out nearby to protest tore down some fences. According to the book,
    they streamed past security guards, who were too surprised to do
    anything, and then he says they basically just wandered around the
    power station and sprayed some spray paint, in awe of the fact that
    they had managed to get in. The break-in forced a mass reduction of
    the station’s electricity production for a full day. The CEO called
    it an act of massive criminal violence.

    Andreas Malm: When you have a mass action and you take over one of
    these installations and shut it down, even if it’s just temporarily,
    you realise that this fossil fuel infrastructure is not a force of
    nature. It’s not just a feature of the physical landscape that we
    can’t do anything about. It’s not like it’s a mountain range, or the
    moon, or something like that. It’s actually amenable to disruption.
    And the key here really is to break that sense of powerlessness and
    paralysis. The illusion that this infrastructure is our destiny and
    it just keeps on expanding and we can’t do anything about it – no,
    we can actually go into those sites and shut them down. And
    realising that, you get over your despair and you get a little bit
    of a hope and a sense that it is actually possible to take these
    sources of death and destruction down...
    - -
    Halla Mohieddeen: And we’re likely to see more actions like it. As
    of this year, Andreas says Ende Gelende is now formally taking up
    property destruction as a tactic...
    Andreas Malm: This year, Ende Gelende for the first time endorsed
    sabotage in its official documents and did indeed conduct an action
    of sabotage against the construction of a gas pipeline in
    Wilhelmshaven, in western Germany, in the middle of August, which I
    think is exactly the right thing to do.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Well, even now two women who vandalised a pipeline
    in the US are now in federal prison on domestic terrorism charges.
    Do you expect a terrorist label to come into play more?

    Andreas Malm: Of course, of course. It’s what people who fight
    entrenched power interests are always called, isn’t it? If
    terrorism, if that word means anything, it means the killing of
    civilians, and more precisely the indiscriminate killing of
    civilians for political purposes. These two women, Jessica Reznicek
    and Ruby Montoya, didn’t kill anyone and they didn’t harm anyone.
    Nothing whatsoever was done against any human body. So, to call them
    terrorists is just bizarre. If there is any violence being
    perpetrated here, it’s by the companies, because we know that
    climate change kills. This is in line with the ABC of the climate
    science, that to now take up fossil fuels out of the ground and set
    them on fire means killing people. I wouldn’t call that terrorism, I
    don’t think it’s an analytically useful term for designating that,
    but I definitely would call it violence. It’s violence perpetrated
    in the full awareness of the consequences.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Okay. I’m here in Glasgow talking to you. We’re
    both in Europe, where people this winter are going to be cutting
    back in every way they can just to save on heat and save on money.
    Do you think the tactics, perhaps more radical tactics, that we
    might see from the climate justice movement might in some way cause
    even more pain to ordinary people?

    Andreas Malm: One of the most enraging aspects of this energy crisis
    is that while working class people are being squeezed because of
    high energy prices, the oil and gas companies are swimming in the
    largest profits that they have ever had. The companies whose very
    business model is to destroy this planet are having more money to do
    so than ever before. So, the combined political demand here should
    be to take these profits away from these companies and use them to
    bankroll – which they could easily do several times over because
    these profits are so large – to use them to bankroll the transition
    away from fossil fuels to renewables, which are across the board far
    cheaper. That would not only help stabilise the climate and minimise
    the damage, but also protect working class people from this kind of
    crunch and squeeze that we see playing out right now...
    Halla Mohieddeen: Andreas, just as a final question, let’s say that
    you win us all over. You’re probably not wrong that the climate
    movement is going to get more radical the worse things get. Let’s
    say these tactics take off. How could sabotage ever be enough to
    force the level of action that needs to happen? What do you say to
    someone who’s maybe watching COP and just in despair, thinking that
    the climate’s too far gone and even this would never be enough?

    Andreas Malm: No, I don’t think it’s ever going to be enough.
    Sabotage on its own is not going to solve the climate problem. It
    needs to be one component in a repertoire of action that will have
    to include everything, from petitions, to court cases, to electoral
    campaigns, to lobbying, marching in the streets, still, occupying
    squares, but also a more militant confrontation with the order bent
    on burning our planet. If you sit and look at what’s happening at
    COP and you draw the conclusion that, okay, the world is doomed.
    We’re all just condemned to die very soon. I’m giving up on
    everything. Yeah, I would understand that reaction, but I think it’s
    a mistake. There is still a lot of damage to minimise and avoid. We
    can’t just give up on this planet while it all burns to the ground.
    I don’t think that’s a morally defensible position.

    Halla Mohieddeen: Do you have hope?

    Andreas Malm: Well, that depends on what you mean by hope. I’m not
    under any illusion that what we want and need is likely to happen,
    but you don’t become a political activist because you think that
    what you struggle for is likely. You throw yourself into struggle
    because you feel that the train is rushing towards the precipice and
    you need to stop it. In the end, catastrophic global heating is the
    likely outcome of current conditions in the world, but it’s not the
    only possible outcome. Which means that, yes, there is still hope
    that if we build up sufficient striking force, we can stop this
    train or jump off it in time...

This episode was produced by Alexandra Locke with Negin Owliaei, Chloe 
K. Li, and our host Halla Mohieddeen. It was fact-checked by Ruby Zaman. 
Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our engagement producers are Aya 
Elmileik and Adam Abou-Gad. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio.
https://www.aljazeera.com/podcasts/2022/11/14/a-radical-antidote-to-climate-despair



/[The news archive - looking back at a time when politicians were aware 
of the looming problem ]/
/*December 1, 1987*/
December 1, 1987: During a Democratic presidential debate on NBC, Rep. 
Richard Gephardt states that the US must work with the Soviet Union on 
addressing international environmental issues such as the ozone layer 
and greenhouse gas emissions, noting, “The problem we’ve had with these 
issues is not that we don’t know what to talk about; the problem we’ve 
had is that America hasn’t been a leader.”

(25:10—26:03)

http://www.c-span.org/video/?20-1/Presidential


=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, many daily summariesdeliver global warming news 
- a few are email delivered*

=========================================================
**Inside Climate News*
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or 
once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines 
deliver the full story, for free.
https://insideclimatenews.org/
---------------------------------------
**Climate Nexus* https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the 
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an 
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides 
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter 
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed.    5 weekday
=================================
*Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up*
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief 
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of 
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours 
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our 
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief
==================================
*T*he Daily Climate *Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts, 
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.
Other newsletters  at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ 

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/


/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and 
sender. This is a personal hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for commercial 
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20221201/b17185e3/attachment.htm>