<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+2"><i><b>December 1, 2022</b></i></font></p>
<i>[ </i><i>Yale study </i><i>on the effectiveness of individual
behavior and activism - </i><i>Anthony Leiserowitz press
release ]</i><br>
<b>“Does personal climate change mitigation behavior influence
collective behavior? Experimental evidence of no spillover in the
United States.”</b><br>
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. <br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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...<br>
- -<br>
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...<br>
- -<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:climatechange@yale.edu">climatechange@yale.edu</a> with the
subject line: Request Spillover paper. A pre-publication version is
also available here
{<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622003784?via%3Dihub">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622003784?via%3Dihub</a>}..<br>
- -<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailchi.mp/yale/new-study-reminding-americans-of-their-personal-climate-actions-does-not-decrease-their-willingness-to-take-collective-action?e=ff9625264c">https://mailchi.mp/yale/new-study-reminding-americans-of-their-personal-climate-actions-does-not-decrease-their-willingness-to-take-collective-action?e=ff9625264c</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ Original research article-- studies say individual actions
fail to make collective action ]</i><br>
<b>Does personal climate change mitigation behavior influence
collective behavior? Experimental evidence of no spillover in the
United States</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102875Get">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102875Get</a> rights and content<br>
<blockquote>Abstract<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622003784?via%3Dihub">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622003784?via%3Dihub</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ meanwhile, in France ]</i><br>
<b>Civil disobedience only way to protest climate change, say French
activists</b><br>
Issued on: 26/11/2022 <br>
Sarah Elzas<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
“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.<br>
<br>
“Blocking roads is the most effective way to put pressure on the
government and also have a platform.”<br>
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”.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>'Everything else has failed'</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
“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.<br>
<br>
He joined Dernière Rénovation because he found other parts of the
climate movement inefficient.<br>
<br>
“Direct action comes from the fact that everything else failed,” he
says.<br>
<br>
“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.”<br>
<b>Opera house protest </b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
“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.<br>
<br>
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”.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
“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.<br>
<br>
“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.”<br>
Getting attention<br>
“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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
This is not the kind of media attention he and the group are
seeking, but they will take what they can get.<br>
- -<br>
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.<br>
<br>
For Victor, such methods are justified to shock people into thinking
about what is at stake.<br>
<br>
“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.<br>
<br>
Two Dernière Rénovation activists recently threw orange paint on an
outdoor sculpture in Paris.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20221126-civil-disobedience-only-way-to-protest-climate-change-say-french-activists">https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20221126-civil-disobedience-only-way-to-protest-climate-change-say-french-activists</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Aljazeera on activism - Interview with Andreas Malm - 21 m in
podcast and clips from transcript ]</i><br>
<b>A radical antidote to climate despair</b><br>
In a burning world, How To Blow Up a Pipeline argues peaceful
protest is not enough.<br>
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.<br>
- -<br>
<blockquote>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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Halla Mohieddeen: This is Roger Hallam, a UK co-founder of the
Extinction Rebellion climate movement, also known as XR.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Just Stop Oil protester: We went to petrol stations and smashed up
petrol pumps and destroyed the machines that are destroying us.<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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...<br>
<br>
Halla Mohieddeen: But there are, Andreas says, other forms of
action, like one the day before COP, at the international airport
in Amsterdam.<br>
<br>
Newsreel: Climate protestors block private jets from leaving
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Halla Mohieddeen: More than 200 activists were arrested...<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 –<br>
<br>
Andreas Malm: Yes.<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Halla Mohieddeen: But working class people –<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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...<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
- -<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
Halla Mohieddeen: In May that year, activists with Ende Gelende
occupied the area near Schwarze Pumpe for two days.<br>
<br>
Protester: So we’re here physically stopping the transporting of
coal between a coal mine and a coal power plant.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Halla Mohieddeen: Breaking into the power station, though, wasn’t
part of the plan. More on that, after the break...<br>
- -<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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...<br>
- -<br>
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...<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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...<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Halla Mohieddeen: Do you have hope?<br>
<br>
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...</blockquote>
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.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.aljazeera.com/podcasts/2022/11/14/a-radical-antidote-to-climate-despair">https://www.aljazeera.com/podcasts/2022/11/14/a-radical-antidote-to-climate-despair</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back at a time when politicians were
aware of the looming problem ]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>December 1, 1987</b></i></font> <br>
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.”<br>
<br>
(25:10—26:03)<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?20-1/Presidential">http://www.c-span.org/video/?20-1/Presidential</a> <br>
<br>
<br>
<p>======================================= <br>
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*Mass media is
lacking, many </span>daily summaries<span class="moz-txt-tag">
deliver global warming news - a few are email delivered*</span></b>
<br>
<br>
=========================================================<br>
<b>*Inside Climate News</b><br>
Newsletters<br>
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.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*</a>
<br>
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 <br>
================================= <br>
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Carbon
Brief Daily </b><span class="moz-txt-star"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a></span><b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
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. <br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a>
<br>
================================== <br>
*T<b>he Daily Climate </b>Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*</a>
<br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better
than coffee. <br>
Other newsletters at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
<br>
<br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
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<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list. <br>
</body>
</html>