<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>March</b></i></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b> 23, 2024</b></i></font></p>
<i>[ Information activist essay ]</i><br>
<b>The Law is Criminalising Activists Because It Can’t Criminalise
Violence</b><br>
Violence is a feature, not a flaw<br>
Rachel Donald<br>
Mar 22, 2024 <br>
<br>
The British State this week overthrew a key legal defence protecting
climate activists. The belief in consent defence has seen juries
acquitting activists in criminal damage cases, much to the fury of
the establishment and, on Monday, the Court of Appeal ruled that
evidence presented by defendants about the effects of climate change
would be “inadmissible” in the future.<br>
<br>
The “consent” defence argued that activists who engaged in damaging
property, such as breaking the windows of a fossil-fuel invested
bank, genuinely believed the owners of that property would have
given their consent to the action if they truly understood the
reasons for the protest, such as the effects of climate change. This
defence successfully won over juries when presented with the
catastrophic impending effects of climate change. Losing this
defence is a huge blow both to activists waiting to stand trial and
the justice system as a whole, which has been weaponised against
victims rather than perpetrators. Following the advice of The Atlas
Network, the shadowy network of right-wing global think tanks behind
the recent criminalisation of protest around the “democratic” world,
the British government is using its police force and courts to crack
down on “eco-terrorists” all whilst granting more licences for oil
and gas exploration in the North Sea.<br>
<br>
The effects have ricocheted throughout the seats of British power.
Just days after the ruling, the Independent MP for North West
Leicestershire, Andrew Bridgen, a member of the science-denying Net
Zero Scrutiny Group, stood up in the Houses of Parliament and
gassed: “Independent scientists have stated that higher carbon
dioxide levels would be beneficial for life on the planet through
increased plant growth… So can we have a debate on government time
about the cost benefits of Net Zero before trillions of pounds of
taxpayers’ money are wasted?”<br>
<br>
And on the very same day, a delegate of the British government told
the United Nations that the UK can never accept that nature has
rights: “The UK’s firm position is that rights can only be held by
legal entities with a legal personality. We do not accept that
rights can be applied to nature or Mother Earth. While we recognise
that others do, it is a fundamental principle for the UK and one
from which we cannot deviate.”<br>
<br>
What happens in British law matters as it is the bedrock of legal
systems around the world. A living legacy of British colonialism,
the Law validated the rape of people and land, the theft of
resources, and the hierarchy of domination and oppression. It gave
men in wigs the right to put other men in chains, and granted legal
rights to corporations long before people of colour or women.
Arguably, without any meaningful reform, the Law continues to serve
its initial purpose: to grant absolute power to a minority.<br>
<br>
This immense violence is dressed up as justice. In Violence and the
Word, legal scholar Robert Cover argues that the Law’s power is
predicated on “a willingness to put bodies on the line”:
incarceration. How striking that activists today also use that
language when throwing themselves against the power of the state.
Cover argues that by denying this violence, its own, the Law cannot
operate in the real world, and instead “imposes an imagined future
upon reality”. <br>
<br>
This explains why criminals walk free while civilians are jailed.
The Law gains its hard power through a willingness to commit
violence; it maintains its soft power by allegedly exercising that
power to maintain order. According to the Law’s own logic,
occurrences of violence are aberrations in an otherwise functioning
system, for it metes out justice. But if the Law’s own power is
built on violence then violence, surely, is not an aberration but a
necessary function of that system? And if violence is the function,
what right does the Law have to commit violence in the name of
order? Its violence does not achieve order if violence is the norm.
Instead, its violence is nothing more than a continued oppression
and domination to grant absolute power to the minority.<br>
<br>
This is why the Law so often fails to convict violence. Thanks to
the #MeToo movement, we know the terrible prevalence of sexual
violence. It is, simply, a reality for most women. Yet, in England,
the conviction rate for reported rapes is under 1%. How can the Law
be so out of touch with reality? Because it pretends that violence
is a flaw, not a feature, and adequately convicting violent
perpetrators would acknowledge the world rather than project upon
it. It is far easier to control an imagined future than reality; it
is far easier to deny victimhood than police criminality.<br>
<br>
The Law must deny criminality, for criminality defines Statehood in
the Global North, the hemisphere which raided and ransacked the
majority world. State power is access to energy, ideally a large
surplus, be it stolen resources, slave labour or fossil fuels.
Enshrining the legal rights of Nature directly challenges the
British State’s access to power. This is why rejecting those rights
is a “a fundamental principle for the UK and one from which we
cannot deviate.” The Law depends on hierarchies and violence to
function, and challenging that oppression threatens to bring the
whole institution down on itself. Activists finding common ground
with a jury of their peers also undermines the British State’s
access to power, which was first gained by stealing land from the
majority.<br>
<br>
The British Law cannot criminalise violence because it is a violent
institution, in league with the violence of the State, whose power
depends on extraction and domination. We rightly rail against
American imperialism but British Law is the arteries through which
the artillery flows, its commitment to injustice revealed with every
public prosecution.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.planetcritical.com/p/the-law-is-criminalising-activists?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share">https://www.planetcritical.com/p/the-law-is-criminalising-activists?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Sage advice from Yale's Tony Leiserowitz ]</i><br>
Dear Friends,<br>
We are pleased to announce the publication of a new Climate Note:
“The "attitude-behavior gap” on climate action: How can it be
bridged?”<br>
<br>
There are many ways that people can take action to reduce climate
change, from personal behaviors like eating a more plant-rich diet
to collective behaviors like political activism. Political activism
(such as contacting government officials to express support for
pro-climate policies) is one of the most significant ways to
influence government policy-making. <br>
<br>
However, relatively few Americans engage in political actions to
limit global warming, such as signing petitions, volunteering, or
contacting government officials. While majorities think that global
warming should be a high government priority and support various
climate policies, there is a discrepancy between the public’s
attitudes about climate action and their behaviors or actions that
support it. Research that offers insights into this
“attitude-behavior gap” can identify opportunities to reduce the gap
and thereby strengthen both public and political will.<br>
<br>
In this analysis, we investigate the attitude-behavior gap on
political climate action using the six most recent waves of our
Climate Change in the American Mind surveys spanning 2021-2023 (n =
6,190 U.S. adults). We focus on four political actions. We compare
the gap between willingness to engage versus self-reported behavior
across all four actions, and explore differences between Americans
who are willing and active and those who are willing but inactive.<br>
<br>
Results<br>
<br>
Many Americans say they “definitely” or “probably” would engage in
political climate action if someone they like and respect asked them
to. These actions include signing a petition about global warming,
either online or in person (51%), donating money to an organization
working on global warming (31%), volunteering time to an
organization working on global warming (29%), or contacting
government officials about global warming (28%). However, fewer
Americans report engaging in these behaviors at least “once” in the
prior 12 months (signing a petition, 16%; donating money, 13%;
volunteering, 6%; contacting government officials, 8%).<br>
- --
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/attitude-behavior-gap/">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/attitude-behavior-gap/</a><br>
To understand the factors that may contribute to the
attitude-behavior gap on climate action, we focused on the 30% of
Americans who say they “definitely would” engage in at least one of
the four behaviors. Half of this group (i.e., 15% of Americans)
report doing at least one of the behaviors “once” or more often in
the past 12 months (“Definitely willing and active”), while the
other half have not (“Definitely willing but inactive”). We compared
these groups to all other Americans and explored differences in
communication behaviors, perceptions of social norms, and collective
efficacy beliefs.<br>
<br>
The “Definitely willing and active” are more likely than both the
“Definitely willing but inactive” and other Americans to discuss
global warming with family and friends (respectively, 78%, 50%, and
23%), hear about global warming in the media (71%, 56%, and 49%), or
hear other people talk about global warming (52%, 29%, and 15%).
Additionally, the “Definitely willing and active” are more likely to
perceive social norms supportive of climate action, including
descriptive norms (i.e., how much of an effort family and friends
make to reduce global warming; 73%, 46%, and 28%) and injunctive
norms (i.e., how important it is to family and friends that you take
action to reduce global warming; 71%, 59%, and 31%).<br>
<br>
- - -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/attitude-behavior-gap/">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/attitude-behavior-gap/</a><br>
We find that there is an attitude-behavior gap on climate action:
many Americans are willing to engage in political actions to address
climate change, but fewer report doing so. Even among the people who
are most willing to act, many say they haven’t done so in the prior
year. There are also important differences between people who are
active and those who are not, including in perceived social norms,
communication behaviors, and collective efficacy beliefs. We have
found similar patterns among the Alarmed, or those who are most
worried about climate change: Americans who are Alarmed and actively
engaged in climate issues are more likely than those who are not
active to talk about climate change and express a sense of
collective efficacy. While we cannot determine causal relationships
from these findings, the results align with previous research on the
drivers of political action on climate change and provide
implications for bridging the attitude-behavior gap.<br>
<br>
How can the attitude-behavior gap on climate action be bridged? <br>
<br>
In this analysis, 30% of Americans said they “definitely would” do
at least one of four political actions to address climate change –
over 100 million people who are very willing to engage. However, the
barriers to climate action are complex, including psychological,
social, and structural/logistical factors. For political actions
such as contacting government officials, we have found that the most
frequent barrier for registered voters is that no one has ever asked
them to do it. In addition, many say that it wouldn’t make any
difference, they are not activists, they don’t know who to contact,
or they wouldn’t know what to say. Based on previous research and
the results here, we suggest several ways to address these barriers
and encourage climate action in the full Climate Note on our
website.<br>
<br>
For media inquiries, please contact Eric Fine and Michaela Hobbs.<br>
<br>
For partnership inquiries, please contact Joshua Low.<br>
<br>
Further Reading from Yale Climate Connections<br>
<br>
13 tips for lobbying your elected officials about climate change<br>
<br>
Checklist: How to take advantage of brand-new clean energy tax
credits<br>
<br>
How to talk about climate change: Ask questions<br>
<br>
As always, thanks for your interest and support of our work!<br>
<br>
On behalf of the research team: Matthew Ballew, Jennifer Carman,
Marija Verner, Seth Rosenthal, Edward Maibach, John Kotcher, and
Anthony Leiserowitz.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Tony<br>
-----<br>
Anthony Leiserowitz, Ph.D.<br>
Director, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication<br>
Yale School of the Environment<br>
Twitter: @ecotone2<br>
climatecommunication.yale.edu<br>
yaleclimateconnections.org<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailchi.mp/yale/the-attitude-behavior-gap-on-climate-action-how-can-it-be-bridged?e=ff9625264c">https://mailchi.mp/yale/the-attitude-behavior-gap-on-climate-action-how-can-it-be-bridged?e=ff9625264c</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<p><font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">/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></font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"> === Other climate news sources
===========================================<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b>*Inside Climate News</b><br>
Newsletters<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><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>
5 weekday <br>
================================= <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><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<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>
Other newsletters at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
</font><font face="Calibri">/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
</font><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><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>
</font>
<p>/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>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"> Privacy and Security:*This mailing is
text-only -- and carries no images or attachments which may
originate from remote servers. Text-only messages 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. </font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font>
</body>
</html>