Who Will Been Right in the End?

According to Fatima Ibrahim, co-founder of Green New Deal Rising, Only noisy protest makes politicians take action to avoid climate catastrophe. What action are these noisy protests demanding? Before attempting to force politicians to take action (i.e. spend our money), you need to be very clear on what that action is. Otherwise, they will use your call to action as an excuse to take actions that benefit themselves or their donors.

From the Suffragettes to the anti-apartheid movement, people taking disruptive action have been on the right side of history.

In the case of apartheid, while I agree that apartheid South Africa was an immoral society, I’m not sure that life has really gotten better for the majority of its citizens.

The home secretary, Priti Patel, announced a string of new measures this week to restrict protests deemed to cause “noise and nuisance”. But such things have long been necessary features in fights for social change. They can stop destructive plans in their tracks or help shift public opinion. Noise and nuisance are among the few ways to actually force politicians to listen.

Remember the importance of fundamental rights like the right to peaceful protest when you back the removal of of rights like freedom of speech or freedom of association. Once you enable the government to trample on rights, yours will be next.

With the clock ticking on the climate crisis, the defining issue of our lifetime, many would say causing a nuisance is not only necessary, but a rational response to the inaction it is met with by our leaders.

Climate change is unlikely to be the defining issue of our lifetime. Artificial intelligence is a much greater threat to our way of life than global warming.

Disruptive action on climate issues has worked to force change in the past. In 2008, activists descended on the site of a proposed new coal-fired power station in Kent, the first in the UK in 30 years. A crowd of 100 people quickly grew to more than 1,000. It, too, triggered repressive policing practices, and while it upset some local people in the process, the camp successfully delayed the project and ultimately ensured it didn’t take place at all. It was a pivotal moment that sounded the death knell on new coal projects in the UK and helped push the national conversation towards renewable energy.

After moving away from coal as a source of power for generating electricity, the UK’s heavy reliance on wind power has led to record high prices. This hurts the poor the most.

Around the same time, activists had set up camp next to Heathrow airport protesting at plans to build a third runway. Thousands joined the protest, resulting in round-the-clock media coverage. The fight against the third runway inspired creative actions and continues today. From stopping planes to creating a sustainable mini eco village on the site of the proposed runway, protesters made the third runway a defining climate issue in the UK. It has burdened successive governments, defined mayoral elections and resulted in a lengthy legal battle.

While blocking an airport expansion will likely inconvenience and annoy the business travelling class, it does seem to have relatively few consequences for most people.

In 2011, oil and gas company Cuadrilla suspended test fracking operations near Blackpool after they were thought to have caused earthquakes in the area. However, for many the first time they heard about fracking was in 2013, when grandmothers banded with schoolchildren and environmental campaigners to condemn local fracking sites. Things peaked when a fracking test site at Balcombe in West Sussex was blockaded that summer. A week of actions culminated in mass arrests including that of Green party MP Caroline Lucas. For years, similar blockades took the battle to the fracking industry, until in 2019 the government did a U-turn, withdrawing its support and announcing a moratorium.

If banning fracking is merely moving the source of oil from a local one to a foreign one, this increases emissions, as additional emissions result from shipping the oil. Fracking itself does have environmental impacts, of course.

In recent years disruption has played a huge role in animating public anger and dismay at the government’s lack of ambitious climate action. The sobering Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in late 2018 prompted schoolchildren to strike in their thousands. At the same time, Extinction Rebellion brought huge parts of London to a standstill. This wave of disruption galvanised public concern, leaving the government scrambling for an adequate response. Soon after, it passed a bill committing the UK to net zero emissions by 2050 – the first country in the G7 to do so. Parliament also declared a climate emergency and the UK’s first Climate Assembly was established. Direct action isn’t the only thing that makes change happen, but very few of these changes would have happened without it.

A commitment to net zero is not action.

While governments may eventually wind down fossil-fuel use, how quickly they do it and who stands to gain or lose from this transition are still to fight for. We could tackle the climate crisis in a way that puts power into the hands of communities, delivers millions of new green jobs, affordable and accessible public transport, and warm homes to tackle fuel poverty. The alternative is a slow transition that at worst misses the window to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown, and at best leads to millions of job losses, increases inequality by pushing the cost on to working people, and reserves any benefits for corporations and wealthy individuals.

Government intervention to ban fossil fuels has massive potential to hurt people. Electric vehicles are much more feasible in the UK than in Canada, but poor people are less able to afford to upgrade their vehicles. Will they simply lose their ability to drive? This will further stratify society.

That’s where a new wave of disruptive, solutions-based campaigns come in. Youth activist groups such as the Sunrise movement in the US are holding sit-ins in the offices of Democratic party leaders, while Green New Deal Rising here in the UK is doorstepping politicians to put them on the spot about how we should tackle this crisis. With time we may see these actions as defining moments that changed the trajectory of the fight against climate change.

Harassing politicians on their doorsteps is highly unlikely to make them sympathetic to your cause. Because Green New Deal Rising endorses ‘equity’, intersectionality, and other principles of the socialist left, politicians are likely to see your movement as purely political and therefore, if they of the Conservative stripe, ignore you as opposition.

For those who criticise direct action, not only have many interventions been successful, but polling shows 71% of people say they haven’t had their lives disrupted at all by protest in the past three years. Given the changes protesters seek to instigate, which can deliver positive outcomes for people across society, it’s no wonder that many climate protests eventually receive majority public support.

People generally support making the earth a better place (regardless of whether your actions have a chance of actually achieving that) until you inconvenience them. Banning gasoline powered vehicles is a far cry from blocking traffic in liberal London.

This is true not just for climate protesters but in the history of social change. From the Suffragettes to the anti-apartheid movement, people who took disruptive action are now considered to have been on the right side of history, despite often widespread opposition in their time.

The winners who write the history are always considered to have been on the right side of it. The communist government that was ushered in to South Africa when apartheid fell has done immense damage to the country, so while they may have been on the right side of the issue of apartheid, they are arguably on the wrong side history. Time will tell. The same can be said of the climate activist movement. If millions starve due to government intervention in the economy and climate change turns out to be fairly easy to adapt to, future generations will likely say that climate activists were on the wrong side of history.

About jimbelton

I'm a software developer, and a writer of both fiction and non-fiction, and I blog about movies, books, and philosophy. My interest in religious philosophy and the search for the truth inspires much of my writing.
This entry was posted in philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Who Will Been Right in the End?

  1. Good points, but you left out the law-changing clout of libertarian spoiler votes as the cheapest, least violent and most effective instrument for positive change. The comment about AI is new to me–except possibly in a cartoon where the Faecebuke kid tells politicians AI will someday define “hate” speech. I am looking forward to reading more on this. A recent “Fi” movie has a robot raising a human child and imprinting the child with collectivist Lifeboat “ethics” based on probabilistic divination rather than a rights-based code of values to guide our choices and actions. If that’s it, I can imagine the threat.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s