Reduce Reuse Recycle isn’t enough: Debate, Demonstrate, Disrupt

A few days after I arrived in Wellington, the global climate strike began. A week of disruptive action that was supposed to echo across the world in a display of international outcry. Did it work? I think world government and human opinion are too complicated to answer that question directly. However, I hope it is one of many tremors that precede an earthquake of action. As protestors marched to the Wellington waterfront they chanted “What do we need? Climate justice! When do we need it? Now!” but as far as the science is concerned, the answer to “When do we need it?” is probably a few decades ago. The World Meteorological Organization estimates that climate targets need to be three times more ambitious than they currently are to avoid a two degree increase in average global temperature. This two degree increase is widely believed to be the point of extreme climate catastrophe. Emissions targets need to be Five times more ambitious if the warming is to be limited to 1.5 degrees.

A contingent of students marches down Cuba Street

And yet in the face of global climate collapse, I heard a massive amount of skepticism. Not only from people online or in the streets, but from people I know personally. This skepticism was rarely directed at the climate science (thankfully) but at the actions of the protestors. Versions of “well this seems like a bit of an overreaction” to “This is just going to drive people away from the cause” were common. This is skepticism directed at the urgency of the matter and the efficacy of protests. It should be clear that this issue could scarcely be more urgent, so that argument holds little water. The efficacy argument is more complicated, but before anything else I think the effects of this skepticism should be considered.

Let’s ask a few questions: Who does this skepticism serve? What does it accomplish? I would argue it’s an excuse to avoid involvement. If you’re not sure about what to do, surely it would be irresponsible to act with such certainty. Right? And honestly I’m sympathetic to this point. Directly confronting the reality of a global disaster is difficult. We are all individuals with many concerns and responsibilities. To acknowledge that something must be done immediately is (for many people) the same as acknowledging that you are not doing what you should be. I’m in this boat myself, I feel real shame that I am not doing more to support climate justice. Unfortunately we cannot ignore our reality forever, and many people around the world are already experiencing the effects of climate change.

Another common reaction I saw (one I am not sympathetic to) was an attempt to shift blame towards individual protestors, and specifically towards young people. I was disappointed to see supposedly mature adults calling children hypocrites for demanding climate justice . The core argument for them was that children are the ones “demanding the newest IPhones” and “being driven to school in a new SUV”. Considering that this argument is predicated on the idea that schoolchildren are the ultimate decision-makers in their families, I won’t spend any more time on it. I think the more general criticism of individuals is still misguided, but it’s at least worth talking about.

The people marching in climate protests are flawed individuals, everyone is. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the cause is influenced by those flaws. Mahatma Gandhi was a pretty nasty racist, that doesn’t mean Indian independence was a foolish movement. Centering the discussion on individual failings also misrepresents the key goals of modern climate activism. This movement is not trying to take everyone’s phones away; it’s not even trying to stop people from buying cars. It’s about changing the systems that are currently structured in an environmentally unsustainable way. Putting the focus on singular people and their hypocrisy completely avoids the actual conversation and muddies the water of discussion. It also ignores the positive environmental choices that many of these activists do make at a personal level. Like the skepticism, we can also ask what this focus on individualism accomplishes.

Emphasising individual responsibility and personal freedom is a classic tactic used by liberals (in the classic sense, not the modern sense) to argue for smaller government, reduced regulation, and decreased social security. I think this argument is made in bad faith here, as it sneakily presupposes two things. First that consumers have total freedom in their purchasing habits, and second that individuals fully understand the consequences of their purchases. We do not live in a paradise where consumers have real freedom in their decisions. Maybe your job gets moved to a new location and there’s no public transport options, so you have to drive. Maybe you can’t afford shoes that aren’t made by exploited workers in Asia. Furthermore, the networks of companies, subsidiaries, and distributors makes it virtually impossible to know where some things come from. Certainly too difficult for everyone to research everything they buy before they make a purchase. There’s just not that much time in a day. Some things must be organized at a higher level. Take for instance reusable grocery bags. They have always been available, but I bet you noticed a large uptick in usage once some stores started eliminating single-use plastic. A small nudge by the stores created an environment where the default choice was made more environmentally friendly. The option to buy your groceries in plastic bags still exists, but the individual mental burden has been reduced by removing that assumption.

Moving past these (what I think are bad faith) arguments, I think there are some core concerns that are really worth talking about. First of all, why is direct action necessary? I would say that disruptive action is called for any time the more traditional systems of democracy are too slow, or when the government is unwilling to act in the best interest of all people. Defining “the best interest of all people” can certainly be very sticky, but for the sake of this conversation let’s say that climate justice is ultimately in the best interest of humanity. I think it’s clear that many world governments are disproportionately influenced by corporate polluters. For example, an American study published in 2016 examined almost 10,000 instances of corporate lawsuits. The study showed that CEO’s almost always suffered no penalties from environmental lawsuits, even when they made decisions directly leading to environmental disasters[i]. I suppose personal responsibility is no longer relevant when you’re rich. This shows the government acting in the best interest of corporations, existing structures, and the wealthy. The government is not acting in the best interest of everyone here.

But you may say that governments are introducing more climate regulations all the time. What about that new carbon tax? I would say yes, there are certainly things happening; But the changes are far too slow, and there are also many instances of climate policy being rolled back. Two specific disasters that spring to mind are the many EPA rollbacks the Trump administration has made in the past 3 years, and the Brazilian President’s encouragement of deforestation and burning within the Amazon Rainforest. At the end of the day; many governments are doing less than nothing to slow climate change, and the ones that are acting are acting too slow. Again, emissions targets need to be three to five times more ambitious for us to avoid global catastrophe. And we’re not even meeting the targets we have now.

So with that context, maybe you think direct action is reasonable. However, you still think that these protests are misdirected. Shouldn’t we be protesting the energy companies if they’re the problem? The answer is that these companies generally don’t answer to the public. They are systematically motivated by profit and often their products do not go straight to consumers. Even if many people are aware of a company’s environmental crimes, it’s often hard to know who contributed to the products you’re buying. Protesting the companies also allows both corporations and governments to deflect blame. Take for example the protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline in America. The company (generically named Energy Transfer Partners) was able to basically stay silent on the issue, because they could rely on the government to forcefully remove protestors. Similarly the government is able to feign neutrality, saying that it’s “just enforcing the law”. Even though the government ultimately allowed this project that they are enforcing, protests directed at companies allow the government to morally distance itself from the core conflict. In general, governments are the organizations with the ability to enforce climate justice. This is why disruption must directly impact government interests.

Before I continue onto why I think continual disruptive action could be effective, let’s take a moment to really consider what we have to lose. Sometimes the results of climate change can feel very minor, or very far away. For Canada the most pressing result of climate change might be flooding. Towns and cities across Canada are experiencing more frequent and more severe floods. These events are disastrous for thousands, but manageable at a national scale. What about countries that are getting less water than normal? Over 60% of water reservoirs in India are empty, widely believed to be the result of weaker monsoon seasons and more frequent heatwaves. Both of these long-term trends are associated with global climate change. We also cannot forget that we are living through a mass extinction event. Scientists estimate that species are currently going extinct at a rate 100-1000 times faster than normal. So directly, we stand to lose water, food, living space, and biodiversity.

The indirect consequences are less talked about, which I think does the conversation a great disservice. Because frankly, the indirect consequences of climate change will likely impact more people more severely. What happens when climate change forces millions or billions of people out of the tropics? This is of course purely conjecture, but I think it’s fair to say immigration crises are almost guaranteed. It’s similarly reasonable that we will see wars motivated by changing climate. Not necessarily a world war, but unnecessary death all the same. I have already talked about water shortages in India. The logical follow-up question is how will the country’s population survive as the situation worsens? I think the likely answers are by emigrating or by taking it from somewhere else.

Beyond the measurable impacts of climate change, we also have to face the terrifying existential impacts. It’s very likely that the world your children and grandchildren will inhabit will be worse than what we have now. That might be true for the first time in hundreds of years. Future generations will have a less bountiful earth, less biodiversity, more global instability, and more uncertainty. As the young climate activist Greta Thunberg said to a UN Climate Summit: “How dare you? You’ve stolen my dreams and childhood”. And she’s right. The children of the future will have less stability and opportunity than we have now. If it’s at all unclear, that should upset you.

Returning to the original topic of this piece, what can we do? Why direct disruptive action? Simply put, we must face the truth and struggle harder until we achieve global climate justice. And that first step; facing the truth, is a doozy, . That doesn’t mean just accepting the science, or nihilistically concluding that we’re screwed. It means admitting that what we are doing to our environment is fundamentally unacceptable, that we are stealing from future generations. It means internalizing the fact that we need to do more, and we need to do it now.

So what is doing more? Well if you couldn’t tell from this piece, I think the first answer is direct disruptive action. We must make the problem unavoidable and front-of-mind. It must become more costly (not just in an economic sense) for governments and other organizations to do nothing than commit to a solution. It can work. In 2017 an activist named Roger Hallam sprayed the words “divest from oil and gas” onto a wall at Kings College, London. He did not deny the act but was found not guilty by a jury in 2019. They returned the verdict because “Chalk on the wall is obviously less important than the impending catastrophe for the planet.” Hallam was banned from the campus, but continued to peacefully disrupt the college by repeatedly violating that ban and going on a public hunger strike. Only three months after the original graffiti incident, Kings College agreed to completely divest from fossil fuels.

Looking for examples on a slightly larger scale we can turn to the Birmingham Children’s Crusade of 1963. A flashpoint of the Civil Rights movement in the United States, thousands of children marched in non-violent displays protesting segregation. Hundreds were arrested and some were treated quite brutally by police. Despite violent opposition, the protests succeeded. After only eight days of marches city leaders committed to desegregating businesses in the town and releasing all protestors who were jailed for demonstrating. Being willing to be arrested has a long history in successful disruptive action. Mass arrests may soon be very relevant to this discussion as just a few days ago London banned extinction rebellion protestors from the entire city.

Protestors begin to clog a main street as they march to the waterfront

Ok, so what if you’re just not willing to be arrested? I’m not writing this from a jail cell, so obviously I haven’t mustered the courage yet. I think the biggest thing we can do is stop accepting unsupported skepticism. When people criticize disruptive action, ask them to suggest an alternative. When they claim it won’t work or is counterproductive, ask them to back up those claims. Give examples of successful disruptive action, and don’t let the conversation diminish to individual responsibility. Yes it can be confrontational and uncomfortable, but I believe letting these views go unchallenged is a large part of how we ended up in this mess.

Outside of personal interactions, I think a lot can be accomplished through charity. We have to acknowledge that all of us have relationships, careers, and goals to deal with. It’s unfeasible for everyone to put all their effort into this. You can however contribute to people who are making it their life’s work. I’ve been donating monthly to a local environmental charity in Nova Scotia since I’ve graduated, and I want to contribute to more global efforts once I have the means. A small amount can go a long way, especially if the charities are carefully considered. Also consider donating to causes that aren’t registered charities. Yes you might not get a tax break, but groups that are able to lobby unrestricted by charity laws are often able to accomplish more.

Finally; and importantly, vote. For most of you reading this, the Canadian federal election is about to happen. Interestingly there are a few case studies of countries that do strive for climate justice (Research Bhutan and Costa Rica if you’re curious) but these are rarely discussed. Admitting that climate justice is compatible with a healthy economy would undermine many establishment talking points. All Canadian political parties condone climate injustice to some extent, but that does not mean all choices are equal. I have many issues with the platforms of the Prime Minister, the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens. However, all these options are preferable to the Conservatives. Continuing to encourage expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Canada while paying vague lip service to environmental protection is a sure way push us meekly towards catastrophe. I must be frank. At this point; with all the knowledge that we have, it is morally indefensible to vote Conservative in this election.

And so my ~2500 word rant comes to close. I have attempted to include sources for all my non common-knowledge claims, but I encourage everyone to do their own research. I also recognize that I likely made multiple errors, and I’m more than willing to be corrected. I am also more than happy to talk about my opinions if you disagree or want clarification. Don’t hesitate to contact me. I’ll be back to lighter topics next week.

Until then, be well and do good.