Climate change activists are increasingly using civil disobedience as a means to demonstrate their points. In April, 1,000 scientists representing 20 countries planned coordinated actions that included blocking roads, pickingeting infrastructure, spreading paint and pasting huge amounts of climate information. In the same month, Extinction Rebellion a group that British government officials were recently considering designating an organized crime group are planning to blockade oil facilities across the UK.
While their tactics can be a boon for their cause, research shows that they also pose significant risks. Research shows that there are different levels of disruption depending on who the protesters are trying convince.
Eric Shuman, a psychologist who studies collective action and protest psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands, believes that peaceful protests and petitions that conform to societal norms are more effective in attracting support from people who may be sympathetic to the cause.
He adds that if the goal of the protest is to change the policy support among people who might be ambivalent about the cause, then more disruptive demonstrations such as strikes and civil disobedience have been proven to be effective.
“[Opponents] aren’t necessarily going to ever be supportive or probably even like the protesters. However, by causing disruption, you are basically putting pressure upon them to make some kind of change or support any type of change so that disruption goes away,” Shuman stated.
Disruptive protests may lead to social and political pressure to compromise.
Policy-makers need strong incentives for changing the status quo. Disruptive protests are a way to make a difference. They reduce the chance of voter backlash while putting direct pressure on those at the top.
Research shows that civil disobedience must have clear, positive, and constructive intentions to be effective. Otherwise, they risk being seen as a nuisance to society and rabble-rousers. They must maintain a clear image and build enough pressure to get a response from policy-makers.
They have many options to choose from.
Occupying a space is at the bottom end of the scale, followed by strikes and boycotts. Blocking roads is a way to go, especially when protesters target major traffic arteries. Disrupting speakers at events and throwing glitter bombs and hacking pushes the boundaries even further. Protesters move beyond this stage into potentially violent actions like interfering in property or attacking people.
At this stage, they risk triggering outrage from observers.
“Once something is perceived to have crossed some sort of moral line or boundary, this is when the disruption is much less likely to be effective, for a lot of reasons,” Shuman said. “People will have a strong motive to condemn it and all that is associated with them.”
If protesters do take a more disruptive path, they are less likely to cross that moral threshold if their actions are targeted and clearly goal-oriented, such as disrupting the infrastructure of climate-harming activities, as opposed to indiscriminate attacks.
Protests that are disruptive and clearly targeted are less likely not to cause a backlash
A broad movement
David S Meyer, professor of sociology and political science at the University of California, studies social movements and their relationship to institutional politics. He said effective protesting is made up of a broad spectrum of actions.
“Looking at the history of successful movements will show that there are many people doing many different things. Because authorities have many people to deal with when making concessions, making accommodations, or negotiating, a diversity in tactics is actually a plus. It offers people who are not involved with the negotiations different options.
He stated that it is often difficult to attribute success to one method of protest.
He stated that Rosa Parks wouldn’t be sitting down that day if it hadn’t been for the 12 years she had been organizing. Martin Luther King organized the bus boycott that lasted a year and others filed a lawsuit at that time that went to Supreme Court.
Is violence the solution to all problems?
What about climate protestors who go against the morality of the law and resort to violence? This includes those calling for destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. More research is needed, but there is some evidence that extreme acts of protest from a small radical flank can actually be beneficial to the cause.
“When violence occurs under the umbrella of a larger, non-violent movement it can sometimes lead to disruption and pressure to act on the protests. Shuman stated that there is another, more peaceful group that is considered to be more moderate and that people think they can accept some of their demands.
A variety of actions are required to create successful protest movements.
Climate activists welcome all actions
Climate activists themselves are open to trying different tactics.
“The forms of action and protests within the climate movement are very diverse and wide-ranging and that is a good thing. Jule Pehnte of Fridays for Future Germany said that protests range from peaceful blockades to disrupt climate-damaging infrastructure, through mass protests that win large majority support, to petitions, and large-scale art actions. “All protests reach different segments of society and complement one another,” she said.
She said that the effects of climate change will be more disruptive than any protest movement, regardless of how radical it might be.
“We discuss again and again how radical the global climate movement can be, but the point remains: How radical can it become?” She asked.
“We should not be discussing forms of protest but have an honest conversation about how we can rapidly and socially reduce our emissions and face up to the reality of the climate crises.”
Climate fatalism is the worst strategy
The 2020 manifesto How to blow up a pipelineAndreas Malm (a Swedish lecturer who is also a climate activist) argues that climate activists should consider using violence to target the infrastructure and properties of climate-destroying activities, but not people.
He imagines a world without the necessary action to combat climate changes, despite all the protests, marches, and petitions.
“Do we think we’ve done everything we could, tried all the means available and failed?” Do we conclude that learning to die in a position propounded by others is the only way to get rid of it and slide down the side crater into three-, four, or eight degrees of heat? Or is there a different phase beyond peaceful protest?
Even he believes that any action that doesn’t accept fatalism is a difference.
“The most Gandhian climate activist and the most starry-eyed entrepreneur in renewable energy, the most compromise-prone parlamentararian, is infinitely superior to the white man from the North who claims, ‘We are doomed fall into peace.’ He writes that none of the positions on this side of climate denial are more shameful.”
Edited By: Tamsin W. Walker
