[ad_1]
Before the activists of Ende Gelände (EG) go to protest, they sign a Consensus of Action. This is a document where the protesters agree what they will and will not do during the protest (“we will lie on the railroad tracks”, “we will not engage in violence against the police”). In the most recent version of this contract, the organization declared the game of property damage in its fight against climate change, not only condoning it, but promising legal support for those who took it. This is symbolic of a wider trend in climate activism that sees escalation towards violence as the only way forward.
A green RAF
Ende Gelände is one of the few “successful” climate movements in Germany. Since its founding in 2015, EG has organized annual actions against fossil fuel infrastructure. In 2020, more than 2000 activists participated in blockades in ChemCoast Park near Brunsbüttel. In 2021, more than 3,000 activists blocked coal and gas infrastructure in the Rhineland. By infiltrating the fossil fuel infrastructure and establishing climate camps on coal mine lands, they managed to disrupt production and cost these companies millions.
They drew enough attention to their cause to get the German government to agree to a 2038 end date for coal mining. What they achieved was achieved by imitating the direct actions and civil disobedience of Germany’s anti-nuclear movements. However, according to Berlin-based EG co-founder Tadzio Müller, similar tactics are no longer enough. “The climate crisis will escalate rapidly, but our political power will continue to decline,” he says, anticipating the intensification of climate activism. “A new cycle of movement will be born. It will be smaller, more militant and will have new forms of action, new agents, new stories. It will start with the networks that will be created at the edges of the organization. If society does not want to change , you need to impose costs on society. For everyone, not just polluters… we need a green Red Army Faction.”
The RAF was a left-wing extremist organization, considered terrorist by the West German government. It grew out of the discontent that the German youth of the 1960s felt for a fascist state. Its members decided to do everything they could to confront racism and imperialism and strengthen the liberation of women. They were responsible for the bombings and murders of politicians, business leaders and policemen.
Even if some feel uncomfortable with the reference to an open wound in Germany’s recent history, this kind of language conveys the message: the climate emergency justifies increasingly violent action. Protest and political movement expert at Freie Universität, Dr. Simon Tuene, indicates that, while many movements have recognized the need for escalation, most are not sure how to do it. “The logic of the numbers didn’t work,” he says, referring to the fact that despite Friday for the Future bringing tens of thousands of people to the streets of Berlin and millions around the world, little action seems to have been taken. made in response. The search is on for the most impactful means.
“No one in the climate justice movement propagates violence against the police or against those who are responsible for the climate crisis,” explains Tuene. “But the lack of action on the part of the government, the gap between what is done and what should be done is becoming increasingly unbearable for people who see the climate crisis coming. It is likely that individuals or collectives will choose the most drastic means, even if these kinds of means are not yet conceivable now.”
Climate justice will not be done unless we force our governments to do it. And the only way to do that is crime.
A shift from non-violence
The mood is also changing among other climate justice groups. The spokeswoman for Extinction Rebellion (XR), Manon Gerhardt, thinks that the line between what is acceptable and what is not has already moved. “We’ve changed the goal a bit. Civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action are still the strategy, but we’re trying to target the players directly, rather than just going to the streets,” he explains. “We no longer count on getting the support of a huge part of society.”
The author Andreas Malm played a role in the movement away from strict non-violence. His book 2021 How to Blow Up a Pipeline is very popular, especially among younger members of the climate justice movement, and Luisa Neubauer even joked about the idea. While the book contains no practical advice on sabotage, it makes the case for more direct action that blurs the lines of legality. According to Malm, the accepted wisdom that a social movement of sufficient size will see its political will manifest is completely false. What sociologists call the “law of large numbers” explains only part of any group’s success. The rest is explained by the “criminals” among them – as the historical example of the Suffragettes shows.
After decades of trying to talk the ruling class into giving women the vote, the Women’s Social and Political Union was founded in London in 1903 with the motto: “Deeds not words.” In 1912, as the movement grew, hundreds of women took to the streets, smashing storefront windows across the city to demand change. Its leader Emmeline Pankhurst explained: “We had to discredit the Government and Parliament in the eyes of the world; we had to destroy English sports, injure businesses, destroy valuable property, demoralize the world of society , shame the churches, disturb the whole orderly conduct of life”. The strategy was successful: in 1928, women in the United Kingdom were granted the right to vote.
The beginning of something explosive
Back in Berlin, Charlotte* left XR and joined EG because she felt that the former were ineffective and more drastic action was needed. She said that while XR is strictly non-violent, there are fringe individuals in both groups who are already carrying out more extreme actions, such as deflating the tires of SUVs in the wealthiest suburbs of Berlin. She has not confirmed or denied having participated herself, but she sees this form of protest as justified. “The roadblock to punish individual car owners is illogical,” he says, speaking of his time at XR. “I am not responsible [for climate change]. But by interfering with the infrastructure… you can close the coal mines and the cost [fossil fuel companies] millions if you stop production.
This is just the beginning. Civil disobedience just didn’t work. And while we desperately try – and fail – to make them feel by painting rivers green and disrupting high-level meetings by setting off alarms in buildings, the ecological foundations of our world are collapsing. The climate emergency continues to worsen around us, disproportionately affecting those without the means to cope. Climate justice will not be done unless we force our governments to do it. And the only way to do that is crime.
If we go to Grünewald and let the air out of the tires in every SUV, the super polluters will have to stop driving. If we get rid of private airports and lay on the runways, this might just be a way to get some of the right people to finally listen. If we go to the Rhineland or Lusatia and sabotage the fossil fuel infrastructure, eventually they will stop digging and drilling. If the leaders are put in a position where they can no longer ignore the angry crowd and see the gore-slicked pitchforks illuminated by torchlight from where they sleep, maybe they will reduce their emissions and make laws that protect the planet instead of their wallets. The ruling class will not be convinced by words, only by action.
* The name has been changed.
[ad_2]
Source link