Conversation

Most of the climate movement agrees on much more important and fundamental points than we disagree. For example (hopefully):
(1) we have to stop burning fossil fuels
(2) we must take action
(3) a diversity of tactics is good

I feel like the rest falls into specific views on what tactics work best, and what communication strategies work best. I do not know the definitive answer to these questions, but I am experimenting like hell. I plan to give both myself, and others who may have different strategies, different theories of change, room to experiment. Some experiments fail: they don’t achieve our objective, they cause some harm that we didn’t foresee. It’s important to share what we can, listen to each other, learn as quickly as we can, & keep going.

One thing that I would love to see happen this year in the climate movement is more and better communication between inside- and outside-beltway climate justice groups. There are so many missed opportunities in ongoing campaigns, where media moments created by disruptive activists generate the opening to bring groups with a more legislative focus to the negotiating table. This is typically an accident, as @ExtinctionR type groups are not always in communication with @citizensclimate type groups (although some are, locally). Even if folks do not agree on tactics or theories of change, some mutual trust and exchange of info on (at least) timing could help us engineer the so-called "radical flank effect" in a much more efficient way.

If you are in this fight, I love you and I support you. If you are not already plugged into a local group whose theory of change and tactics resonate with you, here is one way to find that group:
The March to End Fossil Fuels is actually a series of events (not just a march) in NYC, with local satellite events in the works, many groups working in coordination, many risk levels, and many ways to participate: https://www.endfossilfuels.us/getinvolved

Laaaast thing: privilege and necessity often determine what we are willing to risk as activists. Necessity drives Indigenous and frontline communities to defend their literal land and homes from point source pollution. I am also driven by necessity, but enabled by privilege. I am a white-passing, mostly cis, highly educated professional in a rich Global North country. A lot of people complain that disruptive activism is too white, and it totally is (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-growing-radical-flank-of-the-climate-movement-as-the-world-burns/). But there is a reason for that - being white makes it easier and safer to engage in higher risk activism. So I guess what I'm saying is: wealthy/healthy/white/male/cis/tenured profs - you could probably do a lot without ever being charged of a crime, or fired. It's important for us to understand what our privileges and capacities are, and engage accordingly. I try not to judge others' choices because not all aspects of privilege and capacity are reliably visible. If you can, join us, the water is (way too) warm.