Rupert Read is assistant-professor of philosophy at the University of East Anglia. In the context of this blog he's better known as a leading green campaigner and as one of the co-founders of Extinction Rebellion (XR). This makes an essay he has just published, in which he argues that XR cannot now lead the demand for climate change from the extreme position it has taken as being of note.
In my opinion Rupert has shown some considerable courage in writing this essay. He is criticising some he has worked with. He is saying that there may be a better way to campaign. I think that many will agree with him. I am amongst those who think XR is at least as capable of alienating people as it is of winning support.
The essay is not the easiest read. But it is worth being aware of the argument. This is the introduction:
What next on climate? The need for a new moderate flank
Rupert Read
Oct 6th, 2021
This essay takes stock of the state of ‘the climate movement' in the immediate run-up to COP26 in Glasgow – and in light of its author's expectation that that historic conference will fail us. It argues that it's certain that there will be more and more people in the coming months and years wanting to be involved in meaningful climate action, as more and more wake up to the direness of our predicament, and to there being no-one riding to the rescue. However, a movement that is not prepared to be genuinely inclusive of those who don't reach a certain pre-set standard – of arrestability, or of ‘identity', or of ideology – will fail to achieve such action at scale. Thus there is a clear and present need for a new set of activities and organisations that will be able to be the ‘moderates' to XR, who were created to be a radical flank to actually-existing environmentalism in 2018. This ‘moderate flank' will need to reach further than the organisations that preceded XR managed to do; and to box smarter than XR itself sometimes managed to do. It will have to be designed so as to be more genuinely ideologically and methodologically inclusive.
Thus this essay seeks to build on XR's extraordinary but limited success by seeking to inhabit the space that XR, building in its turn on previous movements (from Occupy to Greenpeace), has so strikingly pulled open. The greatest legacy and achievement of XR may turn out to be a massive multiform moderate flank that looks nothing like it, yet is even more necessary
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well, there is that GBS quote: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
There is certainly a job to be done by “unreasonable” protesters and activists, front-running to highlight the urgency and scale of the problem, and to shift the Overton window.
On the other hand, there is realpolitik, and not letting a perfect theoretical solution stop achieving the best practicable result.
And while there is a long and hard road ahead of us, also recognising how far we have come already. The rapid growth of renewables and change in political tone both raise hope for the future.
The question is can a moderate climate campaign be built up which is big and persuasive enough and quick enough to have any effect. XR has raised public awareness, this has been acknowledged by business and government but their reaction has been just acknowledgment but no sense of urgency and largely greenwash. Blocking the M25 has certainly challenged the government but further disruption may turn public opinion away from Insulate Britain. I hope Rupert Read and other leading climate activists can come up with a new campaign that increases public support and puts more pressure on the government as clearly any signs of a successful CPO26 are slim indeed.
I think there’s actually quite a sensible idea here, and XR represents a somewhat fringe movement, but I think they are consciously doing that to achieve something more moderate. The reality seems to be that unless you do things seen as “extreme” then no one will notice you.
Would we have universal suffrage without the suffragettes causing property damage and chaining themselves to things? If the women had all politely held placards and petitioned their husbands, does anyone honestly believe they would have changed the voting system? Perhaps throwing yourself beneath a horse is a step too far, but passion mattered then, and continues to matter today.
XR are non violent and the most serious thing they have done is block a few roads. I suspect that without groups like them, moderate reform just isn’t possible.
You need to show people these strong feelings, and express them. Strong feelings in politics do matter. That doesn’t mean policy should be produced just from those feelings, but without them, nothing changes at all.
I think the power of mass argument works too
Chris – your argument is logical and relevant. I would add “ideological” to the words passion and emotional. It is not only about feelings but about logical deduction from ongoing, global, climatic change. The ideas about vision, mission, strategy, action etc. in business is translated thus to general, macro issues affecting us all. We are all interdependent, in the end, no one can escape or hide from reality.
Yes, certainly ideological. XR are a protest movement, but of course there’s a corresponding political movement in the Green Party, or clean tech industry trying to make change in the private sector. All XR are doing is getting attention which can then be redirected elsewhere. Their purpose isn’t to create policy at all – it’s to get news coverage and get noticed. Most protest doesn’t even get a casual BBC write up anymore, so there’s value in that.
I understand that blocking roads puts people off the envrionmental movement, but it hardly matters – every angry motorist is another chance to get an XR protestor give a well reasoned argument about why they are angry on TV. My London collegues were very angry about the XR protestors who climbed on the tube, which was arguably counter productive. But hey, they noticed it happened! They wouldn’t have otherwise.
The media then can choose to cover it, and villify them or not, but either way, they are on TV, talking about it. Just like all of the negative coverage about Trump made him more popular, not less, XR will have the same effect on the climate movement. It’s harsh, but true that that’s how the media works today.
It’s not something that should happen in isolation, or as any gateway to policy, but rather as a method to raise awareness and to make sure that climate change cannot be ignored by the political class any longer.
Personally I think its a timely essay.
From what I have read about a number of recent movements there seem to be some major weaknesses (although good on them having a go and thank you):
1) The curse of ‘hyper-individualism’ – many ‘self-realised’ by becoming involved and then had difficulty being part of a movement that had to be organised, and which they had to be the organised (told/asked what to do) within it. They wanted the emotion of being involved but not the more messy stuff where they really had to deal with complexity of the issues. They like spontaneity but not planning. After they do the spontaneity, they go on Facebook.
2) The problem of ‘civil society’ – I’m not sure that people understand what civil society is anymore as they probably think it is what they are supposed to be fighting? ‘Civil society’ was for me where authority meets wider society and where policies and such like can be influenced by the ‘policied’ (civil society can act as a feedback loop to policy makers, and can satisfy the need for authentic influence from those in society). People might genuinely believe that there simply isn’t enough time to build effective civil society relationships in matters like climate change. They may have a point. This sense of urgency may also retard thinking on how and what. But that’s why you need organisation.
3) Naïve Consciousness – as depicted by Marxist theorists (and from what I’ve seen in social housing, I agree with the Marxists) there is an under appreciation of the subtleties of engaging with Government than those in the private sectors with their lobbying and funding power are TOTALLY aware of. Change activists may not have the same funds to play with, but they could learn a lot about technique from the other side so to speak along with being more ‘critically conscious’ . Taking action that potentially hurts supporters is self-defeating in the extreme – look at the trades unions in the 1980s. Everyday people are not the problem – the fight has to be taken to policy makers and lobbying forums where change really cam happen.
4) TINA / Inevitability politics – put simply, too many activists know what they do not want but actually have no ideas on how to create and sustain the alternative – what they want instead. Given the state of education in the country concerning subjects like economics and public policy, it’s not really their fault. But you cannot have a ‘critical consciousness’ without being open and enquiring as to how you succeed beyond what you don’t like. It’s about ideas. Ideas are not opinions. We can know our opinions but ideas come from looking out, not in. Which means go and find out.
Somehow, these 4 factors work together. I hope that XR grows beyond these inhibiting factors for all our sakes.
Lots of that is very true…
Thanks.
The thing about activist fund raising is that you are not going to get funding from people whose lives you disrupt and whose income you threaten by doing so!
I like the way Greenpeace gets out there (for example) in the North Sea (the point of production) instead of disrupting garage forecourts and publicizing that. It has that David v Goliath narrative – small org versus big corporation.
The way XR are going means that THEY might end up looking like the big org’ picking on little people who are just trying to get on with their lives.
I mean, what was all that stuff about jumping on the roofs of tube trains? Tube trains are electric for goodness sake and we need more electric transport. It seemed a but silly to me to be honest.
Rupert Read argues that was their worst moment
I’ll pick up on the TINA element and give an example. The EU/EU executive have been, not surprisingly been rather enervated by energy prices. Simson the Commissioner in chrage of energy came out with “TINA to markets ” with respect to energy markets. The failure to think outside of the box is perhaps the greatest weakness of the Commission has Of course some within the Commission can think “outside the box” & it is with these that I engage. The problem is that once something like “markets & more markets” is embedded getting people to think otherwise is very hard. Point 3 feeds nicely into Point 4 – we(that is me & my fellow conspirators) are up against well funded lobbyists – but we recognise that – so the answer is to work from within.
By the way, in the case of energy markets in the EU – our well worked out idea is a European Central Energy Bank.
Interesting Mike.
But I heard early on R4 last week that whereas Germany and France have gas storage facilities of 80% of current usage demand, the UK has a meagre 8% and has refused to expand them even recently.
So the same dearth of strategic thinking that deleteriously affected our ability to deal with the early days of Covid also contributes to our ability to deal with energy supply.
Our Government is either incompetent OR does this deliberately to ensure there is money to be made/gouged out for the private sector. Or both.
What do we make now of Johnson’s predilection for Russian millionaires? Is it beyond the bounds of imagination to think that Johnson has sold his people down the river on gas supplies in order to get foreign funding for his party?
High quality and effective agnotology is very expensive you know?
The existential threat of environmental calamity has produced surprisingly little direct action, given the enormity of the consequences. It is not overstating the point to say that policies to address the issue trump all others in importance, including so called defence. Yet not a single country reflects this reality politically, though just a few have started that journey.
The lady boiling with frustration at being prevented from getting her children to school by protesters deserves our sympathy, since daily life must go on for her and her family. The reality of climate catastrophe is that this life will be disrupted at all levels tomorrow. That’s the point, tomorrow and daily life demands today as our focus. It is the prime duty of the state to ensure the security of its people and the primary threat to security is the impending climate crisis. Only politicians can intervene effectively here, yet this cretinous section of societies across the globe displays a largely similar ‘skill set’, a perspective bound by the next election or, in undemocratic countries, whatever meaningless conference relates to their legitimacy and an almost wholly national policy perspective. The UK is certainly in the premier division of political cretinism and, desperately sadly, hosts the comng climate summit. Will political leadership emerge to produce meaningful progress and block Johnson from global showboating? The Mail and Express already have their headlines proclaiming this moron as leading the world down the road of salvation.
We’re on the brink of catastrophe and it’s so disappointing that the likelihood is in another five years we’ll still be arguing about the tone and methods of those demanding action.
The reality is, those with power and a desire to retain the status quo will paint whoever the most visible representatives of the movement are as extremists. You only need to see the reaction to Greta Thunberg to know this. She didn’t inconvenience anyone, but was still labelled as mentally unwell, a puppet for her parents and in the pay of ‘big environment’
If this potential movement gets traction they will quickly be labelled unreasonable fanatics.
But there is a public and they can decide
If you think you can why do you not share the same optimism for others?
Interesting comment from someone who isnt young or short of a bob or two – but is quite to the point on this issue
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/11/prince-charles-says-he-totally-understands-frustrations-of-climate-protesters
XR are n’t a monolithic organisation. There are thousands of small groups and they extend globally. They camapaign in all sorts of ways from Amazon Rebellion in Brasil to Animal Rebellion and Money Rebellion here in the UK. XR are n’t trying to be popular, they are raising the profile of these myriad issues.
Insulate Britain is a break away group from XR which have successfully created some media space to discuss the issue which has not been debated at all to date despite years of campaigns by groups such as RIBA and many industry groups. Grenfell and the cladding scandal demonstrates why as an industry and regulatory regime the system needs a good kick to get some action.
There are already more moderate campaigners, Fridays for Future and Greta Thunberg the highest profile.
There are also many other campaigners such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace who generally have also had mixed results. I am not sure what Rupert is expecting as environmentalism isn’t a populist movement and probably never will be sadly. There are too many hard truths to be taken onboard to be popular.
I am half way through the brilliant book, “This is an Uprising”, which proposes that for a movement to be successful, it must involve some form of relevant disruption, sacrifice on the part of participants, and escalation over time. XR ticked the disruption and sacrifice boxes but not escalation or particularly relevant protests. What about instead crowd funding targeted sabbaticals for key workers that would directly impact cabinet ministers, CEOs etc. Funding minister’s bin men to go on climate strike, for example, under a suitable tag line. Including a comic element would also help engage as many donors as possible. If 2 million people donated £10 per week, you could easily cause chaos and force common sense action.
You coulod
But how likely do you think that is?