News

The ‘new’ climate politics of Extinction Rebellion?

The openMovements series invites leading social scientists to share their research results and perspectives on contemporary social struggles.

XR twitter. November 17, 2018. Fair use.

During October and November 2018, a
new environmental campaign called Extinction Rebellion (XR) has attracted
widespread mainstream media attention in the UK, with its call to ‘Fight for
Life’ in the face of an ‘unprecedented
global emergency’.

Currently, it is trying to set up
chapters in many other parts of Europe and the US as well. A series of high
profile actions, including a blockade of the UK government’s Department
of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy,
culminated on Saturday, November 17, in a day of mass civil disobedience, as
6000 activists shut down five major road bridges over
the Thames in central London.

For those following the histories of
protest, this type of action is nothing new. But it does appear that XR is
currently able to attract exceptional attention and participation. Part of this
might be due to timing. In October, two devastating reports on the global
environment were published: the latest IPCC report made it clear that there
would have to be major and immediate social and economic changes to keep
global warming below 1.5oC. Then, WWF released its annual The Living Planet report
which showed an average decline of 60%
in vertebrate species populations since 1970. At
the same time, long prison sentences for three protesters who had disrupted
fracking for shale gas in Lancashire received major national coverage, although
their
sentences were later overturned on appeal. In
addition, the election of Jair Bolsonaro as President of Brazil, and in
particular his plans for the Amazon, deepened the sense of crisis.

Making use of this perfect media storm,
XR’s
‘Declaration of Rebellion’ on 31 October was
supported by well-known UK environmentalists including Green Party MP Caroline
Lucas, journalist George Monbiot, and the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan
Williams.

But there have been many moments of
global attention for environmental crisis before, and these have not led to
this kind or scale of mobilisation. So what, if anything, sets the ‘extinction
rebellion’ apart from previous campaigns? There are at least three ways in
which XR occupies a remarkable position in this context, relating to its
framing of the problem, its understanding of who has the responsibility for taking
action to deal with it, and its strategic call for making those responsible act
(or as social movement scholars like to call it: diagnostic, prognostic, and
motivational framing).

Catastrophism and disaster

Firstly, in its framing of the
climate problem, XR is exploring new ground for an environmental movement in
the UK. While environmental movements typically combine urgency and optimism
(‘if we act now, we can still solve this problem’), XR is
clearly emphasising catastrophism and disaster (‘We will not be led quietly to annihilation by the
elites and politicians’,
write the group).

During one of its actions this month, XR activists hung a banner from Westminster Bridge in London
bearing the legend: ‘Climate Change: We’re Fucked.’ In many of its public
statements, it embraces the importance of grieving for the losses humanity has
already endured and still faces. In so doing, XR echoes the aims of other
groups, like Dark Mountain, which already in 2009 placed acceptance, grief, and
coping as central to its aims.  

Yet XR remains committed to battling
climate change, as if to say: we’re screwed, but we still have a choice, even
if it is only a choice over how bad it will get. While somewhat awkward, this
framing may resonate well with the emotional experience of many who are
concerned with climate change and mass extinction today; people who feel
trapped between a sense that they’re fighting for a hopeless cause (especially
considering the lock-in effect of so-called ‘tipping points’), and a refusal to
accept defeat and its planetary implications. People…
feel trapped between a sense that they’re fighting for a hopeless cause… and a
refusal to accept defeat and its planetary implications.

While XR’s talk of extinction and
annihilation is arresting, it is also depoliticising: it frames the question as
a moral one which affects us all equally, passing over the questions of
who is most vulnerable to climate change, over the power structure of climate
politics, and over questions of history and justice, debt and inequality.

It has already been criticized for
this framing. Referring to XR’s apocalyptic message on the banner it dropped on
Westminster Bridge, Jamie Henn of 350.org argued that “It
is one thing to say such things from the safety of London, but it’s another if
you are living on the frontline of climate impacts. Some people don’t have the
privilege to give up.”

In this way, XR breaks with recent radical
climate actions in the UK which have explicitly sought to connect public policy
and consumption practices with questions of social class, poverty, ethnic
minority exclusion, and neo-colonialism. Activists who occupied the runway at Heathrow in July 2015 stressed that
whilst ‘the victims of climate change are black and brown poor communities in
the global South’, those who benefit from airport expansion are ‘a
tiny elite’.

Activists who did likewise at London
City airport in September 2016 did so because ‘climate
change is a racist crisis’. Many of the activists currently on
trial in Chelmsford, and facing a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for
blocking a Home Office deportation
flight at Stansted in March 2017, have
a history of activism in environmental campaigns, such as over university
fossil fuel divestment and BP’s sponsorship of the Tate. XR may be a different type
of campaign; but it is nonetheless remarkable that it does not address issues
of inequality and justice.

This is probably a tactical choice:
XR aims to keep its message focused on the urgency of climate action to
maximise support from across the political spectrum. But inevitably a
mobilisation of this kind is open to others with alternative framings. For
example, mid-November actions in London included civil disobedience at the
Brazilian embassy, coordinated with LGBTQI activists and Brazilian Women
Against Fascism UK. And in XR’s occupation of London bridges campaigners from
Mongolia, West Papua, Bangladesh and Ghana spoke about the impact of climate
change, colonialism, and fossil fuel corporations
on the Global South. Thus whatever the aim of XR’s
initiators, political questions of justice will arise in protests about climate
change.

xtinction rebellion.

‘bringing
the (nation) state back in’

Beyond its diagnostic framing,
secondly, XR is also somewhat exceptional in its understanding of
responsibility. Its tactics represent a break with recent trends towards DIY (Do
It Yourself) environmentalism. Faced with decades of inadequate government
policy, many citizens have embraced types of action that pursue a direct
positive effect on environmental goods, such as by adopting or promoting more
sustainable lifestyles, or by opposing environmental bads through direct action
against things like open cast coal mining and fracking. Though very different,
both DIY-strategies share the virtue of not appealing to, and relying on,
governmental action, instead preferring unmediated intervention.

But this DIY approach is seen by many
to have important shortcomings, especially in terms of the scale and endurance
of effects: neither the adoption of more virtuous behaviours by individual
citizens, nor the accomplishment of targeted acts of obstruction or property
destruction are based on the successful and sustained public mobilization of
large enough numbers of people. Nor is there, in the eyes of XR, evidence that large
NGOs or green parties can respond effectively to current ecological crises as
it has recently also challenged the
mainstream environmental movement for its failures (occupying the offices of Greenpeace UK).

In raising questions about scale, the
importance of government policy is underlined. Some have therefore begun to
argue that states’ apparent inability to address environmental issues should
not be taken for granted: who says governments aren’t so much unable, but
rather simply unwilling, to act? Even though XR has found some (such as the
Green Party politician Jenny Jones) who are willing to say that conventional
politics has failed, XR squarely puts the responsibility to act back with the
government. XR is not direct action so much as indirect action: forcing the
government to act is the clear aim of its actions and demands.

XR is thus part of a trend to ‘bring
the (nation) state back in’: for a long time, scholars, NGOs, media and
politicians, have placed the onus of climate action in the international arena
(if not with consumers’ individual responsibility), expecting global governance
institutions like the UN climate change convention (UNFCCC) to come up with
solutions to the climate crisis.

Yet in the lead in to the 2015 Paris
climate summit (COP21), we increasingly saw climate activists reject
any possibility of the UNFCCC solving the climate crisis. Equally, other state and non-state actors have increasingly
embraced the notion that states should lead on climate action, and that the
main role of international arenas is to coordinate ‘nationally determined
commitments’ (NDCs).[1] Whilst XR’s demands are
far removed from this type of institutional language, it also adopts a strategy
that relies on the state to address climate change. States should lead on climate action, and … the main role of
international arenas is to coordinate ‘nationally determined commitments’
(NDCs).

Unusual
suspects

Finally, XR stands out in how it
seeks to make governments accept these responsibilities. Instead of using
traditional forms of lobbying or climate marches to advance policy change, XR
promotes the widespread use of mass civil disobedience. There are precedents in
recent climate activism, such as the sit-in outside the White House in 2011 to
protest the Keystone
XL Pipeline. And similar to the annual “Ende Gelände” shut
down of open cast lignite coal mines in Germany, one main goal in these protests has been to get concerned
citizens from outside the hard core of environmentalists to engage in more
radical tactics.

Doing this is designed to have two
effects: to legitimize a strategy otherwise considered the terrain of radicals,
and to increase exposure. This may indeed be one of the reasons why XR is now
attracting so much attention.

At the action at the Department of
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, one grandfather who participated in a
street blockade explained on XR’s Facebook livestream that he had never done
anything like this before, but that he feared the looming crisis more than
being arrested or imprisoned. He also indicated that XR was giving great
support for those who wanted to try this type of action. Providing both
motivation and support, XR seeks to enable the ‘unusual suspects’ to escalate
environmental activism.

But it is also important to note that
XR is pursuing a particular kind of civil disobedience. XR provides training
and emphasises the importance of being accountable for your actions;
effectively, this means accepting arrest and trial, and preparing yourself
psychologically for prison. Part of the aim appears to be to create a crisis by
filling the jails.

For a while, this ‘newness’ may
attract media attention, but a classic lesson for social movements is that this
effect wears off of over time. The media gets used to a certain repertoire,
which in turn loses its news-worthiness. The authorities adjust by changing
their practices. They might for example not press charges against those they
arrest; or they might make the experience of containment or arrest more
unpleasant.

Activists are then faced with a
series of difficult strategic decisions, from renouncing their previously
successful attention-winning tactics, to engaging in a media-driven ‘arms race’
of increasingly spectacular actions. How XR navigates these decisions may
determine its future.

Mass movement?

XR fits in a longstanding tradition
of transgressive environmental action; but it is also novel in the British and
wider European context, notably in its emphasis on grief, its alarmism, and its
privileging of moral action over political analysis, as well as its emphasis on
demanding action from government through civil disobedience.

This is perhaps precisely what makes
the campaign so potent now. Its success in getting thousands of people to
undertake civil disobedience is impressive, but as with any new movement, it
remains to be seen whether it can maintain this momentum, particularly in the
absence of an underpinning mass membership.

Of course, XR’s stated aim is to
build a mass movement. This month’s events may have kick-started this, and like
all movements, if it develops, it will come in part from existing networks. But
creating a movement that can have the impact XR aims for will require
confronting the political as well as the moral challenges posed by climate
change. First and foremost, to achieve XR’s aim of reducing actual (not ‘net’)
carbon emissions to zero by 2025, there will need to be other kinds of
democratic political action beyond a demand that governments act.


[1] Bäckstrand, Karin, et al. "Non-state
actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond."
(2017): 561-579.

Comments Off on The ‘new’ climate politics of Extinction Rebellion?