Climate Defiance: What is the Real Level of Support for Hardcore Climate Activism and What Motivates It?

 

     Outlandish anti-fossil fuel activism in Europe is an occasional thing and sometimes in bad taste like the recent vandalism of valuable works of art. In the U.S. we have development of “direct action” protests. They are touted as non-violent but can involve blockades. One group, Climate Defiance, for a planned blockade of the White House Correspondents Dinner had a stated goal of “aiming to blockade in such large numbers that arrests will be impossible.” I don’t know their metrics or level of active support, but I am quite skeptical of it being that high. On their website is the pledge to “Make support for any fossil fuels as unacceptable on the left as opposing abortion or gay marriage.” Apparently, their effort failed to attract enough media attention to make headlines afterward. They claim to have been part of the voting block that helped to elect Biden, who they now charge with ‘ecocide’ by approving the Willow Project to drill for oil in Alaska. Their main slogan seems to be End Fossil Fuels, not unlike the Keep It in the Ground Movement. In their protest they chanted “No more drilling!” But did such groups really add much to Biden’s victory? I doubt it. Do most Democrats support them? I doubt it. I would guess just a minority, 20% at most or hopefully and more likely much less. My guess is about 5-10%. However, even a vocal minority can be influential. As do other such groups, they try to equate climate justice with racial justice and economic justice. There is probably a little more support for hardcore activism in Europe where groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are active. Groups like Bill McKibben’s 350.org seem to be a little quieter than they have been in the past.

     With companies addressing ESG concerns and with likely permit reforms that will and should weaken the power of mainstream environmental groups to block energy and infrastructure projects, it might be interesting to see how the radical groups react. Such groups and their supporters no doubt had a hand in New York’s recent bans on natural gas in new buildings and in California which is also considering such bans. Biden has proved to be more pragmatic and more problematic for hardcore activist groups than they had hoped, although he still seems beholden to the views of some of those groups. His reckless rhetoric during his campaign about ending fossil fuels may have given them false hope but hopefully wiser and more moderate voices have toned down that tendency. The realities of the need for reliable and affordable energy in light of significant energy cost increases in 2022 no doubt caused a reassessment of priorities. Biden has repeated the often-repeated incorrect claim that solar and wind are the cheapest forms of energy.  

     The Climate Defiance group also held a protest of a Biden Campaign Fundraising Dinner in New York City. Speakers included Jane Fonda and Steven Donziger. Fonda spoke of the need to go further with activism, whatever that really means.

     A couple of newish terms suggest what motivates climate activists. One I’ve been seeing more and more is ‘climate crisis deniers.’ This extends the slight (originating from Holocaust deniers) from those who reject prevailing climate science and those who simply downplay the dangers. Many IPCC scientists would be included as climate crisis deniers or climate emergency deniers. The science of climate change is suggestive but not settled. Needed policy is even further from being clear cut. True believer fanatics attacking more moderate thinkers with slogans and provocative terms and phrases is common among radical groups. Climate apocalypticism is alive and well. In an important sense it functions similarly to a doomsday religious cult. Repent or perish! Another term I’ve been hearing about for a few years is ‘climate anxiety’ or ‘climate distress.’ I wrote about this in my first book, Sensible Decarbonization. More recently I heard a psychiatrist on NPR, who advised climate lawsuits filed by youths, talking about it. The assessment in my book is that it can be a real phenomenon but that it is primarily fueled by activists, those in academia in cahoots with activists, and by media amplification of the doomsday message. The psychiatrist talked about it being very bad among youth and that she herself had to be prescribed anti-anxiety medicines because of her climate anxiety! Really? I would say that such doomsday mental conditioning is more dangerous than climate change. How climate change will happen is not very predictable at present, just more likelihoods of potentially dangerous events. It is not the type of danger one can specifically prepare for with the very notable exception of vulnerable areas preparing for extreme weather events, that may be influenced by climate change. Risk perception is a major factor in how people react to threats and often there is a gap between perceived risk and real risk. This gap is influenced by many factors, including media amplification and the brain’s coping mechanisms.      

    

References:

Climate activists plan to 'blockade' White House Correspondents Dinner, accuse Biden of 'ecocide'. Adam Sabes. Fox News. April 29, 2023. Climate activists plan to 'blockade' White House Correspondents Dinner, accuse Biden of 'ecocide' (msn.com)

Climate Defiance (website). Climate Defiance

Climate Defiance Joined by Steven Donziger, Jane Fonda to Protest Biden Fundraising Dinner. Democracy Now. May 11, 2023. Climate Defiance Joined by Steven Donziger, Jane Fonda to Protest Biden Fundraising Dinner | Democracy Now!

Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Perception. Kent Stewart. Blue Dragon Energy Blog 2.0. Blue Dragon Energy Blog 2.0: Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Perception (bdeb2.blogspot.com)