By Andreas Malm
Verso, 2021
Despite the climate movement鈥檚 growth, epitomised by Extinction Rebellion and Student Strike for Climate, fossil fuel extraction continues to grow, and a safe climate can seem dismayingly distant. Given a choice between forgoing capital accumulation and tipping the whole world into a furnace, our rulers prefer the furnace.
In How to Blow up a Pipeline, Andreas Malm asks how the climate movement can emerge from the COVID-19 hiatus as a stronger force. In particular, he questions whether the movement鈥檚 until now near-universal commitment to non-violent protest is holding it back. 鈥淲ill absolute non-violence be the only way, forever the sole admissible tactic in the struggle to abolish fossil fuels? Can we be sure that it will suffice against this enemy? Must we tie ourselves to its mast to reach a safer place?鈥
To make his point, Malm cites examples of popular historic movements, some of which are invoked by today鈥檚 climate campaigners as examples of non-violent change.
The overthrow of Atlantic slavery involved violent slave uprisings and rebellions. The suffragettes of early 20th century Britain regularly engaged in property destruction. The United States civil rights movement was punctuated by urban riots. As part of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela co-founded the armed wing of the African National Congress, [uMkhonto weSiswe 鈥 Spear of the Nation]. The Indian National Congress is known for its non-violent tactics, but violence also played a role in the resistance to British rule from the Great Rebellion of 1857 until independence.
Malm absolutely rules out violence that harms people, but he wants the climate movement to include sabotage and property destruction in its plans.
He puts forward several reasons why these kinds of protests might help 鈥渂reak the spell鈥 of the status quo. Targeting the luxury consumption of the rich in this way could help to stigmatise the notion that the rich can blithely condemn the rest of us to ecological disaster. Physical attacks on new CO2 emitting devices might reduce their use and make them less popular options for new investment. He also speculates that such actions could help bring together a 鈥渞adical flank鈥 of the movement, helping to win partial reforms by making elites more keen to compromise with the movement moderates.
Malm believes such tactics could make for some powerful political symbolism: 鈥淣ext time the wildfires burn through the forests of Europe, take out a digger. Next time a Caribbean island is battered beyond recognition, burst in upon a banquet of luxury emissions or a Shell board meeting. The weather is already political, but it is political from one side only, blowing off the steam built up by the enemy, who is not made to feel the heat or take the blame.鈥
Malm鈥檚 arguments have been met with alarm in some quarters. In a review posted on the Alan Thornett says adopting the book鈥檚 proposals would 鈥渘ot only be wrong but disastrous鈥 and anyone who did so would soon have 鈥渁rmed police kicking down their door鈥. He calls Malm鈥檚 argument an impatient 鈥渂id for a shortcut鈥 resulting from 鈥渇rustration compounded by the lack of a socially just exit strategy from fossil energy鈥.
James Wilt鈥檚 is even harsher: he says How to Blow up a Pipeline 鈥渧eers awfully close to entrapment鈥 鈥 a totally unworthy accusation. More to the point, Wilt says Malm doesn鈥檛 look deeply at the likely outcomes of his proposals, failing to mention any 鈥減lanning for the inevitable backlash鈥 and repression activists would face.
But, as Bue R眉bner Hansen points out in a , Malm鈥檚 鈥減rovocative title makes a pitch for viral controversy, but its contents are more nuanced and equivocal鈥.
Early in the book, Malm says that acts of property destruction should complement, not substitute for, mass movements for climate justice 鈥 disciplined and planned mass protests are still 鈥渢he main way forward鈥. He writes: 鈥淭he determination of the movement to scale up its challenge to business-as-usual by means of ever bigger, bolder mass actions of precisely this kind cannot be called into question.鈥
He recognises that acts of political violence and property destruction could alienate support, so 鈥渘on-violent mass mobilisation should (where possible) be the first resort, militant action the last.鈥
Malm opposes reckless actions 鈥 鈥渃ontrolled political violence鈥 should be regarded a 鈥渇ine art to be mastered鈥 and 鈥渢ime and timing are of the essence鈥. Because violent actions could backfire and 鈥渕ake a movement look so distasteful as to deny it all influence鈥, climate saboteurs must be 鈥渆specially circumspect and mindful鈥 of the wider cause, as the 鈥渘egative effects could be unusually ruinous鈥.
He is very critical of the sabotage tactics of groups such as EarthFirst! and the Earth Liberation Front in North America in the 1980s and '90s. Their acts of 鈥渆cotage鈥 produced 鈥渘o lasting gains鈥 because 鈥渢hey were not performed in a mass movement, but largely in a void鈥.
His opposition to 鈥渢he temptation to fetishise one kind of tactic鈥 includes 鈥減roperty destruction and other forms of violence鈥. Since 鈥渢he tactic with the greatest potential for this movement might be something different鈥, political violence may not be useful for the climate movement after all.
Malm鈥檚 support for political violence is more limited and conditional than some of his critics suggest, but his fondness for provocative formulations must take some of the blame for any misunderstanding. A more accurate title would be Consider blowing up a pipeline, at the right time, after careful consideration, in ways that complement non-violent mass action; but don鈥檛 mess things up for others, definitely don鈥檛 hurt anyone, and maybe don鈥檛 do it at all 鈥 but of course How to Blow up a Pipeline attracts more attention and controversy.
What is radical?
Malm鈥檚 argument that non-violent protest and civil disobedience is a tactic rather than a permanent strategy is well made. The climate movement should not make a fetish of any particular type of action 鈥 but Malm鈥檚 repeated equation of 鈥渕ilitant鈥 protest with violence does not help the discussion.
No particular form of protest is inherently the most radical or militant. Actions that demoralise, divide or hinder the movement are not radical or militant, no matter what slogans are raised or how much property is destroyed.
The types of action Malm discusses 鈥 from deflating SUV tires to destroying fossil fuel infrastructure 鈥 appeal mostly to a minority who are already radical. It is easy to say that such actions must be an organic part of a wider climate movement, but hard to ensure in practice.
Rather than creating an influential 鈥渞adical flank鈥, separating squads of dedicated property-wreckers from the majority who hold liberal illusions is most likely to isolate the left and strengthen the aggressively reformist, eco-modernist wing of the climate movement.
The most radical organisers are those who get more people into motion, helping ever larger numbers to engage in mass action to change the world and change themselves. The most revolutionary acts are those that create conditions in which people can deepen their political understanding and gain confidence in their collective political potential.
The best militants don鈥檛 lead by heroic individual example: they work to maximise experiences that make others more militant. The most important movement leaders are not the best speakers or the most selfless activists 鈥 they are those who make their own leadership redundant by facilitating the development of new leaders.
Malm is genuinely committed to advancing the climate movement, making it more radical and hence more effective at dealing with a crisis caused by capitalism, but his call for sabotage and property destruction by a minority is misplaced, despite the many qualifications he includes.
No matter how sincere it is, How to Blow up a Pipeline undermines the more radical strategy of bringing wider layers of people into struggle and helping them to see themselves as key protagonists in this fight for the future.
[Reprinted from Climate and Capitalism. Simon Butler is co-author of .]