Why are people so angry about the Just Stop Oil Stonehenge protests? I asked two friends, both equally passionate about the climate crisis, to exchange views - here's how it went down.
I’m always in awe of JSO protesters and the personal sacrifices they make on our behalf.
This is one of my favourite pieces on their activism, including lots of great lines such as “people may ‘shoot the messenger’, but they do — at least, sometimes — hear the message…” & “Our society loves civil disobedience — as long as it happens in the past or somewhere else” https://www.ft.com/content/4a0ab6f3-83fc-4e89-b6a2-c05c85f3791b
And given the new Labour govt has committed to not granting any new oil and gas licenses in the North Sea, that seems like a big win for JSO no?
All of those big movements of change I referenced at the start had direct action at their heart. All of those protesters were vilified by the press, establishment and governments (the anti-suffragette Cat and Mouse act, anyone?) And all of those movements are now lauded as central pillars in our shared democratic story.
I do think the environmental movement is crying out for the type of once-in-a-generation leadership figures all of those movements also had in common, though.
Of course I agree Matt, and I think my main points are that this doesn't look like Pankhurst or King type leadership. I think that's because the civil rights and suffrage movements were very clear about their demands for emancipation, but Just Stop Oil, as a demand, is not so clear. It needs an 'in its place we will...' solution to become a movement we can all get behind. That's what I'm hoping will emrge from, or becuase of, our new government.
I agree with Tim on this point, I don't think the leadership looks like a Pankhurst or King type. Maybe that's because as you said Matt at somepoint we all have to make sacrifices.
I think those individual sacrifices happen when a vast number of ordinary people lead across geographically based communities. I think it happens when we all feel like our impact is meaningful, when it improves our life's, and when we all have a route to involvement in local politics through Citizens assemblies.
So much of what we have to do is internal, and we need people all around us to go together on that journey.
I find that I need to see and feel something positive and to grab hold of that feeling with others. As Tim said, we have to demonstrate a more hopeful future, but I also think we have to begin to feel it collectively.
It's partly why I'm so interested in investigating what it means to be a citizen not a consumer. We can become citizens (and that can mean many different thinks to different people but, mainly it translates as having agency beyond consumption), and feel the change that idea of thinking of ourselves as citizens makes to our life. That then gives us the space to step away from the dominant consumer story, into something new.
Thinking of myself as a citizen makes me happier, more connected, makes me feel more agency, and it makes me more likely to change.
We can then share that story positively and bring people along for the ride. We can begin to demonstrate that what we do matters, and we can start to change the system from the inside.
I think that approach can be led by people everywhere, in fact it has to be, each community needs something slightly different and why I'm drawn to creating a network, and collective action.
Really great conversation both, certainly helped me analyse my own muddled thoughts!
I still think direct action is an important part of opening up the space but that Stone Henge wasn't the right place for the message.
Yes it totally did Tim. You make a lot of valid points, which I often discuss with people close to me, and I enjoyed the "lost the druids" line a lot.
In some ways I prefer it when JSO target (ofc without permanently damaging) art/cultural works as opposed to roads/airports as it makes it less easy for them to be accused of targeting working people and turning the environment into a class/culture war thing & there is also the idea that JSO being radical makes more moderate actions seem more palatable to people eg this study https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666?login=false#369463521
But I concede these tactics can also drive people who would otherwise support them away, which isn't helpful given the urgency of everything
There is quite lot evidence that this is actually happening already (driving people out) and I would say last EU election actually support those evidences to some extend, greens lost most chairs from all factions and factions who gain most are all against green deal (and green politic in general) so it is safe to say that despite rising awareness we see loss of support for "the cause"
"The general willingness to support climate activists has de facto halved since 2021, from 68 to 34 percent."
"The proportion of those who think that the climate and environmental movement is "open to people like me joining" has decreased by more than half (from 63 to 29 percent); and those who think that the movement speaks an "understandable language" (from 65 to 28 percent). "
Preface I'm for some targeted direct activism, I take part in it sometimes, and I'm discussing this in context of making sure it's effective. So thanks for making space for a proper debate and this isn't coming in anti action:
I think a difference between this study and the actions we're discussing is the radical flank in the study use even somewhat violent tactics, but directly against the organisation who were the root cause of the problem they're against and I think with the explanation of why the cause explained at the same time. We're actually seeing radical tactics but against totally separate people/places and usually reported without context of why the cause matters or why that approach. That is because of a biased media, but something activists have to work with.
"In 5 of 6 studies, negative reactions to **extreme protest actions led participants to support the movement's central cause less**, and these effects were largely independent of individuals' prior ideology or views on the issue", but it depends on the circumstances.
"Observers supported violent protests against a corrupt organization"! & protesters should "emphasize the corruption and immorality of the targeted group" (and the urgency) which I feel some current direct actions per JSO often have struggled to do well enough - especially important when attacking something seemingly unrelated
With this in mind I've only really been minded to participate in Westminster direct actions and am more wary of some elsewhere. It is tricky though the point about court injunctions.
Yeah I guess there are key cultural figures within the movement like Greta and David Attenborough, who I’m sure kids of the future will study, but agree we’re crying out for real leadership. Roger Hallam has never seemed to seek that role but then JSO and XR seem deliberately horizontal anyway
My worry is that stunts like this are the story in themselves rather than highlighting the wider issues. Calum's point about the effectiveness of the Insulate Britain campaign might counter this. (Side note the Social Change Lab report is areally interesting read, thanks). I'd love to know how effective the stunts are in growing the climate movement in the medium term. Appreciate that might not be the intention but I think it's an important aspect here. In France we've just seen Macron get a kicking, in part because he tried to make social and environmental changes without bringing everyone along for the ride.
I worry that the perception of JSO and XR is that it's not for everyone and so less effective than it could be. That said I don't know what organisation or figure head could cut through the noise so I don't begrudge them a place at the table.
It might have been you Matt who said (I paraphrase) "it doesn't matter if they think we're stupid or if they laugh at us, as long as they are talking about us" Adolf Hitler. If people aren't talking about the issue then nothing ever happens. Once the issue becomes talked about and in the public domain - then the talking around the table can start. It's like ecology. Every bit needs to be there for it to function well.
On leadership. I feel strongly that it is the people's voice and people's actions. It is powerful when doctors, nurses, electricians etc. are standing up in court and telling the jury why they, respectable people, are doing what they are doing.
I am getting a lot from this discussion in so many ways, thank you Calum and Tim and Matt and Sam and everyone else who is engaging in and continuing the discussion both online and in the real world. I have had a good number of conversations in the last few days that have come from this thread.
I am in a very similar position to Sam in that I can see both sides and in order to try and figure out if and how I might get off the fence, if that is needed- I am not sure it is? I am thinking about the following thought experiment.
Often, if I am thinking about how to lead people in dangerous terrain, if I am splitboard or ski guiding for example, and the conditions are deteriorating to the point there is a concern time is running out I have learnt that it's useful to both try and help people raise their game in order to be able to best help themselves and understand and deal with the urgency of the situation but also 'meet the group where they are at'. This is not easy and sometimes seems to be diametrically opposed in the goals. It means the group are likely to have to travel and take decisions based on the least resourced person. People who are more able to take on the urgency both mentally and physically will be frustrated by the necessary slower pace, people who feel a more cautious approach will get them to the plan B route in good time can become exasperated with those who feel they can go faster and harder and some less resourced people might need a lot of support just to be able to take on the situation in any meaningful way.
That is a difficult place to be as a leader.
There are options though in this scenario at least, and I know it doesn't map perfectly well on to the discussion at hand, but it does make me wonder if as well as having a situation where the people pushing hard and fast could go on ahead without jeopardising those less resourced people in the group, as long as they are able and willing to handle and take on the risks and consequences of doing that ( and like Sam I have so much respect for people taking direct action and dealing with the consequences of doing so), while those who can work comfortably and effectively with plan b do that and the group leader (I am still in snow guide mode) works to support and resource those who are not able yet to take on and deal with the situation for whatever reason. The plan and hope being everyone reaches safety in time and maybe even a bit more quickly if those pushing hard and fast alert help for example. This is just on version of this metaphor though and I can think of others where the context would mean anyone pushing hard and fast might have severe negative consequences and on the other hand, scenarios where without some people pushing hard and fast for help disaster is looming. In all though, as a leader, I would be working as hard as I could to try and help those not able to take on the situation to be able to take it on.
This brings me to consider Matt's comments about what is going on when so many people are apparently not taking on the urgency, or perhaps not able to? What's missing, what kind of 'support' might be needed to give people the personal resources to take on such a critical situation in a more meaningful way? How to alert people to the need to be courageous, think differently with a level of responsibility for self and others that is not something usually part of their everyday lives so far?
I understand the frustration Calum voices when he describes needing to wake people up to the urgency but perhaps there is a step before or alongside this? Or maybe Matt is right, people are just too comfortable. Does being too comfortable undermine a persons ability to face difficult and complex existential decisions? What do we mean by comfortable? Is there something missing in this picture?
Thanks again for this thread and the continued action and discussions.
A great discussion! Thanks to Tim and Callum (and Matt) for spending time on this chat. It’s true that neither the “serious” nor direct action folk are taken seriously by everyone. Different tactics are effective at different times, and, as many here have noted, we need them all. But I don’t think we can know what is effective right now because it’s so hard to know what people think. Whether we look at news reporting, social media post or commenter threads, all that offers is the hot takes of folk either willing to chat and/or excited to shout. Callum points to shifts in the Green vote in the UK House of Commons, which I agree is a strong indication of a political shift in our thinking on climate. But shifts aren’t necessarily permanent so who knows what happens in the UK in 5 years. But then, who knows what political or news images will make history? Making news with direct action and lobbying politicians to make policy change are essential, but so are other paths like this - of considered conversation and dialogue that meet people where they are (as we say) and in the activities that are meaningful to them. Thanks again for the time you’ve taken for the chat!
Enjoyed this discussion, thanks both.
I’m always in awe of JSO protesters and the personal sacrifices they make on our behalf.
This is one of my favourite pieces on their activism, including lots of great lines such as “people may ‘shoot the messenger’, but they do — at least, sometimes — hear the message…” & “Our society loves civil disobedience — as long as it happens in the past or somewhere else” https://www.ft.com/content/4a0ab6f3-83fc-4e89-b6a2-c05c85f3791b
And given the new Labour govt has committed to not granting any new oil and gas licenses in the North Sea, that seems like a big win for JSO no?
All of those big movements of change I referenced at the start had direct action at their heart. All of those protesters were vilified by the press, establishment and governments (the anti-suffragette Cat and Mouse act, anyone?) And all of those movements are now lauded as central pillars in our shared democratic story.
I do think the environmental movement is crying out for the type of once-in-a-generation leadership figures all of those movements also had in common, though.
Of course I agree Matt, and I think my main points are that this doesn't look like Pankhurst or King type leadership. I think that's because the civil rights and suffrage movements were very clear about their demands for emancipation, but Just Stop Oil, as a demand, is not so clear. It needs an 'in its place we will...' solution to become a movement we can all get behind. That's what I'm hoping will emrge from, or becuase of, our new government.
I agree with Tim on this point, I don't think the leadership looks like a Pankhurst or King type. Maybe that's because as you said Matt at somepoint we all have to make sacrifices.
I think those individual sacrifices happen when a vast number of ordinary people lead across geographically based communities. I think it happens when we all feel like our impact is meaningful, when it improves our life's, and when we all have a route to involvement in local politics through Citizens assemblies.
So much of what we have to do is internal, and we need people all around us to go together on that journey.
I find that I need to see and feel something positive and to grab hold of that feeling with others. As Tim said, we have to demonstrate a more hopeful future, but I also think we have to begin to feel it collectively.
It's partly why I'm so interested in investigating what it means to be a citizen not a consumer. We can become citizens (and that can mean many different thinks to different people but, mainly it translates as having agency beyond consumption), and feel the change that idea of thinking of ourselves as citizens makes to our life. That then gives us the space to step away from the dominant consumer story, into something new.
Thinking of myself as a citizen makes me happier, more connected, makes me feel more agency, and it makes me more likely to change.
We can then share that story positively and bring people along for the ride. We can begin to demonstrate that what we do matters, and we can start to change the system from the inside.
I think that approach can be led by people everywhere, in fact it has to be, each community needs something slightly different and why I'm drawn to creating a network, and collective action.
Really great conversation both, certainly helped me analyse my own muddled thoughts!
I still think direct action is an important part of opening up the space but that Stone Henge wasn't the right place for the message.
Thanks Gav - totally with you on the feeling of citizenship too.
Thanks Sam. I hope my respect came through clearly enough, and I do think we need the people who are prepared to get noisy and disobedient.
Yes it totally did Tim. You make a lot of valid points, which I often discuss with people close to me, and I enjoyed the "lost the druids" line a lot.
In some ways I prefer it when JSO target (ofc without permanently damaging) art/cultural works as opposed to roads/airports as it makes it less easy for them to be accused of targeting working people and turning the environment into a class/culture war thing & there is also the idea that JSO being radical makes more moderate actions seem more palatable to people eg this study https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666?login=false#369463521
But I concede these tactics can also drive people who would otherwise support them away, which isn't helpful given the urgency of everything
There is quite lot evidence that this is actually happening already (driving people out) and I would say last EU election actually support those evidences to some extend, greens lost most chairs from all factions and factions who gain most are all against green deal (and green politic in general) so it is safe to say that despite rising awareness we see loss of support for "the cause"
This survey from Germany shows it quite nicely
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/support-climate-movement-halves-germans-reject-street-blockades-survey
https://www.moreincommon.de/klimabewegung/
"The general willingness to support climate activists has de facto halved since 2021, from 68 to 34 percent."
"The proportion of those who think that the climate and environmental movement is "open to people like me joining" has decreased by more than half (from 63 to 29 percent); and those who think that the movement speaks an "understandable language" (from 65 to 28 percent). "
Super interesting. Thanks for sharing
Preface I'm for some targeted direct activism, I take part in it sometimes, and I'm discussing this in context of making sure it's effective. So thanks for making space for a proper debate and this isn't coming in anti action:
I think a difference between this study and the actions we're discussing is the radical flank in the study use even somewhat violent tactics, but directly against the organisation who were the root cause of the problem they're against and I think with the explanation of why the cause explained at the same time. We're actually seeing radical tactics but against totally separate people/places and usually reported without context of why the cause matters or why that approach. That is because of a biased media, but something activists have to work with.
Action not targeting either the root corruption or elite has been shown to be dangerous in terms of support for the cause itself not just the movement: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338562538_The_activist's_dilemma_Extreme_protest_actions_reduce_popular_support_for_social_movements page 22-23 in particular.
"In 5 of 6 studies, negative reactions to **extreme protest actions led participants to support the movement's central cause less**, and these effects were largely independent of individuals' prior ideology or views on the issue", but it depends on the circumstances.
"Observers supported violent protests against a corrupt organization"! & protesters should "emphasize the corruption and immorality of the targeted group" (and the urgency) which I feel some current direct actions per JSO often have struggled to do well enough - especially important when attacking something seemingly unrelated
With this in mind I've only really been minded to participate in Westminster direct actions and am more wary of some elsewhere. It is tricky though the point about court injunctions.
Yeah I guess there are key cultural figures within the movement like Greta and David Attenborough, who I’m sure kids of the future will study, but agree we’re crying out for real leadership. Roger Hallam has never seemed to seek that role but then JSO and XR seem deliberately horizontal anyway
Isn't it nice when people have time and space to have considered discussions?
I kind of fall on Tim's side of this discussion but haven't worked out whether this is down to my comfortable, Lib Dem upbringing.
In terms of visibility the protests seem to do their job at least online. Interest in Just Stop Oil peaks when they make something 100% more Dutch - https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&q=%2Fg%2F11rvlxh_57&hl=en-GB
My worry is that stunts like this are the story in themselves rather than highlighting the wider issues. Calum's point about the effectiveness of the Insulate Britain campaign might counter this. (Side note the Social Change Lab report is areally interesting read, thanks). I'd love to know how effective the stunts are in growing the climate movement in the medium term. Appreciate that might not be the intention but I think it's an important aspect here. In France we've just seen Macron get a kicking, in part because he tried to make social and environmental changes without bringing everyone along for the ride.
I worry that the perception of JSO and XR is that it's not for everyone and so less effective than it could be. That said I don't know what organisation or figure head could cut through the noise so I don't begrudge them a place at the table.
Thanks Andy.
It might have been you Matt who said (I paraphrase) "it doesn't matter if they think we're stupid or if they laugh at us, as long as they are talking about us" Adolf Hitler. If people aren't talking about the issue then nothing ever happens. Once the issue becomes talked about and in the public domain - then the talking around the table can start. It's like ecology. Every bit needs to be there for it to function well.
On leadership. I feel strongly that it is the people's voice and people's actions. It is powerful when doctors, nurses, electricians etc. are standing up in court and telling the jury why they, respectable people, are doing what they are doing.
Cheers Rich
🍿 you didn't disappoint on this one.
I am getting a lot from this discussion in so many ways, thank you Calum and Tim and Matt and Sam and everyone else who is engaging in and continuing the discussion both online and in the real world. I have had a good number of conversations in the last few days that have come from this thread.
I am in a very similar position to Sam in that I can see both sides and in order to try and figure out if and how I might get off the fence, if that is needed- I am not sure it is? I am thinking about the following thought experiment.
Often, if I am thinking about how to lead people in dangerous terrain, if I am splitboard or ski guiding for example, and the conditions are deteriorating to the point there is a concern time is running out I have learnt that it's useful to both try and help people raise their game in order to be able to best help themselves and understand and deal with the urgency of the situation but also 'meet the group where they are at'. This is not easy and sometimes seems to be diametrically opposed in the goals. It means the group are likely to have to travel and take decisions based on the least resourced person. People who are more able to take on the urgency both mentally and physically will be frustrated by the necessary slower pace, people who feel a more cautious approach will get them to the plan B route in good time can become exasperated with those who feel they can go faster and harder and some less resourced people might need a lot of support just to be able to take on the situation in any meaningful way.
That is a difficult place to be as a leader.
There are options though in this scenario at least, and I know it doesn't map perfectly well on to the discussion at hand, but it does make me wonder if as well as having a situation where the people pushing hard and fast could go on ahead without jeopardising those less resourced people in the group, as long as they are able and willing to handle and take on the risks and consequences of doing that ( and like Sam I have so much respect for people taking direct action and dealing with the consequences of doing so), while those who can work comfortably and effectively with plan b do that and the group leader (I am still in snow guide mode) works to support and resource those who are not able yet to take on and deal with the situation for whatever reason. The plan and hope being everyone reaches safety in time and maybe even a bit more quickly if those pushing hard and fast alert help for example. This is just on version of this metaphor though and I can think of others where the context would mean anyone pushing hard and fast might have severe negative consequences and on the other hand, scenarios where without some people pushing hard and fast for help disaster is looming. In all though, as a leader, I would be working as hard as I could to try and help those not able to take on the situation to be able to take it on.
This brings me to consider Matt's comments about what is going on when so many people are apparently not taking on the urgency, or perhaps not able to? What's missing, what kind of 'support' might be needed to give people the personal resources to take on such a critical situation in a more meaningful way? How to alert people to the need to be courageous, think differently with a level of responsibility for self and others that is not something usually part of their everyday lives so far?
I understand the frustration Calum voices when he describes needing to wake people up to the urgency but perhaps there is a step before or alongside this? Or maybe Matt is right, people are just too comfortable. Does being too comfortable undermine a persons ability to face difficult and complex existential decisions? What do we mean by comfortable? Is there something missing in this picture?
Thanks again for this thread and the continued action and discussions.
A great discussion! Thanks to Tim and Callum (and Matt) for spending time on this chat. It’s true that neither the “serious” nor direct action folk are taken seriously by everyone. Different tactics are effective at different times, and, as many here have noted, we need them all. But I don’t think we can know what is effective right now because it’s so hard to know what people think. Whether we look at news reporting, social media post or commenter threads, all that offers is the hot takes of folk either willing to chat and/or excited to shout. Callum points to shifts in the Green vote in the UK House of Commons, which I agree is a strong indication of a political shift in our thinking on climate. But shifts aren’t necessarily permanent so who knows what happens in the UK in 5 years. But then, who knows what political or news images will make history? Making news with direct action and lobbying politicians to make policy change are essential, but so are other paths like this - of considered conversation and dialogue that meet people where they are (as we say) and in the activities that are meaningful to them. Thanks again for the time you’ve taken for the chat!