How NOT To Blow Up a Pipeline
I’m open to ideas on saving the Earth from climate catastrophe. In fact, I hope to learn of a better — or at least equally effective plan — to the one I currently favor.
Those of you who have been following me know that I’ve been very impressed by the ideas of Andreas Malm in his book How To Blow Up A Pipeline. Malm suggests that given nature of climate catastrophe, and the very limited time we have left, citizens need to repeatedly perform acts of sabotage against fossil fuel targets. From keying SUVs to blowing up pipelines, we need to make fossil fuels a risky investment, killing off the industry that will otherwise soon end civilization and bring about an age of struggle and suffering for our grandchildren.
By the way, I’m aware that such a movement would be labeled as terrorist and that the government would try to suppress it with brutal force. It’s not an easy plan or one guaranteed to succeed. But it’s the only viable one that I’ve heard. So far.
We don’t have time or perhaps even the ability to work through the system. Anyway, the system is awash in oil money and won’t listen to us. The Malm approach is the only approach that we could begin immediately and have some chance of success.
Unless there’s another really great idea.
Because, honestly, personally I don’t want to blow up pipelines or key SUVs. Yeah, I’d cheer a movement that included these acts — and crippled the oil industry and reduced CO2 emissions. But I couldn’t bring myself to do those things. Hell, I can’t even fold the corners of pages in books I own to save my place. I’m nearly as gentle with things as I strive to be with people.
But any plan that could have any chance of stopping or even blunting the climate apocalypse would need to meet the challenges of the situation.
- It would need to begin almost immediately and have an effect very, very quickly.
- It must be under the control of ordinary people, not business or political leaders or the current political/economic system.
- It must have REAL effects, especially the sharp reduction of CO2 emissions. Political “wins” or psychological “victories” would be meaningless.
I haven’t (yet) been able to think of such an alternative plan. Nor have I read of one.
Have you? Or should we move ahead with Malm? Thoughts? Ideas?