Dana Fisher, Director of the Center for Environment, Community & Equity at American University, explores the interplay between climate activism and political oppression. She argues that state violence could galvanize public action against climate-deniers. The conversation delves into the impacts of fossil fuels on politics, the dangers of misinformation during crises, and the need for grassroots movements to drive change. Dana discusses how past social movements inform today's energy transitions while emphasizing the power of citizen mobilization in the face of a climate crisis.
State violence and repression, paradoxically, can stimulate greater public mobilization for climate action and resistance to oppressive policies.
The climate movement faces significant challenges from corporate interests that prioritize incremental change over the bold systemic reforms needed for genuine progress.
Deep dives
The Role of Mass Mobilization in Climate Action
Mass mobilization is recognized as a crucial factor in driving the climate movement toward necessary systemic change. Research suggests that the engagement of the public, particularly in Western industrialized democracies, is pivotal in altering the trajectory of climate policies. Historical patterns indicate that repression often precedes significant social movement mobilization, as citizens tend to respond to state violence and incarceration. Notably, the climate movement demonstrates a commitment to nonviolent civil disobedience, seeking to empower individuals and communities to actively resist and demand change.
The Influence of Fossil Fuel Interests on Democratic Processes
Fossil fuel interests have historically secured privileged access to political power, significantly shaping decision-making processes in countries reliant on these energy sources. The influence of corporate interests leads to incremental climate policies rather than bold systemic changes needed to combat climate crises. In the United States, political figures, particularly those with ties to fossil fuel industries, have perpetuated climate denial and weakened efforts for progressive climate action. This dynamic illustrates the broader challenge of balancing the power of capital against citizen activism and democratic engagement.
Violence, Repression, and Social Movements
The relationship between state repression and social movements highlights that violence against peaceful protesters can paradoxically catalyze broader public engagement. Historical examples, such as the civil rights movement, show that state violence often galvanizes people, pushing them toward action against injustices. This creates a potential for increased resistance, as citizens may feel compelled to adopt more confrontational tactics when faced with repression. As activists anticipate the potential for intensified policing and criminalization, they remain committed to non-violent tactics while preparing for mass mobilization.
Hope Amidst Crisis and the Necessity for Change
Amid systemic challenges and an uncertain political landscape, there remains a glimmer of hope through the possibility of collective action and civil society engagement. The concept of moral shocks, arising from state violence or crisis conditions, can motivate citizens to mobilize for change, despite the difficulties involved. The trajectory of climate action relies on large-scale, bottom-up movements that can challenge the status quo and push for necessary reforms. However, the potential for suffering and loss is considerable, as the path toward climate justice is likely to demand significant sacrifices from communities across the globe.
Do things have to get worse before they get better?
Yes, says Dana Fisher, Director of the Center for Environment, Community & Equity and author of Saving Ourselves. Dana’s research suggests that witnessing the inevitable mass repression of fellow citizens through state violence or incarceration will mobilise the public to take action against climate-denying leaders.
This conversation on resistance is nuanced, addressing the uncomfortable truths that post-industrial democracies are suffering from increasing authoritarian policies which inhibit their right to protest and even speak. President-elect Trump has been forthright about his willingness to deploy the police and national guard against his opponents and American citizens. But Dana argues this worsening state violence could be the very thing that tips the rest of the country into action.
Planet: Critical is 100% independent and community-powered. If you value it, and have the means, become a paid subscriber today.