The UK has led the way in the crackdown, experts say, with judges recently refusing an appeal against multi-year sentences for climate activists who blocked a motorway bridge in east London. The three-year jail terms for Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland earlier this year are thought to be the longest handed out by a British judge for non-violent protest.
Michel Forst, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders since June last year, described the situation in the UK as “terrifying”. He added that other countries were “looking at the UK examples with a view to passing similar laws in their own countries, which will have a devastating effect for Europe”.
He added: “I’m sure that there is European cooperation among the police forces against these kinds of activities. My concern is that when [governments] are calling these people eco-terrorists, or are using new forms of vilifications and defamation … it has a huge impact on how the population may perceive them and the cause for which these people are fighting. It is a huge concern for me.”
I agree with most of your comment, except for this:
For one, they do. But it gets much less coverage, so it may well be you never heard of such an action. Media rather reports on stories which affect many people, and more importantly, which are likely to generate outrage, clicks and shares.
Another reason is, it’s much harder. To block a public bridge is much easier than preventing high ranking officials to get from A to B. In case of the bridge, all the information is openly available. You can even visit the location in preparation, no one will bother you. If you instead want to block a minister from entering a building, there is likely more than one way, and security in place to keep you out but allow them free passage.
Finally, resources are limited. An acivist group likely has no more than a few dozen people available, often less than a dozen. There’s always more to do, and never enough volunteers to help out. So you naturally have to work efficiently, especially with costly activities which might get people detained for prolonged periods.
What good is it if you block a CEO from using his private jet, but end up in prison for months, and no one notices anyways because the news don’t cover your story, and the CEO only got delayed for 10 minutes anyways because he can use the back entrance? Yes, you could also block the back entrance, but then you need more people for the same goal.
We can complain how it is unfair to hold the public hostage. But this seems to be the only kind of action which consistently gets good coverage, and forces a reaction (unlike demonstrations which can just be ignored, and thus are), with the available means.
Still I lost hope this approach works as intended. I think the strategy depended on the public to solidarize with the activists, due to their just cause and the urgency of the situation. Instead, many people (or is their number an exaggeration of the media?) solidarize with the state removing the obstruction by violent means.
This whole episode could be long over if people demanded their leaders to do what’s necessary. Instead, the people “chose” to condone their lack of action. Climate activists have no where to go though. It’s not a sport or leisure activity, after all. Changing for less efficient methods or to step down is not an option.
It’s easier to steal a bike than to buy a bike. The difficulty of the task is wholly irrelevant as to its justification.
This was an explanation (in response to someone asking “Why?”), not necessarily a justification.
Apart from that, there are situations when we condone acts which are not justifiable in other situations. In case of emergency, break glass.
Please hold our governments to the same standard. Just because it’s hard to decarbonize is no justification to not do it.