Peace and the Planet

By FRANK LINGO

Does protecting the Earth justify violence? A Jan. 21 New York Times Magazine article explores this question with Andreas Malm, a Swedish author and professor who espouses violence against property, like pipelines, but not against people.

“All attempts to rein in this problem [the climate crisis] have failed miserably,” said Malm, “which means that, virtually by definition, we have to try something more than we’ve tried. I want sabotage to happen on a much larger scale than it does now. I can’t guarantee that it won’t come with accidents.”

In America, the environmental movement spun off of the peace movement during the Vietnam War, so there was a similar sensibility about doing it the peaceful way. Not that everyone who opposed the war was peaceful. There was a tiny minority like the Weather Underground, which was responsible for several bombings. Likewise, the eco movement has its radicals, such as Earth First!, which has sabotaged some sites it regards as anti-ecological.

I’ll admit to some inner conflict on this. In my youth, the Weather people seemed bold and radical and that appealed to me. In some possible circumstance, I might have joined them. I suppose it’s lucky that I was such a stoner, because I never could have focused enough to carry out such deeds. And now half a century later, a little part of me sympathizes with the eco-warriors who want to blow up fossil fuel facilities.

Yet, when those thoughts pop up in my mind, I remember the ways of Mahatma Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who taught us that violence only begets more violence, and peaceful protest is the most effective way to instigate change.

Malm is partially wrong when he said that all attempts to rein in the problem have failed miserably. Scientists and entrepreneurs all over the globe have developed new, innovative methods of sustainable energy production. The cost of solar panels has dropped greatly in the last decade, while the efficiency of them has risen greatly. That makes them affordable to many business and home owners.

Wind power is being used more than ever, especially in northern areas, and even a moderate-clime state like Kansas, with a super-conservative legislature, is fourth in the US in wind energy. Furthermore, although the electric car revolution is just getting started, several major automakers are shifting it into high gear. If those EVs are charged on sustainable grids, their carbon footprint is very small.

Malm is right about many points. In 2023, the United States produced a record amount of oil. It is being burned as gasoline and fuel oil. That is serious backsliding to any effort to reverse the climate crisis. Also, 2023 was the Earth’s hottest year on record, proving that our aspiration to reduce global warming isn’t working yet.

The media is not getting the message out to the public that we are in a climate emergency. The public’s awareness has risen dramatically in the last few years anyway, especially among the younger generation, but many people are still woefully uninformed on ecological issues. The trials of a certain ex-president are hogging the spotlight, and will continue to do so. But more than ever, voting for environmentally minded candidates could help move us in the right direction.

So, in response to Malm’s suggestions, I worry that eco-terrorism would rock the public’s tenuous support of changing our ways to protect the planet. Let’s remember the friendly part of eco-friendly.

Frank Lingo, based in Lawrence, Kansas, is a former columnist for the Kansas City Star and author of the novel “Earth Vote.” Email: lingofrank@gmail.com. See his website: Greenbeat.world

From The Progressive Populist, March 15, 2024

Populist.com