Hannah Schuback
Climate extremists, climate anarchists, or climate terrorists: These are all terms by which the German tabloid Bild and other news outlets refer to environmental activist groups.
Using these terms, they often address groups such as Extinction Rebellion, an international environmental protest movement with national branches, or Letzte Generation, a relatively new German protest movement that seeks to increase awareness of the fact that this generation – our generation – is the last one able to reverse some of the devastating effects of the climate crisis. All these groups use non-violent civil disobedience as a form of protest to raise awareness of the gravity of global warming and urge the governments in Germany and other countries worldwide to act accordingly.
This form of protesting is often heavily criticised as not being effective in achieving the movements’ goals, as negatively impacting the daily life of ‘ordinary citizens’ instead of the big corporations and their protests are seen as setting the public’s opinion against the movements and thus ultimately against stricter measures to protect the climate. Advocates of this kind of protest counter that extreme measures are necessary to get the attention needed. For decades, the devastating effects of the climate crisis have been known and for decades people have protested (mostly peacefully) for more environmental protection, starting with the large-scale movements in the 1960s and 70s. Although public awareness did increase, we are still missing comprehensive and effective measures, leading people to believe that more radical forms of protest are appropriate. While it is debatable whether these forms of protests are effective or justified, I believe that the increased criminalisation of climate activism and the unprecedented hatred towards these activists is dangerous. Over the past year, we have seen increased criminalisation of climate activism. In Germany, for instance, new laws have been proposed to prevent activists from blocking streets and protesting, which is criticised as infringing upon the freedom of assembly. There have been debates of the Letzte Generation being classified as a terrorist organisation and the police searched different locations of the movement to prevent future “attacks”. Globally, climate activists have been discriminated against, incarcerated or even killed. Whether one agrees or disagrees with non-violent civil disobedience – criminalising climate activism and framing activists as terrorists is over the top and dangerous.
Can terrorists be non-violent?
A closer look at the terminology reveals the whole impropriety of this comparison. Terrorism can be defined as the use of violent action to achieve political aims, and a terrorist can be defined as someone who partakes in terrorist actions. Does this apply to climate activism? In my opinion – no. Going back to the example of the Letzte Generation, it becomes clear that non-violence is one of the, if not the main value of the movement. On their website they clarify what constitutes ‘non-violence’ for them; it refers to the demeanour, the action and the language used by the activists. They also highlight that they do not attack law enforcement, neither physically nor verbally, and that they respect the consequences of their behaviour, such as court cases and fines. Instead, the different protest actions range from blocking streets or even airports by gluing the activists’ hands onto the pavement, to smearing paint or other substances on famous paintings or, most recently, on the Brandenburger Tor – one of the most famous landmarks in Berlin.
Now of course there are different definitions of violence and it is debatable whether ‘violence against objects’, as was the case with the Brandenburger Tor, can also be a form of violence. However, I do not think that violence against objects should ever be equated with violence against humans, which is what most people think of when they hear the word terrorism. Now, some people argue that the activists indeed harm people, although rather indirectly, by blocking the streets and making it more difficult for ambulances and firefighters to pass through. While this can create a problem, the organisers of the blocked streets make sure that there is always the possibility for ambulances to pass through, for instance, by not letting everyone be glued to the pavement but instead have one person that is free to move if the necessity arises. Often it is rather the cars in the traffic jam, which admittedly can be caused by the protests, that don’t form a Rettungsgasse (= rescue lane) and thus hinder ambulances from reaching their destination. Therefore, the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in relation to non-violent activism is, in my opinion, neither accurate, nor appropriate.
Why does this matter?
Framing activists as terrorists is a form of fear-mongering that perpetuates or justifies violence against activists. If these protestors are described as ‘dangerous’ and ‘violent’, as ‘terrorists’, it makes people feel like they are in the right to exercise violence against the peacefully protesting activists. This can be seen all over the world. In Germany, the police had to warn people not to physically assault the activists and to leave it to the police to dissolve the situation. In Panama, a person shot dead two activists who were blocking a highway, claiming “this ends here”. According to the NGO Global Witness, nearly 2000 climate activists were killed in the past decade. Thus, the use of the word terrorism is inappropriate and unfit to describe non-violent civil disobedience and increases and seemingly justifies violence against the activists.
Who are the real ‘climate terrorists’?
Following the increased criminalisation of climate activism and the subsequent framing of activists as terrorists picked up by the media, especially the tabloids, the attention has shifted from the ones destroying the climate to those trying to protect it. Instead of calling out corporations and governments that actively contribute to a large extent to global warming or fail to limit it, we increasingly call out those who are trying to warn us from the severe consequences of the climate crisis if we don’t start acting immediately. Every year, the newly published IPCC reports are more alarming than the previous ones. In this sense, science agrees with the Letzte Generation – we are the last generation before the climate tipping points. So let’s shift the focus back to the real perpetrators, the real ‘climate terrorists’, starting, for instance, with the 100 companies that produce 70% of the global CO2 emissions.
In 2022, the term Klimaterrorist (‘climate terrorist’) was voted to be the Unwort, so the misnomer or ‘un-word’ of the year in Germany – rightfully so.
Whether you agree or disagree with non-violent civil disobedience as a form of protest – the criminalisation of activism and the framing of activists as terrorists is inappropriate and dangerous, as it perpetuates violence against the activists and shifts the focus away from the ones most responsible for global warming. It’s about time to take climate change seriously and treat it for what it is – a crisis.
The Euroculturer 