A very good article. But it has some grim possbilities if not addressed. You write,
"We pulled the same move in XR. After the infamous tube protests, where members of XR blocked commuters in some of London’s poorest neighbourhoods - actions that ended in violence - we lost major donors. Turns out, alienating working-class people who were just trying to get to their jobs, appointments and school runs on time isn't a great fundraising strategy."
It's not just poor fundraising. It's become evident in recent years that at a number of protests, the police are present to protect the protesters from an outraged public. There was at least a few episodes of protesters blocking highways. They were then set upon by drivers whose trip to work was being blocked with the protesters being kicked and assaulted physically. If protests become too annoying to the public, the response can be violent and hostile. And NOT from the police.
So when you write, "No matter how noble the cause, defacing property or blocking roads crosses a line, and when people break the law, it’s the justice system’s job to hold them accountable," I agree entirely. This is the sort of thing which encourages the general public to seek or approve of vigilante justice.
You make another equally strong point when you write, "When protesters are simply let off the hook for breaking the law, clearly that signals something that they believe, though not in the way they mean, is correct: that the system is broken, and drastic change is required to fix it."
Inflicting zero punishment for breaking the law encourages people to approve of non-lawful punishment. This has manifested in all sorts of unpleasant ways such as so-called prison justice for sex offenders. If the justice system will not impose suitable punishment for offences, then it risks bringing the law itself into disrepute. The legal system in Canada is already in some disrepute for purporting to criminalize public protest, imprison people for political reasons, seize bank accounts and violate constitional rights simply because "the Prime Minister was a terrified little boy".
There's an even larger problem for JSO. By definition, it cannot win. For it to succeed, there must be an alternative to petroleum. However, there is no alternative possible. Entire industries in food, medical products, sanitation and a host of others are dependent upon petroleum derivatives. Without these products, what these industries do would be wholly impossible at any price. It is the use of energy and petroleum which separates all human society now from a primitive medieval dark age to the much higher standard of living and comparative good heath that we enjoy now.
Under no circumstances will JSO ever persuade people to sacrifice all of these benefits and revert to a dark, filthy, disease-ridden society. JSO's endless quest to achieve this is directly akin to the endless labours of King Sisyphus in Hell. Theirs is a mindless labour with no possible good outcome, for them or anyone else.
There are a number of points in your comment I feel I must take issue with. First, the problem with global warming or climate change isn't so much the warming itself – the earth has been significantly warmer in the past with Antarctica semi-tropical (evidence of palm trees has been found deep in the ice). In fact we are currently in an ice age, albeit in a non-glaciation period. The problem is the rate at which the change is happening and its impact on sea level rise and extreme weather conditions: increased flooding, droughts, hurricanes &c.
Second, nature is a balancing system, so it has evolved to cope with the 97% CO₂ emissions that are natural. Just because emissions from human activity are only 3% of the total, it's an extra 3%. Also, just because it makes up only 0.042% of the atmosphere doesn't mean it's insignificant. In fact, because it is such a small constituent of the atmosphere it makes small increases more significant: a small amount makes a proportionally bigger difference (think of it this way: the presence of even one deadly bacterium among the billions present in your gut could kill you; two makes it twice as likely and any increase increases the risk that your immune system won't stop the infection). At pre-industrial levels CO₂ made up only 0.028% of the atmosphere, a 50% increase. Methane (CH₄) is a far more potent greenhouse gas, about 80 times greater than CO₂. Although methane emissions are much smaller than CO₂, it is responsible for ⅓ of global warming. Human activity is responsible for 60% of methane emissions: 33% from fossil fuel use (extraction, refinement &c), 30% from animal agriculture, 18% from plant agriculture and 15% from waste (4% from all other sources). That means that the use of fossil fuels alone is responsible for 20% of all methane emissions and ⅓ of all extra, non-natural emissions.
Third, fossil fuels don't just impact global warming, they pollute. Air pollution as a result of fossil fuels kills approximately 3.61 million people per year. Furthermore, it's unsustainable. Oil sources are not an infinite resource. While it's true that improvements in technology have made new sources available (during the 70s oil crisis it was estimated that they would run out by 2020!) they come at increasing cost, both financially and environmentally. At current extraction rates and known resources we will run out by 2052. The maximum prediction, which takes into account future discoveries and foreseeable technologies, estimates that we will run out between 2080-2120. It's possible that it could be longer, but these predictions are inherently difficult. Climate change could reduce them (by making access too perilous). Coal and natural gas reserves are predicted to run out by 2060. What's not in doubt is that they will run out at some point. Whether it's 50 years or 150, surely it's better to make the transition sooner rather than later? Kicking the can down the road will only make it more difficult and require more drastic measures and changes to our behaviour.
I thought I'd end by explaining how greenhouse gases work. When sunlight reaches the earth it warms the surface. That heat is reflected back into the atmosphere. There, some of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. Without any greenhouse gases it would escape into space and the average global temperature would be 0°C (32°F) rather than the current 15°C (59°F). That should illustrate that although greenhouse gases make up such a small proportion of the atmosphere, they do have a significant effect. Weather is an extremely complex and essentially chaotic system (in a mathematical sense). The way that weather forecasts work is to input the known data into a climatic model and run that model. Small changes are made to the data and run in parallel. If the results are broadly similar we are in a stable, predictable phase (small differences don't have a significant impact). If they differ significantly we are in a chaotic, unpredictable phase (small differences have a dramatic impact). This is one of the reasons long range forecasts are virtually impossible. For one thing, our models will never be 100% accurate and for another, even in stable periods those small variations and inaccuracies will mount up, leading to a chaotic phase. You've probably heard the saying that the beating of a butterfly's wings can change the weather halfway around the world? That, in essence, describes chaotic systems and also shows why our models can never be 100% accurate. Heat is a form of energy and that means the more heat is absorbed by greenhouse gases, the more energy there is in the weather. It's that increase in energy that leads to an increase in extreme weather conditions. While it's true that there is a tiny number of scientists who dispute that climate change is a result of human activity, it's less than 0.1% and not all of them are climate specialists. Of course, just because fewer than 0.1% of climate scientists maintain that climate change is not a result of human activity doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that it's very likely they are. That the planet is warming and that climate change is real is indisputable. We've seen the increased incidents of extreme weather and the rise in average global temperature: it was 1.51°C (2.72°F) above pre-industrial levels in 2024. Whether that was an outlier year or a long term increase is too early to tell. However, can we afford to that global warming isn't a result of human activity, given the catastrophic consequences and that they're likely to run out this century? Common sense alone suggests that increasing CO₂ levels by 50% and CH₄ by 60% is going to have an effect. It's hubris to think otherwise.
Mostly nonsense. There has been no measurable rise in the frequency of extreme weather events over the course of the past century.
Second, of course the planet is warming. There has been an ongoing rise in global temperatures since the Dalton Minimum in the 19th century. By the same token, there has been a small, continuing rise in sea levels. This increase is on average a couple of millimetres per year.
Third, of course increased CO2 has had a global effect. This effect has primarily been a strongly positive one for human society and the environment. It has produced a measurable greening of the planet. This has been accompanied by steadily rising crop yields and a resulting decline in starvation.
Fourth, of course there are limits to the use of fossil fuels. Increasing depletion of low cost fossil fuels will increase their costs over time and encourage the substitution of alternates. This will occur without the need for unnecessary and coercive state intervention.
The greatest problem with "Just Stop Oil" and "Extinction Rebellion" is that both organizations are acutally usueful idiots for the richest people in the world, that not only fund all of these fake NGO "activist" organizations, but all profit from the globalized Monopoly Capitalism system that the western elites have built out over the last 150 years, for that very purpose - the purpose of robbing the majority of mankind blind.
The worst aspect is that all of those that are involved in the fake 'climate change' NGO industry are too lazy, or perhaps too corrupt to use their Internet connection and Google and check whether the UN's IPCC claims stand up to scrutiny - and it doesn't take 30 minutes to rip it all down in tatters - 1. CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT - it is the gas of life, and feeds every hiuman and animal on the planet by being PLANT FOOD. 2. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the entire atmosphere which is practically ZERO. 4. Mankind makes up 3% of all CO2 emissions from 0.04% which is 0.012% - NATURE MAKES UP 97%!!!!!!! 4. If you drive CO2 down in concentration EVERYTHING WILL DIE because apart from the food being reduced, so will the oxygen! 5. A warmer planet is a GOOD THING - why do you think that the most animals, life, and FOOD IS IN THE TROPICS - it's not in Antarctica. That's the biggest points.
The entire NET ZERO SCAM IS BASED ON CORRUPTION, FRAUDS, and LIES< LIES< AND MORE LIES.
So WHO WINS FROM THE LIES???
That is apart from the fake NGO industry.
We see it is the Crown monarchies, e.g. the Vatican, Britain, and Saudi Arabia, the Chinese Communist Party, the international bankers, the billionaires, and the World Economic Forum’s, with its cartel of multinationals, all of whom have promoted the United Nations lies about carbon dioxide and man-made climate change, and they have in fact all funded the Net Zero marketing campaign. But what most don’t realize is that these attacks have primarily focused on western nations, and every step of the way those that have funded this evil campaign that has totally distorted the global economy today, and is ruining billions of lives, those behind it are profiting to greater and greater degrees.
King Charles has had a massive increase in his annunal Crown payment due to the wind farms off Britain.
China, the CCP - are PARTNERS with the richest investors and biggest corporations in the world that manufacture all the "GREEN ENERGY" products in China - and make TRILLIONS from the entire supply chain - batteries, electrical turbines, electric cars, transmission lines, utlitity companies, solar panels, and wind turbines - it's a trillion dolllar industry.
Bankers are making a killing along with their partners from the fake carbon credits markets.
Billionaires are cleaning up as we saw with the Forbes billinaires list for 2025 showing they've DOUBLED THEIR FORTUNES since 2020.
And do the richest people in the world give a dam that their class in the top 1% have now taken nearly 50% of all the wealth in the world under their money monopoly and monopoly capitalism globalization model? Not a dam. Because everything is designed to TAKE IT ALL. Because that is what King Charles GREAT RESET IS ALL ABOUT.
And that is what the NGOs of the climate change industry are really doing - acting as USEFUL IDIOTS for the GREATEST EVIL on the planet, making the MONARCHIES, BANKERS, and BILLIONAIRES richer - by ATTACKING mankind with their lies, while their partners in China, the Chinese Communist Party BURN COAL< GAS and OIL like there is NO TOMORROW, and are using 60% of the worlds fossil fuels, and expanding its use. They dont' give a dam about "climate change" because they know it is COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
The greatest enemies of mankind are not the psychopathic EVIL at the top, it is the USEFUL IDIOTS that EMPOWER THEM.
Perhaps they looked at the the $600M fine Greenpeace were hit with for direct action and decided discretion was required!
A very good article. But it has some grim possbilities if not addressed. You write,
"We pulled the same move in XR. After the infamous tube protests, where members of XR blocked commuters in some of London’s poorest neighbourhoods - actions that ended in violence - we lost major donors. Turns out, alienating working-class people who were just trying to get to their jobs, appointments and school runs on time isn't a great fundraising strategy."
It's not just poor fundraising. It's become evident in recent years that at a number of protests, the police are present to protect the protesters from an outraged public. There was at least a few episodes of protesters blocking highways. They were then set upon by drivers whose trip to work was being blocked with the protesters being kicked and assaulted physically. If protests become too annoying to the public, the response can be violent and hostile. And NOT from the police.
So when you write, "No matter how noble the cause, defacing property or blocking roads crosses a line, and when people break the law, it’s the justice system’s job to hold them accountable," I agree entirely. This is the sort of thing which encourages the general public to seek or approve of vigilante justice.
You make another equally strong point when you write, "When protesters are simply let off the hook for breaking the law, clearly that signals something that they believe, though not in the way they mean, is correct: that the system is broken, and drastic change is required to fix it."
Inflicting zero punishment for breaking the law encourages people to approve of non-lawful punishment. This has manifested in all sorts of unpleasant ways such as so-called prison justice for sex offenders. If the justice system will not impose suitable punishment for offences, then it risks bringing the law itself into disrepute. The legal system in Canada is already in some disrepute for purporting to criminalize public protest, imprison people for political reasons, seize bank accounts and violate constitional rights simply because "the Prime Minister was a terrified little boy".
There's an even larger problem for JSO. By definition, it cannot win. For it to succeed, there must be an alternative to petroleum. However, there is no alternative possible. Entire industries in food, medical products, sanitation and a host of others are dependent upon petroleum derivatives. Without these products, what these industries do would be wholly impossible at any price. It is the use of energy and petroleum which separates all human society now from a primitive medieval dark age to the much higher standard of living and comparative good heath that we enjoy now.
Under no circumstances will JSO ever persuade people to sacrifice all of these benefits and revert to a dark, filthy, disease-ridden society. JSO's endless quest to achieve this is directly akin to the endless labours of King Sisyphus in Hell. Theirs is a mindless labour with no possible good outcome, for them or anyone else.
There are a number of points in your comment I feel I must take issue with. First, the problem with global warming or climate change isn't so much the warming itself – the earth has been significantly warmer in the past with Antarctica semi-tropical (evidence of palm trees has been found deep in the ice). In fact we are currently in an ice age, albeit in a non-glaciation period. The problem is the rate at which the change is happening and its impact on sea level rise and extreme weather conditions: increased flooding, droughts, hurricanes &c.
Second, nature is a balancing system, so it has evolved to cope with the 97% CO₂ emissions that are natural. Just because emissions from human activity are only 3% of the total, it's an extra 3%. Also, just because it makes up only 0.042% of the atmosphere doesn't mean it's insignificant. In fact, because it is such a small constituent of the atmosphere it makes small increases more significant: a small amount makes a proportionally bigger difference (think of it this way: the presence of even one deadly bacterium among the billions present in your gut could kill you; two makes it twice as likely and any increase increases the risk that your immune system won't stop the infection). At pre-industrial levels CO₂ made up only 0.028% of the atmosphere, a 50% increase. Methane (CH₄) is a far more potent greenhouse gas, about 80 times greater than CO₂. Although methane emissions are much smaller than CO₂, it is responsible for ⅓ of global warming. Human activity is responsible for 60% of methane emissions: 33% from fossil fuel use (extraction, refinement &c), 30% from animal agriculture, 18% from plant agriculture and 15% from waste (4% from all other sources). That means that the use of fossil fuels alone is responsible for 20% of all methane emissions and ⅓ of all extra, non-natural emissions.
Third, fossil fuels don't just impact global warming, they pollute. Air pollution as a result of fossil fuels kills approximately 3.61 million people per year. Furthermore, it's unsustainable. Oil sources are not an infinite resource. While it's true that improvements in technology have made new sources available (during the 70s oil crisis it was estimated that they would run out by 2020!) they come at increasing cost, both financially and environmentally. At current extraction rates and known resources we will run out by 2052. The maximum prediction, which takes into account future discoveries and foreseeable technologies, estimates that we will run out between 2080-2120. It's possible that it could be longer, but these predictions are inherently difficult. Climate change could reduce them (by making access too perilous). Coal and natural gas reserves are predicted to run out by 2060. What's not in doubt is that they will run out at some point. Whether it's 50 years or 150, surely it's better to make the transition sooner rather than later? Kicking the can down the road will only make it more difficult and require more drastic measures and changes to our behaviour.
I thought I'd end by explaining how greenhouse gases work. When sunlight reaches the earth it warms the surface. That heat is reflected back into the atmosphere. There, some of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. Without any greenhouse gases it would escape into space and the average global temperature would be 0°C (32°F) rather than the current 15°C (59°F). That should illustrate that although greenhouse gases make up such a small proportion of the atmosphere, they do have a significant effect. Weather is an extremely complex and essentially chaotic system (in a mathematical sense). The way that weather forecasts work is to input the known data into a climatic model and run that model. Small changes are made to the data and run in parallel. If the results are broadly similar we are in a stable, predictable phase (small differences don't have a significant impact). If they differ significantly we are in a chaotic, unpredictable phase (small differences have a dramatic impact). This is one of the reasons long range forecasts are virtually impossible. For one thing, our models will never be 100% accurate and for another, even in stable periods those small variations and inaccuracies will mount up, leading to a chaotic phase. You've probably heard the saying that the beating of a butterfly's wings can change the weather halfway around the world? That, in essence, describes chaotic systems and also shows why our models can never be 100% accurate. Heat is a form of energy and that means the more heat is absorbed by greenhouse gases, the more energy there is in the weather. It's that increase in energy that leads to an increase in extreme weather conditions. While it's true that there is a tiny number of scientists who dispute that climate change is a result of human activity, it's less than 0.1% and not all of them are climate specialists. Of course, just because fewer than 0.1% of climate scientists maintain that climate change is not a result of human activity doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that it's very likely they are. That the planet is warming and that climate change is real is indisputable. We've seen the increased incidents of extreme weather and the rise in average global temperature: it was 1.51°C (2.72°F) above pre-industrial levels in 2024. Whether that was an outlier year or a long term increase is too early to tell. However, can we afford to that global warming isn't a result of human activity, given the catastrophic consequences and that they're likely to run out this century? Common sense alone suggests that increasing CO₂ levels by 50% and CH₄ by 60% is going to have an effect. It's hubris to think otherwise.
Mostly nonsense. There has been no measurable rise in the frequency of extreme weather events over the course of the past century.
Second, of course the planet is warming. There has been an ongoing rise in global temperatures since the Dalton Minimum in the 19th century. By the same token, there has been a small, continuing rise in sea levels. This increase is on average a couple of millimetres per year.
Third, of course increased CO2 has had a global effect. This effect has primarily been a strongly positive one for human society and the environment. It has produced a measurable greening of the planet. This has been accompanied by steadily rising crop yields and a resulting decline in starvation.
Fourth, of course there are limits to the use of fossil fuels. Increasing depletion of low cost fossil fuels will increase their costs over time and encourage the substitution of alternates. This will occur without the need for unnecessary and coercive state intervention.
The greatest problem with "Just Stop Oil" and "Extinction Rebellion" is that both organizations are acutally usueful idiots for the richest people in the world, that not only fund all of these fake NGO "activist" organizations, but all profit from the globalized Monopoly Capitalism system that the western elites have built out over the last 150 years, for that very purpose - the purpose of robbing the majority of mankind blind.
The worst aspect is that all of those that are involved in the fake 'climate change' NGO industry are too lazy, or perhaps too corrupt to use their Internet connection and Google and check whether the UN's IPCC claims stand up to scrutiny - and it doesn't take 30 minutes to rip it all down in tatters - 1. CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT - it is the gas of life, and feeds every hiuman and animal on the planet by being PLANT FOOD. 2. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the entire atmosphere which is practically ZERO. 4. Mankind makes up 3% of all CO2 emissions from 0.04% which is 0.012% - NATURE MAKES UP 97%!!!!!!! 4. If you drive CO2 down in concentration EVERYTHING WILL DIE because apart from the food being reduced, so will the oxygen! 5. A warmer planet is a GOOD THING - why do you think that the most animals, life, and FOOD IS IN THE TROPICS - it's not in Antarctica. That's the biggest points.
The entire NET ZERO SCAM IS BASED ON CORRUPTION, FRAUDS, and LIES< LIES< AND MORE LIES.
So WHO WINS FROM THE LIES???
That is apart from the fake NGO industry.
We see it is the Crown monarchies, e.g. the Vatican, Britain, and Saudi Arabia, the Chinese Communist Party, the international bankers, the billionaires, and the World Economic Forum’s, with its cartel of multinationals, all of whom have promoted the United Nations lies about carbon dioxide and man-made climate change, and they have in fact all funded the Net Zero marketing campaign. But what most don’t realize is that these attacks have primarily focused on western nations, and every step of the way those that have funded this evil campaign that has totally distorted the global economy today, and is ruining billions of lives, those behind it are profiting to greater and greater degrees.
King Charles has had a massive increase in his annunal Crown payment due to the wind farms off Britain.
China, the CCP - are PARTNERS with the richest investors and biggest corporations in the world that manufacture all the "GREEN ENERGY" products in China - and make TRILLIONS from the entire supply chain - batteries, electrical turbines, electric cars, transmission lines, utlitity companies, solar panels, and wind turbines - it's a trillion dolllar industry.
Bankers are making a killing along with their partners from the fake carbon credits markets.
Billionaires are cleaning up as we saw with the Forbes billinaires list for 2025 showing they've DOUBLED THEIR FORTUNES since 2020.
And do the richest people in the world give a dam that their class in the top 1% have now taken nearly 50% of all the wealth in the world under their money monopoly and monopoly capitalism globalization model? Not a dam. Because everything is designed to TAKE IT ALL. Because that is what King Charles GREAT RESET IS ALL ABOUT.
And that is what the NGOs of the climate change industry are really doing - acting as USEFUL IDIOTS for the GREATEST EVIL on the planet, making the MONARCHIES, BANKERS, and BILLIONAIRES richer - by ATTACKING mankind with their lies, while their partners in China, the Chinese Communist Party BURN COAL< GAS and OIL like there is NO TOMORROW, and are using 60% of the worlds fossil fuels, and expanding its use. They dont' give a dam about "climate change" because they know it is COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
The greatest enemies of mankind are not the psychopathic EVIL at the top, it is the USEFUL IDIOTS that EMPOWER THEM.
(large CAPS for EMPHASIS, not shouting!)