If the metric of success is emission reductions, and emission reductions from supply-side fights are uncertain, then there’s no point in fighting supply-side projects.This assumes that emission reductions are the sole reason to go after the supply side, and thereby, I think, fundamentally misses what activists are trying to do. It’s not to reduce emissions, one project at a time. It’s to change culture.This is perhaps the most important thing critics miss: all the ongoing climate activist campaigns — divestment, the “thin green line” fighting fossil fuel exports in the Pacific Northwest, the “stranded assets” push in the financial world, the whole “keep it in the ground” movement that’s gathering steam, the #ExxonKnew investigations — are ultimately aimed at the same goal. They seek to remove the social license enjoyed by fossil fuel companies.
Great post from David Roberts on the movement around the Keystone campaign. I wanted to call attention to the quote above as I’ve been writing about the need for firms to pay attention to social license for a while, but have yet to see it gain the kind of traction it needs. I hope this is a harbinger of things to come.
Bad actors need to believe that actions which are harmful to the communities they interact with, will lead to their being run out-of-town on a rail. Otherwise, they will continue to pursue perverted, narrow interests to the detriment of humanity (and the planet).