Climate activists are rethinking their tactics and focusing more on local battles, including legal battles, due to the perceived weaknesses of global climate negotiations and failing climate policy. The strategy of using international networks and global institutions to influence national governments’ policy choices has proven to be slow and insufficient. Activists are now turning to their local roots and filing thousands of climate change cases, aiming to compel governments and corporations to reduce emissions or keep fossil fuels in the ground.
The combination of radical activism and formal institutional challenges can help increase support for more moderate activism, known as the “radical flank effect.” Radical actions, such as throwing tomato soup on famous paintings, may polarize the public but can grab their attention and create space for more moderate tactics to be seen as acceptable. The aim is to influence government and business decision-makers, and while their actions may not be attributed to activist pressure, there have been legislative changes and declarations of a climate emergency that suggest activists’ concerns are getting through.
Critics of extreme activism often miss the point that the public’s reaction is not the activists’ end goal. Their ultimate aim is to influence decision-makers, and while court decisions rarely produce radical societal change, they often lead to legislative changes that meet more moderate demands. Climate activists are making an impact by challenging governments and corporations through legal battles and disruptive tactics, forcing them to address the urgency of climate change.
Overall, climate activism is evolving and becoming more strategic. Activists are using a range of tactics, including both radical and moderate, to grab attention, create public discourse, and influence decision-makers. The perceived madness of their actions is actually a method to achieve their ultimate goal of meaningful action on climate change.
