Social movements have long been used as a tactic for combatting inaction against climate change, but are social movements effective? This paper will argue that social protests are effective because they bring awareness to issues quickly, they produce direct pressure, and they are more efficient than government action. Some critics of collective action might argue that action in groups can produce inaction at the individual level, but this paper argues that social movements can force people to reflect inwardly and they can end up motivating people to take action.
First, this paper will explain how social movements can bring awareness to relatively unknown issues like climate refugees and climate inequality. Secondly, this paper will illustrate how social pressure on Big Oil and the government has produced change. Thirdly, this paper will prove that social protests are more effective and efficient in producing change than the government by fighting money with large-scale action.
Finally, the counterargument of individual resignation will be addressed and resolved through the argument that social movements raise awareness, motivating people not only on a group-level but also at an individual-level. Ultimately, humans are facing “a race between the impacts our cumulative carbon emissions will increasingly have on our climate system and humanity’s belated but accelerating efforts to replace fossil fuels with carbon-free energy” (Romm). With the power of social movements, this race can speed up.
127 our experts are availableright now
Some scholars may argue that social movements are not effective in mitigating and adapting to climate change because collective action can create individual laziness or resignation. People do not like to think about climate change because even those who believe it is happening find the situation extremely frustrating. This translates into a feeling of powerlessness (Brecher, Against Doom). People might feel better after participating in a demonstration or protest and then might feel less inclined to participate in mitigating practices in their household. As part of a large collective protest or movement, some people might feel that their own individual actions are less necessary than working together in large-scale groups; their individual consumption does not “matter” in the grand scheme of things.
Also, people may solely blame Big Oil and government in producing climate change, ignoring their own lifestyles that may be contributing to higher emissions. American society is driven by growth, consumption, and status (Schor). People are always on a social treadmill, striving to be better than their peers, which can lead to buying bigger houses, making more money, having fancier cars. Though social movements can help shed light on issues and pressure lawmakers, do participants feel compelled to go home and keep track of their carbon footprint?
Maybe some people do not feel compelled to act on an individual level, but that is not always the case. Social movements can not only shed light on individual consumption, but it can also produce inward reflection. A protest bringing attention to individual inaction in regards to climate change may certainly be enlightening and informative for those who hear about the protest. And, social protests in general can force participants to assess their own entanglement with greenhouse gases. Collective action demands from its participants that they take note of their responsibility in mitigating climate change.
Powerlessness and isolation can be challenged by inspiring people to start conversations and participate in “confrontational actions that draw their attention” (Brecher, Against Doom). One of the most important things collective action can produce is a sense of empowerment for people who feel they have no control over fighting climate change, inspiring them to continue acting.
In regards to America’s culture of consumption, the treadmill can be flipped on its head. The treadmill can now be focused on green consumption, not carbon consumption. Instead of competing with others in how many “things” one can accumulate, neighbors can compete in how green and environmentally friendly their houses, investments, and cars are in comparison. In a sense, this represents a neighborhood-wide collective action; everyone works together (and competes) to be the greenest of them all. Tracking carbon footprint through how much transportation one uses, one’s diet, one’ consumption, and one’s home can make a huge difference (Romm).
In Portland, 130 households took part in a carbon diet, slashing their emissions an average of 22% and inspiring other cities to build similar programs (Rabkin and Gershon). In the end, collective action sparks individual responsibility, which in turn creates new forms of collective action in households across the nation. Resignation and laziness is certainly not a long-term trend. Ultimately, social movements are effective in fighting climate change because they force awareness, they produce pressure, and they are more efficient than government action.
The Environmental Justice Foundation and Oxfam International analyze the catastrophes of climate refugees and extreme climate inequality as climate change worsens, but ultimately social movements will bring further awareness to these issues. The EJF emphasizes that too much or too little water will cause migration. Most climate refugees will come from developing countries, and although most migration will be internal, climate-caused displacement will force the world to find secure environments for refugees, something that will become increasingly difficult as the climate becomes more volatile (EJF).
Social and economic development will be hindered dramatically as disadvantaged groups become poorer. Governments of affected countries will have difficulty stabilizing as climate effects cause economic and agricultural problems, meaning they may not have the means to protect their citizens. On top of this, more stable nations might have to bail out or support climate refugees, a consequence of climate change that most powerful countries have not even considered yet.
In order for the world to grasp the catastrophes climate change will continue to cause, attention has to be brought to these issues so the world can act quickly to mitigate and adapt. Most governments have no desire to bring attention to something that could hurt the world economy, but if social movements take charge and force the world population to consider the effects of environmental disaster, some of the worst outcomes can be prevented earlier rather than later.
On top of this, social movements can emphasize climate inequality issues that currently plague the majority of international climate policies. There is a North-South divide, one where the North (i.e. Northern hemisphere) has to pay significantly less for environmental problems that largely worsened from their consumption (Oxfam). The South ends up bearing the brunt of climate protection, forfeiting economic and infrastructural development in order to clean up environmental messes that Northern economies and infrastructure have had the privilege to create. The world’s poorest 50% are only responsible for 10% of emissions, while the richest 10% produce 50% of emissions (Oxfam).
Climate justice advocates have been bringing attention to these economic disparities, pushing for a change in the way policy is implemented (Brecher, Climate Insurgency). International climate policy should not benefit certain parties, it should be an equal compromise that recognizes the bigger role certain nations play in aggravating climate issues. This does not necessarily mean that North countries should help South countries, but rather that the world’s richest should be helping the world’s poorest, taking the climate burden off of their shoulders. In the end, social movements can shed light on some of the largest climate issues that most of the population likely knows little about, forcing awareness of climate problems that will worsen in the future.
Secondly, social movements can be more radical than established organizations and social movements can also put more pressure on lawmakers and corporations. As Klein remarks in This Changes Everything, “a major barrier to success [of greens organizations] was the absence of a mass movement applying pressure from below”. Climate legislation has been difficult because greens groups have tried to be more bipartisan and more cooperative with legislators, falling into the trap of the lobbyist world.
In Newell and Paterson’s Climate Capitalism, four “futures” are possible given the world’s current position in regards to mitigating and adapting to climate change: climate capitalist utopia, stagnation, decarbonised utopia, and Keynesianism. The authors argue that Keynesianism is the preferred future because economic growth and the government both stimulate and control carbon markets. In the other three futures, the government plays either too little or too much of a role, making the futures not as stable. Without social movements, it can be argued that the government would either get lazy or quite simply ignore climate change.
On another hand, without social movements, the government could gain too much power and depict climate change as a security threat, allowing more government intrusion into citizens’ everyday lives. Thus, social movements can help keep the government focused on important issues without letting the government overstep their boundaries. Social movements, and people in general, check the government. Therefore, the preferred future of Keynesianism will only be possible if social movements are active every step of the way to keep the government accountable.
Putting pressure on lawmakers and corporations through social movements can be much more efficient and impactful than individual action, as well. Although individual, high-impact actions such as having one fewer child, living without a car, and avoiding flights can make large differences, social movements can be more efficient and impactful while also being less limiting (Wynes). As Brecher remarks in Climate Insurgency, “A nonviolent climate insurgency can be powerful if it withdraws that cooperation [from the people] from the powers that be. Fear of such withdrawal can motivate those in positions of power to change.”
One such way social movements can withdraw cooperation is through the public trust doctrine, which argues that the government is directly responsible for its own inaction against climate change. Because there is public interest in the protection of earth’s atmosphere, citizens can sue the government on the basis of illegal government inaction. For example, Juliana v. United States is a current lawsuit against the United States on behalf of 21 children, arguing that the government’s actions in relation to the earth’s atmosphere is in the public interest, and the government has failed to protect the environment for future generations.
McKibben also talks extensively about how to directly pressure the government and Big Oil by withdrawing cooperation. The Keystone XL protests directly challenged President Obama. The president had the direct power to either approve or reject the permit for the pipeline to be built, so McKibben, along with many other protestors, organized sit-ins and rallies both in Nebraska and outside the White House to block the pipeline. Though there was intense struggle on both sides, President Obama eventually delayed the construction of the pipeline, a step in the right direction for activists.
Another example of direct pressure comes from Red Cloud, a teacher who gives lessons to young Native Americans on his reservation in Montana about solar technologies (Klein). He teaches others how to successfully install solar panels on houses. By building these lessons and slowly putting solar panels on display throughout the reservation, people in the area began to take notice and wanted in on the action. The ability for Red Cloud and his students to coalesce around this one project and get others to rally behind more sustainable alternatives to coal, which is the main industry on the reservation, is a direct way to counteract the powers of the coal corporations in Montana. It gave them a fighting chance to build a different environment for themselves, one that ensures the safety of their families and their land.
McKibben, along with seven undergraduate students at Middlebury College, created 350.org, a website that organizes mass movements against oil and coal projects. Based on the ideals of climate justice, McKibben and his team have now reached 188 countries and protests have spanned the world. The role of social media and the Internet plays a large part in connecting people passionate about stopping climate change, giving them a platform to organize and eventually form powerful opposition to Big Oil. The three examples of social pressure on lawmakers and corporations shows just how impressive collective action can be in forcing powerful leaders to reckon with their own actions.
Thirdly, social movements can be much more effective at forcing through change than government action. Collective action can fight money with numbers. After Citizens United was enacted, corporations have freedom of speech, meaning they can dump their money into the political realm (McKibben). Because of this legislation, the government is riddled with policymakers who are bought off to actively pursue lobbyist interests, making it pretty difficult for the government to make any progress in fighting climate change (Speth).
America’s capitalist economy is obsessed with growth, emphasizing increased consumption. In order to keep up, corporations have to prioritize growth. The growth narrative ultimately supports the interests of policymakers, who receive more approval and positive evaluations when the economy flourishes (Speth). Ultimately, the capitalist growth system will never defend the environment, which is why collective action is needed as an efficient and effective alternative to corporate bureaucracy. One way to directly pressure the capitalist markets is through divestment, which McKibben suggests in his book Oil and Honey.
After “figuring out the math”, McKibben was able to prove Big Oil’s stake in oil and coal that was yet to be extracted, and if they are extracted, it would be directly responsible for the complete destruction of Earth’s atmosphere. With this in mind, a huge divestment plan was launched. By moving away from carbon stocks, Americans express a direct interest that they do not want to profit from Big Oil. Though divestment does not necessarily put oil corporations in financial turmoil, the battle becomes more confrontational and leveled.
This paper argued that social movements are effective against climate change because they bring awareness to relatively unknown issues that will only magnify in the future, they produce pressure directly on Big Oil, and they are more effective than government action. Though some scholars might argue that collective action can produce individual resignation towards climate change, social movements actually force reflection, dialogue, and motivation. As long as social movements grow, there is hope for a greener future.
