Effects of Civil Disobedience

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has, in the past decades,
continued to grow. This has been the case despite many countries showing a commitment to the
Paris Agreement. Countries across the world have implemented regulations, climate policies, and
even technologies aimed to capture carbon, all with an aim to comply with the Paris Agreement
and mitigate climate change. At the same time, organizations committed to environmental justice
and climate activists continue to publicly oppose and protest against the widespread extraction
and use of fossil fuels. Activism towards the mitigation of climate change is potentially
becoming a force that is aimed at decarbonization and the reduction of the emission of C02 and
other greenhouse gases. Civil disobedience, climate change protests, and activism against the
emission of greenhouse gases have increased in the recent past, aiming to mitigate climate
change.
One of the most ambitious goals to mitigate climate change is by implementing a rapid
phase-out of the widespread reliance on fossil fuels. Countries aiming to comply with the Paris
Agreement should be willing to achieve 80% of electricity supply from renewable sources.
According to Temper et al. (2020), “the main challenge is how to navigate inclusive and socially
acceptable pathways towards low carbon futures.” Climate activists have been protesting to
ensure that countries do not forego societal well-being and values in their quest to mitigate
against climate change. Policies must be fair and desirable to society members.
Social movements are increasingly focusing on the human rights and ethical scopes of
climate change. Vulnerable communities continue to be adversely affected by activities such as
the extraction and manufacturing of energy. Activists support specific environmentally friendly

3

and human-friendly strategies such as anti-FF norms (Green, 2018). They also support
divestment and non-extraction where oil is left in its natural state; in the soil (Healy & Barry,
2017). Social activists have thus been engaging in protests opposing the extraction of natural gas
and direct action. These groups are opposed to social disruptions where human communities
residing in areas where oil is located moved to the pathway for the extractions (Bugden, 2020).
They have also been opposed to environmental changes caused by the installation of large
facilities to aid in the extraction of fuel.
Civil disobedience with the aim of protecting the environment has been found to be
controversial, as some of the protests have ended up destroying property. Activists held a protest
in 2007 opposing a plan to build a coal-fired power station in Kent. During the protests, the
activists engaged in activities that led to criminal damage amounting to £30,000 (Kyllönen,
2014). The activists were taken to court, and the jury accepted their defense’s argument. They
were said to have a “lawful excuse to damage property to prevent even greater damage caused by
climate change” (Kyllönen, 2014). The judgment initiated other issues regarding the justification
of engaging in protests and damaging property to prevent worse damage. Illegal direct action has
had its history in climate change activism. While protestors cite a ‘higher cause of protecting the
environment, it beats logic on reasons they should damage already existing property.
Civil disobedience is justified on the basis that a stable and safe climate anywhere in the
world is a public good which is a key element in maintaining acceptable standards of living for
all. Thus, this argument justifies damage that may be caused by civil disobedience protests
because activists will be fighting for a global public good; a stable climate. “Those engaging in
civil disobedience conceive of themselves as change agents working to introduce a new and just
state of affairs” (Burkett, 2016). The activists are also widely supported by people as well as the

4
media. They are often seen as people fighting to challenge broken systems that are an outright
threat to the well-being and survival of people across the globe.
The climate crisis is a serious issue that is increasingly threatening the state of affairs.
Thus, while some acts of civil disobedience and protests are damaging and have negative effects
on property, the solutions they seek are absolute. Thus, while “the acts are immoral, the
appropriate solutions are absolute” (Burkett, 2016). Besides, climate change is consistently
outpacing any domestic efforts and policies adopted by local governments to address it. Studies
have shown that aggressive mitigation is necessary if much is to be achieved. This explains why
civil disobedience may be quite reasonable if it will help the world mitigate climate change.
Civil disobedience, as advanced by social and environmental justice movements, is
necessary for change. These groups challenge hydrocarbon activities and engage in similar
activities aimed at protecting the environment from more damage. “Such actions are crucial for a
sustainable and just transformation of energy systems” (Thiri et al., 2022). Social mobilization is
needed to achieve the carbon budget target in different countries. When people engage in
proactive participation and resistance through collective action, they will be able to achieve the
much-needed change.
Decarbonization is achievable through social mobilization. Civil disobedience is helping
achieve what other initiatives such as the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto protocol have failed to
achieve. Lazarus et al. (2015) hold that most of the strategies and policies advanced by different
governments across the globe only focus on one side, the demand side. These, however, cannot
sufficiently address the problem of climate change, and more is necessary. Activism and civil
disobedience strategies have been influencing policies, albeit indirectly, as they aim to constrain
the supply of fossil fuels.

5
Overall, civil disobedience has had a direct impact on efforts aimed at mitigating climate
change. Social movements have engaged in a variety of actions aimed at ensuring that
decarbonization is achieved and that the issue of fossil fuels is addressed from the supply side as
opposed to just from the demand side. In some instances, however, civil disobedience has been
found to cause damage to property, and critics have wondered whether they are acting for the
common good as they claim. However, civil disobedience is justified as the activists continue to
lobby for actions that will help achieve a stable and safe global climate and consequently
safeguard life. Climate change has been threatening human survival. Climate patterns have
become extreme, and change is needed. This justifies civil disobedience as the action, even if
radical, necessary for the safety and well-being of the masses. Besides, a stable climate is a
global public good that should be safeguarded.

6

References

Bugden, D. (2020). Does climate protest work? Partisanship, protest, and sentiment
pools. Socius, 6, 2378023120925949.
Burkett, M. (2016). Climate disobedience. Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F., 27, 1.
Green, F. (2018). Anti-fossil fuel norms. Climatic Change, 150(1), 103-116.
Healy, N., & Barry, J. (2017). Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil
fuel divestment and a “just transition”. Energy policy, 108, 451-459.
Kyllönen, S. (2014). Civil disobedience, climate protests and a Rawlsian argument
for’atmospheric’fairness. Environmental Values, 23(5), 593-613.
Lazarus, M., Erickson, P., & Tempest, K. (2015). Supply-side climate policy: the road less
taken (p. 24). Stockholm Environment Institute..
Temper, L., Avila, S., Del Bene, D., Gobby, J., Kosoy, N., Le Billon, P., … & Walter, M. (2020).
Movements shaping climate futures: A systematic mapping of protests against fossil fuel
and low-carbon energy projects. Environmental Research Letters, 15(12), 123004.
Thiri, M. A., Villamayor-Tomás, S., Scheidel, A., & Demaria, F. (2022). How social movements
contribute to staying within the global carbon budget: Evidence from a qualitative meta-
analysis of case studies. Ecological Economics, 195, 107356.