Episode 55 Transcript: More paint on Stonehenge, please! The power of climate activism

Molly Wood Voice-Over:

Welcome to Everybody in the Pool, the podcast where we dive deep into the innovative solutions and the brilliant minds who are tackling the climate crisis head-on. I'm Molly Wood.

This week, we’re actually taking a break from innovations to talk about good, old-fashioned activism.

Maybe you heard about climate scientists chaining themselves to banks in 2022 to protest investment in fossil fuel extraction. Maybe you heard about another big set of protests along the same lines in 2023. You’re more likely to have heard about protesters who glued themselves to the court during the U-S Open tennis semifinal, or the ones who threw soup onto the glass covering the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, or successful lawsuits against state governments by youth activists in Montana or Hawaii. But if none of that got your attention, I bet you definitley heard about 

Stonehenge, when climate activists sprayed orange cornstarch on Stonehenge on summer solstice because love it or hate it, it worked.

My guest today has spent decades researching activism, from the women’s movement to the civil rights movement, and has a new book out that argues that in fact ctivism might be the most powerful tool we have left for getting the public’s attention and forcing action on the climate crisis.

Dana Fisher:

I'm Dana Fisher. I am the Director of the Center for Environment, Community and Equity and a professor in the School of International Service at American University. And I'm also the author of Saving Ourselves, From Climate Shocks to Climate Action, which provides a realistic perspective on what it's gonna take to get the world to address the climate crisis at the level that is needed.

Molly Wood:

Dana has taken a long and winding path through the various ways to create lasting change including working at multiple nonprofits and researching and writing about climate policymaking and activism but until now, never both of those at once.

Dana Fisher:

And so I, for years would do, like I wrote one book on climate politics. And then my next book was called Activism, Inc, which was out in 2006 on activism. And then I went back to climate and then back to activism and somewhere along the way they merged together. And so, you know, flash forward and I guess during the most recent round of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, I was asked to be a contributing author, which means I was brought in for a specific expert knowledge that was not available in the report and in the team that was writing a chapter on mitigation and policymaking. 

So I was asked to come in and write about activism and civic engagement, like kind of activism and like civic activism and engagement around climate. And so I worked on the IPCC, which was really interesting, but also very frustrating. And I wrote a lot, and the way the IPCC works is you write a lot and it gets distilled down. So I ended up writing like 12 pages or so. It ended up, I ended up with three paragraphs in the report, one line in the summary for policymakers, which everybody was so excited about, but it was such a bland, sad line and it was really, you know, disheartening. 

So when that was done and I felt, frustrated by the effect of that work, but it also was clear to me what needed to be done. And this is my first like real out there for the general public book. And I just felt like it's enough with writing and in the ivory tower. And I really wanted to make sure that I got this message out because I also feel like we're running out of time. And so I felt like before I consider working on another IPCC report or write a bunch more academic articles, et cetera, I wanted to share the message about what it's going to take based on 25 years of studying the climate policymaking process and also studying the ways that people are engaging in activism around climate change, bring that together to tell the story about what it's going to take to save ourselves from the climate crisis. And that is how I got here.

Molly Wood:

I love this idea that you were like exploring activism, exploring climate, and then at really arguably the exact right moment, this book is coming out because we are seeing so much more visible, right? It's like at tennis tournaments or painting Stonehenge or golf. Exactly. Like you're just sort of seeing more, there is a sense that climate activism and climate protesters, for lack of a better word, and you probably have a better word, are going to be much more visible. And it sounds like you're arguing have to be, that that is in fact a crucial component of climate action.

Dana Fisher:

Absolutely. I mean, I basically, you know, my sense is that, I mean, what's interesting is that during the Trump administration, we had a lot more people in the streets generally. So we, we actually, the movement right now is in what we kind of would call in, in the social science world, abeyance, which basically means that it's not, not like we're not in a big wave of activism right now yet. 

What we're seeing is this vanguard. And what's interesting about it is that they're, they're engaging in these very attention getting performative actions, which, you know, it's funny because in my world, we also call that the radical flank, which is forming, which is basically those activists who are frustrated with the lack of progress, who want to basically gain more attention to the movement and to achieve the goals more quickly. And therefore they're taking on more confrontational types of activism. And the thing that's funny about it is like, you know, I realized that orange paint on Stonehenge can be seen as radical, but first of all, it was made of cornstarch and washed right off. 

And second, I mean, it's so interesting, there was this historian who wrote all about, you know, historical moments when activists basically use Stonehenge and they had actually spray painted, ban the bomb. And I think it was the 1980s across all of Stonehenge. I saw this picture so remarkable. And people were like, yeah, well, that'll happen. And now it was like, the lichen, the lichen, you know. So it's just an interesting moment. And we're seeing, but we're seeing all of these people, a lot of them young, but actually not all of them young. There are a lot of elders who are really just so frustrated that they don't know what else to do. And they're getting involved and they're really taking it to the streets and trying to gain attention to try to create more issue salience for the climate crisis so that more people think about it.

Molly Wood:

I came across your work, I think, on threads as part of a debate, right? And there is always a debate. Like there are always people who are uncomfortable with protest, whether they're worried about the Lycan on Stonehenge, but not our air and water, apparently. Or whether it just is, they're just not comfortable with that, you know, the rudeness of activism. But talk about why it's such a crucial component to driving change.

Dana Fisher:

Well, I mean, first of all, you know, so when I talk about activism, and I think it's also worth noting that, well, I got all this attention because I did spend a bunch of time looking at the radical flank because the radical flank has grown. And when we look at activism now, it's a much higher proportion of the activism that's going on is engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. It's all nonviolent though and I think that's really important to stress because historically the radical flank does, you know, has gotten more confrontational during the struggle for women's suffrage. I mean, and I just learned this in the past couple of years, they blew up a building a month.

Molly Wood:

Really?

Dana Fisher:

Those women, they were angry and they were violent. I mean, they blew up things, they targeted office building. I mean, they were a violent bunch of ladies. They really wanted to vote. You know, and I get it. I mean, I'm not, I'm not condoning blown up buildings.

Molly Wood:

I mean, I'm trying not to say things like I can understand where they're coming from in this exact moment in America. Yeah, -huh, yeah.

Dana Fisher:

Yeah, exactly right. But anyway, all that being said, so we call it radical, but it's not that radical. But what I think is really important to note here is that these kinds of in your face tactics, which are very performative, going into an art museum and throwing soup on the covering of a painting, not the painting itself, or we had this, this like actually it is I don't know if I want to say beautiful, but this very attention getting action that two activists did here in DC at the National Gallery, where we have like the little dancer statue from Degas, which is covered in, I think it's glass, it could be plexiglass. And they basically came and they smeared paint on the outside of it and then sat down. But these are very much attention getting actions. And the point of them is to get media attention.

In the book, I call these guys the shockers and they're part of this very diverse ecosystem of the climate movement, which includes folks who are doing insider tactics, like trying to help community groups get electric buses, right? Trying to help, you know, businesses phase out, you know, use the plastic bags, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know, there are those that are working as insiders. There are those that are lobbying. 

There's those that are working on electoral politics, but then there also are those that are working outside the system. And the outside the system, a lot of it involves

civil disobedience in some way or another at this point. But it's absolutely necessary because it helps to expand what we call the tent, right, of people who are involved. It helps to draw more attention to the issue. And one of the things that the radical flank really aims to do is to get a lot of people who are sympathetic to the cause.

So people who care about the climate crisis, but have been spending a lot of time, you know, scrolling, you know, maybe, you know, watching Bridgerton, whatever. and basically say, you know what? I mean, and this is what the radical flank does. They say, I do not like what those folks are doing at the golf tournament at the museum, insert whatever action you want to hear. But I do think climate change is a real problem and I can feel it right now because we're having this crazy heat dome. I should do something about it. I'm gonna give money or get involved with a group in my community. And that's exactly how it works. And so that's the whole dynamic.

Molly Wood:

And it does work. I mean, I feel like that's a key component of your book and your research is that as much as there may be a few people who are like, I can't stomach that behavior, the fact is the radical flank activities like a pink ribbon for breast cancer, like awareness works.

Dana Fisher:

Awareness works and the thing that's right now, that's I mean, a great, here's a great example. So the week of Stonehenge and they also had these just stop oil activists who spray painted the airplanes in England. There was also a large scale demonstration legally permitted in London last weekend. About a hundred thousand activists were there.

That demonstration got like two articles and the Stonehenge folks got I don't even know how many thousands and thousands of articles that people spray painting, was it Taylor Swift jet? Wasn't it Taylor Swift jet? But whatever the case, they got tons of attention. And if your goal is media attention, so the general public keeps thinking about climate change, the ones that get the media attention are the ones that matter. 

Now that's not the only thing that activists in movements do. And these demonstrations are all about building a sense of collective identity, cohesion within a movement helping to build more of like what we think of as, you know, the organizational infrastructure, which is the connective tissue of movements that helps get people from marching to doing all these other things around elections, around campaigns. That's so important. But if it's about raising awareness and getting more people to join, it's a really great way to do that. And it does work, but I mean, there are lots of people who just have been yelling into the void at the moment on multiple platforms on social media about how awful it is that people are doing this stuff.

But like, I mean, quite frankly, you know, they're not blowing anything up. They're not harming people. They're not really even harming property. I mean, I think the most expensive of any of these actions has been like $5 ,000 to repaint, clear off the crazy glue. And people get to see their sporting events. They got to watch the rest of the US Open. And you know, I think that it's a small price to pay for people to continue to know that the climate crisis is making people feel like they have no other choice but to do something.

Molly Wood:

I think that it's a small price to pay for people to continue to know that the climate crisis is making people feel like they have no other choice but to do something.

Dana Fisher:

Coco was actually, I was actually, I was gonna say that, but I was like, I should be pithy. So Coco is actually classic radical flanks. What she said, cause she was playing when the Extinction Rebellion activists glued his foot to the stadium and they had to pause play. She basically said, you know, I don't support what these guys are doing, but climate change is a real problem.

We should do something about it, which is it's classic radical flank effect. And the thing is that I ended up being on TMZ live during the interview right after that happened, which was kind of, I know, which is kind of funny because I was, I remember when they, when they, I got an email and I'm like, are you, am I being punked here? I got asked to do TMZ live. Cause I was like, really? Okay. So then I, then I, I just, so basically, I mean, it was, it was a little more like, it was a little more than a year ago or a little less than a year ago now. And so I was like, you know what? I'm going to do this interview. 

And so they started out with the whole like, can you believe that this, you know, tennis match is being, you know, stopped and I want to watch my tennis. I said, but you've got to watch your tennis. I mean, the match resumed, no problem. And then they're like, but these guys are awful. And I said, well, you know, you don't have to support them. They're actually not there to be liked. In fact, they really expect that you're not going to like them. But look at what Coco said. I mean, the whole point is that I'm on TMZ live talking about the climate crisis and why it matters. And that's the radical flank effect for you folks.

Molly Wood Voice-Over:

Time for a quick break. When we come back, we’ll talk about how a movement goes from radical flank to mass action, we hope.

Molly Wood Voice-Over:

Welcome back to Everybody in the Pool. We’re talking with Dana Fisher, a sociologist and longtime climate and activism researche and the author of Saving Ourselves From Climate Shocks to Climate Action.

Molly Wood:

As you pointed out, and I do, you know, this is the body of your research is these kind of pieces and this sort of path that activism can follow. So the radical flank is one key component of activism driving change. What are the other pieces that then start to fall into place that lead to change? Hopefully, that hopefully lead to change, hopefully.

Dana Fisher:

So that lead to change. Well, I mean, so I just, I think, right. I mean, I think let's just take a step back and just say, so the work that I do on activism actually builds on this argument that is that we've been waiting and expecting that the state or the market is gonna go and solve the climate crisis for us, right? 

They're gonna either the state is gonna negotiate the perfect treaty and then all of a sudden, bam, we've decided that we're actually gonna reduce CO2 emissions and phase out fossil fuels. Well, that's not going to happen. and businesses are going to come up with that silver bullet where we can basically, you know, run our cars on water and that's going to make the difference. And, you know, if an American had come up with that technology, that might actually have worked because it worked actually during, you know, with the ozone depletion issue. 

But it's, there's very, very little reason to expect that's going to happen. So given that the state or the market have not been able to do that and the market has been really quite polarized because there are a lot of folks who are very, very comfortable making money and continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels as a way of continuing to expand the economy, which I understand. But those folks are not really excited about a transition away from fossil fuels. 

Unfortunately, addressing the climate crisis means that a transitional way from fossil fuels is really the only way forward. So they are never going to push for this kind of systemic change. And that means that you have a business sector that's bifurcated. So as a result of that, we need civil society.

Civil society needs to mobilize and in a large scale way that pushes against the power that has captured the business and political interests at this point. And that power is basically what we in the IPCC were required to call the vested interests, which are really fossil fuel interests. So those are folks who are either, you know, are connected with fossil fuel companies or to the extraction of fossil fuels as part of their profit making process.

And what we know right now is that power and the policymaking arena has really been captured by fossil fuel interests. So that fossil fuel interests have privileged access to both power in the form of, you know, elected officials and the resources in that they basically don't even pay, they don't even pay, you know, a fair rate to get access to the natural resources on public lands.

So while that's the case, I mean, they obviously really want to continue that. And one of the ways they do that is by making contributions to people running for office, be they Democrats or Republicans, right? So across the board, folks are getting that kind of money. And as a result, the people in power end up then supporting fossil fuel interests when it comes down to a vote, no matter whether they're a Democrat or Republican. I mean, research has shown this.

And so we need civil society to push back, but it needs to be more than just these, you know, the groups that I call the shockers, these folks that are doing these performative acts of protest. It needs to be a mass movement and it needs to be people who are willing to push back against power through the electoral process, through, you know, insider actions like lobbying and, you know, basically pressuring people who are running for office not to take fossil fuel money. 

Also to push for businesses and support businesses that are willing to go legitimately go net zero, not just symbolically gesturing at net zero, for example. But those are all things that civil society and social movements can do, the climate movement can do. And it is doing that, but at the moment, they also are arguing with one another about who's right and who's wrong, which is unfortunate because that's not very helpful.

Molly Wood:

Let's dig into that a little bit because I think history is always instructive, particularly in the case of activism because you see, of course, with the climate movement and any other movement, there are purity tests everywhere. There are plenty, I think, of people who want to enact climate change and take personal action who are, who run up against an unforgiving environmental movement, right? 

Or there are people who are like, nuclear actually is clean power and that's just not even a conversation you can have. How, I'm certain there must be historical precedent for this, for activists being unable to agree amongst themselves even on the right way forward. But how do you overcome that, if at all?

Dana Fisher:

Well, I mean, I think that the best way to think about how to overcome it is take examples from other movements that have been successful or at least have been, you know, incrementally successful. And I'm thinking here particularly about the civil rights movement. So the civil rights movement, there are lots of differences here. It was, you know, it's held up as one of the most successful social movements we've ever had in the United States. And one of the things that's really interesting about the civil rights movement is the way that they had a radical flank that emerged, right?

Molly Wood:

Right.

Dana Fisher:

That's how we got sit -ins and we got, you know, a whole bunch of nonviolent civil disobedience coming from the civil rights movement during its heyday. And a lot of the elders were really unsupportive of this kind of, these tactics being used. They didn't want to engage in civil disobedience. They didn't want to break the law. And yet what ended up happening that was so interesting is that we see that the black church which was kind of like a central component of the black community in America, particularly when people, you know, when black Americans didn't have the vote and there was Jim Crow, et cetera and so forth, they basically created community and solidarity across these different factions of the movement.

And they provided a home for the radical flank. They fed them, they housed them when necessary, they bailed them out of jail when necessary, even though the elders were not super supportive of a lot of what they were doing.

And I think it sets a really good example of this kind of notion of community and support for everybody who's in the movement. And I would just say that what's kind of interesting about it is that while we hear a lot of criticism from folks who are working in the climate world against these kinds of actions, and we've heard it a bunch in the past week or so since Stonehenge. But what I think is kind of interesting is that one of the things I do in the way that I collect my data is I survey protesters. So at the last big climate,

March that we had in the United States, which was the March 10 fossil fuels, which took place right before the UN meeting, General Assembly meeting in New York City in September. So last September, 2023, there were 75 ,000 people in the streets, which is not a huge protest by any stretch of the imagination, but the biggest climate march since January 6th and since Biden took office. And so I went out there and I surveyed the protesters and I actually asked them one of the questions I asked them was, do you support activists and organizations that are engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, for example, sit -ins, and I list a whole bunch of tactics, including like throwing food, throwing soup, slow walking, et cetera, and so on, blocking traffic, right?

Molly Wood:

Yeah.

Dana Fisher:

And what I thought would be really interesting is to look at the people who are at the march and see what explains who's supporting it and who doesn't. It will give us a sense of kind of how the radical flank could be divisive.

And I should just say that I surveyed everybody and I found out that only 46 % of the people in the streets had actually engaged in civil disobedience. So more than half of them had not. So this was not like a group of activists who were doing civil disobedience. And I wasn't able to do the analysis I wanted to do because 100 % of the people who responded to the survey, who took my survey, and it was a random sample from throughout the crowd, said they either supported or strongly supported groups that were doing civil disobedience. 

Molly Wood:

Huh, even though 46 % of them never had before themselves. That feels like a big deal.

Dana R Fisher:

Never had. So it is a big deal.

Molly Wood:

So that is a necessary component. What are the other necessary components for turning activism into action?

Dana Fisher:

Well, I think we need a mass movement. I mean, I think we need lots more people who are engaged. Like we need people who care, who are willing to put it on the line. They don't all have to be crazy gluing themselves. They don't have to be blockading. They can be working in their communities on like rain gardens. They could be working in their communities on electric buses, which is one of my favorites. Cause it also has these amazing like air quality benefits at the same time. They could be doing any of those things, but we need more of them. We do not have that right now in the climate movement.

Molly Wood:

Right. It's humans, bodies. Yep.

Dana R Fisher:

And that's the other component of what I talk about in the book is I talk about, and that's where the climate shocks come from. And climate shocks are basically extreme weather that is exacerbated by climate change, right? By the concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. And what we've seen is that climate shocks are growing more severe and coming more frequently. And the natural scientists, you know, I am not a natural scientist, but I build off of their research and their findings.

The natural scientists say this is a common component of what we're going to expect as the crisis continues, right? As the temperatures warm and the glaciers melt, we are going to see a lot more severe weather. And the experience of that, experiencing personally the climate crisis in your community is one of the things that will play a role in mobilizing the masses. And I would just say that when I started out 25 years ago, when I was working on my dissertation, in the 1990s, we were talking about climate change because we wanted to save the polar bears, which sounds laughable now, particularly like for young people who've grown up, you know, experiencing wildfires or wildfires, fire smoke every summer. 

But that was what was, you know, that was how we envisioned what the climate, you know, climate crisis was going to be about. We didn't use that term. And now everybody's experiencing it. In fact, going back to that sample of protesters that I took last September at the March 10 fossil fuels, 87 % of the people in the streets said that they had experienced at least one climate shock. And I didn't ask them using that term, but they experienced wildfire, extreme heat, sea level rise, flooding. And as climate shocks come more frequently and are more severe, more and more people are going to be experiencing what the climate crisis means firsthand. We're already seeing it this summer. I mean, we're seeing it in like in Greece and we're seeing it in the Hage. I mean, there's just so many terrible things that are happening.

Molly Wood:

Yeah. Right.

Molly Wood:

That's a good and somewhat unfortunate segue into the role of media here. Because before we started recording, as we are speaking, we're at the end of June and there have been hundreds of deaths and will continue to be more across the world. The United States is, most of the continental United States is under this crushing heat dome and there's very little coverage about it, just as there is often very little coverage about climate protests like the 75 ,000 people in the streets. What if you throw activism at the wall and it doesn't stick? Nobody hears it.

Dana Fisher:

Well, I mean, that's why we need a mass mobilization because when you have a mass mobilization of people turning out and refusing to go home, that changes the discussion. You can't ignore it. I mean, we saw that not, I mean, we saw probably the biggest and most, you know, the best example of that during the summer of 2020 after George Floyd was murdered, when we saw people go out in the streets and stay out in the streets. I mean, that was the largest sustained period of protests in US history.

Molly Wood:

Yeah, you can't ignore it.

Dana Fisher:

And it was impossible to ignore. Now granted, the response to that ended up being incremental because people then ended up going back home. But if the climate crisis gets bad enough, people may not have homes to go back to. I mean, granted, the people who'll be hurt the most are the people in places where they can't get access to cooling stations or their neighborhoods are completely flooded. I mean, if you're looking at what's happening in the upper Midwest right now, there are areas that are completely underwater.

Molly Wood:

Mm -hmm.

Dana Fisher:

Right? Destroyed. Vermont last year got flooded so much in Burlington that at least the people say that every building in the city was harmed. And that's why they actually, there was a big push to pass this new law around climate change to make, you know, fossil fuel companies pay for the damages.

Molly Wood:

In our remaining time, let's talk a little about despair and where activism is sort of an interesting outgrowth of despair, but also antidote. Because I do think people are overwhelmed and feel like personal, and they actually get told in a way that I actually think is climate denial, that personal action doesn't work.

Dana Fisher:

Mm -hmm. But I think what, well, I mean, I think there are a couple of interesting things here. I mean, one of them is that the other side of despair is anger. And one of the things that I found in my research is that activists are really channeling sadness and anger. And anger gives you a personal sense of efficacy that you can make a difference. And that's why people, you know, people get angry and then they want to get even or they want to push back against power. And that's what we're going to need.

Molly Wood:

Yeah.

Dana Fisher:

And when your house floods, I mean, obviously there's reason to be, to despair. And especially if you live in one of these places where you can no longer get insurance, right? Where you lose everything. I mean, but that's the direction we're going. And what I predict is that there will be a lot of despair, but I think there's also going to be a lot of opportunity to channel that into anger and use it to push back against power, which is what we're going to need because the kinds of systemic changes we're talking about is about shaking us out of the entire system that we're in right now. And that, I mean, it's not gonna be easy and it's not gonna be painless. What I really hope and what I tried to get, you know, come across, I hope comes across in the book is that I hope as many people as possible can get to the other side.

Molly Wood:

Yeah. If there is, I think we've gotten there, but just in case, if there is one takeaway from the book for everyday people, what is it?

Dana Fisher:

Well, I think the big takeaway from the book is that it's going to take everybody doing anything that they're willing and comfortable to do. They're willing and comfortable to do to get us to the other side of the climate crisis. And that means you can be an activist. You can be what I call a shocker or disruptor doing civil disobedience in different ways. You could be working in your community.

You could be helping in the public schools. You could be a librarian. You can do any of those things and be an agent for change and an agent for helping us save ourselves.

It's going to take everybody doing anything they're willing to do to get us the other side of the climate crisis with as little lives lost as possible. And I think the last thing I would just say is, you know, and this is the last line of the book is as unfair as it seems, the future is up to us. Nobody's coming to save us. We're going to have to save ourselves.

Molly Wood:

Everybody in the pool. Dana Fisher, thanks so much. Dana Fisher, thank you so much for the time.

Dana Fisher:

Everybody exactly everybody in the Pool.

Dana Fisher:

Thank you so much for having me. Yeah. Do something. Do anything.

Molly Wood Voice-Over:

So listening to this podcast is a radical act. Now, tell your friends. The book is called Saving Ourselves, there’s a discount code in the newsletter this week which you can subscribe to at mollywood dot co or find at everybody in the pool dot com.

That's it for this episode. Email me your thoughts and suggestions and acts of rebellion because a drop really does become a flood, friends. Together and only together, we can get this done. See you next week.