The XL pipeline would move such a massive amount of oil, and the Tar Sands are the dirties oil with a much worse GHG load, that Jim Hansen has called it "Game Over for the Planet". It is for this reason that 350.org and a coalition of national climate groups made it a target of their opposition and the focus on it ignited a movement to oppose fossil fuel projects, and Bill McKibben's famous "Do the Math" tour which brought powerfully to America's attention that not only do we have to stay below 350 parts per million to have a liveable planet (currently breaking 420...yikes) but that we have a "carbon budget" ....an amount we cannot burn, or we will never be able to keep the planet cool enough to support life. Scientists say that at our current rate of burning it we have 4 years left before we pass that point. So climate activists are pretty intense right now about trying to stop things like the pipeline. To the uniformed Trumps attempt to "approve it" would seem like he has just ended the game for all of us. However, the pipeline does not have project level funding. And this is where the civil disobedience comes in. The movement has targeted the banks with the hope of putting enough pressure on them to stop them from making these loans. It is a good strategy because if they don't loan the money the pipeline will again be dead.
In Feb and April of this year, Bernard Lafayette of Civil Rights era fame, has been in Seattle and lead two trainings on non-violence (which I have previously written about.) Hearing Bernard talk about the difference between non-violence with a hypen and nonviolence without a hype, as the difference between "not violent" and something far more complex and spirit based, really helped me put words onto something I have been struggling to articulate to the local movement for a long time.
Our Faith Action Climate Team, here is Seattle, planned how we wanted to go about our action. Mindful of the 6 points of nonviolence (listed again in that previous post) we committed to conduct ourselves from a peaceful spirit so our actions aligned with that spirit. We met up on the day of our action and sang and prayed to ground ourselves. We went over to the Chase bank (largest potential funder of the XL pipeline) and spent an hour sharing prayers, silence and song.
I was able to talk to the bank manager at length trying consciously to speak to that of God in him. Our conversation was respectful. I did not make him the enemy, I treated him as the person who would carry the message to higher levels of the bank that the people where rising up and would remove their accounts and hound the bank if they continued this plan to fund. He told me he was sympathetic and agreed to communicate that message. I was able to communicate to him that 4 of our group had accounts at Chase and would return another day to close them and that if Chase persisted they would just lose more and more public support. He acknowledged that they already had lost accounts for this reason, and they knew that. He also told me that if we did not leave he would be forced to call the police. I told him I understood that but that we were staying as long as spirit told us too. Outside the bank other supporters fliered the passers by and sang and prayed for the success of those inside. Throughout our two hours there the customers came in and did their business and left. They were not interfered with by us nor felt threatened by our energy, they were not our target. But they were curious about our message, and they each left clear why we were there.
The police liaison, a Mennonite, also spoke to that of God in the police. By the time the police arrived the bank manager was telling the police liaison that most of the bank employees agreed with us. The police from the minute they walked in and found people sitting in a circle on the floor in the bank praying, did not want to arrest us. They repeatedly tried to encourage us to go outside and protest outside saying they did not want to arrest us. Eventually the Lieutenant in charge stated repeatedly that he was "begging us" to go outside and kept going away and leaving us to "think about it" in the hopes we would leave. Eventually, I looked at him and said: "I know you don't want to arrest us, and we have decided to stay, so I am sorry for you." At that point he knew that he really would have to arrest us, and they did proceed to do so. However, they also wound up releasing us without booking or ticketing us.
My co-defendant said in the holding cell that she felt sort of badly about making him have to arrest us. I said: "No, there is nothing to feel bad about. Everyone of us will have to face the ways in which we are complicit with climate change, and if he had to face how he is sometimes enforcing laws that keep the oppressive system in place and support climate change, and if that is what the bank manager has to face, his role in a bank that is making it happen...then that is actually the power of nonviolence to bring moral pressure to bear for social change." This is important since people sometime ask me what good getting arrested actually does.
Friend George Lakey, author of Strategy for a Living Revolution, a classic work on nonviolence who was here speaking in Nov and then also in April, urges the movement over and over again to be strategic. He says that he does not see much point in random marches or one off actions. He wants to build campaigns that have clear goals. Nonviolence researcher Erica Chenoweth also points out that successful movements use a variety of techniques. They don't just do one thing over and over again. For the most part American's response to Trump has been a lot of marching and lobbying. Marching has it's place as a beginning movement building stage. So for example a lot of people came out for the first time ever to march in women's march and to the degree that their names got captured and they got hooked up to Communities Rising (the off shoot of the women's march) then the march served a purpose. In a normal politician it would have also created some fear and the desire to pivot to protect popularity. But on a narcissist this is completely lost. So when we do marches we have to ask: Who is the target? Is it to build coalition? Is to pressure certain key people? It needs to not be because we are mad and want to stomp around. Because frankly that is not much different than small children tantruming.
The expression of anger by protesters is a seductive thing indeed. We are mad about the injustices that are happening, and we have good reason to be mad! However, who are we targetting and who are we effecting and to what outcome? So for example, over decades various movements have felt moved to sit down in street intersections or to walk onto highways and shut down traffic. There are times were what is happening in our whole society is so well known and outrageous (an escalation of the Vietnam war, or the shooting of a black man in the back by police) that this sort of "no business as usual" response is clear and powerful. But too often it is actually an expression of the protesters sense of power that they can stop traffic. It is a sort of waving a fist at the sky. It leaves many people in buses and cars with schedules messed up and lives inconvenienced and leaves them angry and feeling disrespected. (One must consider - someone is going to pick up a child from daycare, someone is going to a surgery, someone is going to an airport, or a job interview. Is the fact that the President is doing something horrible or that climate change threatens them too, really a reason to cause them these problems?) When we piss them off do we build a movement? Is it strategic to have this effect on them? Contrast this to when completely nonviolent protesters were maced by the police at Occupy or Black Lives matter. In these cases the nonviolent behavior met with oppressive violence garnered public sympathy because if made more clear the oppression that is at work to keep our system in place.
When we say that we are targeting Chase bank as the primary funders of the XL pipeline that is a goal, but then the question has to be: how will we move them? Is it again a feel powerful thing to "shut them down"? What will actually move the bank management to decide that funding the XL pipeline is a bad idea. I am not so naive to think that people calmly explaining it to them will accomplish this because those at the highest levels are so profit driven that it seems clear that they have not been considering human welfare for a long time. But given that they are profit driven then things which threaten their brand and their profit do speak to them. So protests of all kinds (not just those that shut them down) threaten their good reputation. Do they lose business or profit from being shut down? No not really. This is the case if you block an oil or coal train, but with a bank people just deposit in a machine or the next day. (And are again angry about being inconvenienced.) People closing their accounts and telling them clearly why is what impacts their business. Negative media attention affects their brand. A wide spread event, closing many branches certainly creates a media event. But unless their is a long term campaign plan, unless Chase has to worry that disruptions and negative attention will continue - they can easily weather one bad day.
Let us consider for a moment the psychology of stakeholder power holders like bank executive or politicians. Like most humans when told they are bad or challenged in their actions the first reaction is to dig in and to justify to self and other, ones own actions. When someone is identified as a villain they respond to this sort of polarization by seeing the other as the enemy. What Martin Luther King showed us so powerfully is that when you treat an opponent with respect but with a firm demand it both confuses them and troubles their conscience, it leads them to self reflection and self questioning (with the few exceptions of those without conscience - who still must be supported by many other people to stay in power and those folks do have consciences.) So they start by defending themselves, if things stay polarized they stay defended. However, if they are challenged but on vilified there is room for them to start reexamining their position. There is room for them to consider compromises or shifts. There is also room as public opinion shifts against them and change becomes inevitable for them to find face saving ways to embrace the change they have to rather than to go to more violence or keep behaving in more and more morally repugnant ways to protect their position. Like Aikido their energy is met and redirected in the direction of a more peaceful outcome.
Erica Chenoweth in her studies of non-violence tells us that when violence occurs within a nonviolent movement that movement can succeed despite, but not because of the violence. In other words they must work to recover from the damage to their image that the violence creates. Thus another indicator of how important pure nonviolence is. Historically, it is also true that some movement followers impatient that success has not already been won begin to advocate property damage and or outright violence. Movements have split over such disagreements. So it is important as a movement that we know the history of nonviolent movements and that we carefully prepare the ground works in our movement for a spirit that supports nonviolence over simply non-violence. Erica has also identified that movements succeed by using a variety of strategies and techniques, not by relying to heavily on one method which will lead to loss of momentum over time. Additionally she tells us campaigns take about 5 to 7 years to succeed, so we have to have the faith, patience and determination to persevere.
So as a nonviolent movement to stop climate change, we must teach nonviolence which is not well understood in the American population. We must teach how to be non-violent not just in our actions but in our spirits.
We must choose our targets strategically and learn how to identify power holders and to make detailed strategies for how our pressure will work (Not simply say we will apply pressure). We must be able to articulate a plan that uses different techniques and escalates pressure over time and how we think the tactics will be effective. We must think about how we interface with the public and do so in ways that engage them and bring them with us rather than alienate them. We must learn how to activate our own centers of hope, love, courage, creativity and fun as we create these actions. And we must with our eyes on a clear vision of where we are going dig in for the long haul!
