George Monbiot’s statement that “taking out pipelines, refineries, abattoirs, coal plants and SUVs is morally justified” by comparison to the liberation struggles of colonised peoples is based on a fundamental misreading of the historical and social context of those events (I back saboteurs who have acted with courage and coherence, but I won’t blow up a pipeline. Here’s why, 29 April).
This is not a novel view; it is a point well made already by Nafeez Ahmed in his critique of non-violent direct action. Anti-colonial resistance in India, for example, originated from within the oppressed communities themselves. Their aim was to force the British state to respond with such violence that the brutality of the colonial regime became apparent to the majority of the British people, whose tacit consent had been necessary for the continuation of the colonial enterprise.
No such context exists today. All of us in the global north are complicit in, and beneficiaries of, the fossil fuel economy. To take it upon yourself to resort to the violent destruction of vital infrastructure, with who knows what consequences for those who depend on it, you must have a degree of moral certainty – I would use the word fanaticism – which I certainly do not possess.
I agree with Monbiot that the tools of democratic change have been blunted and bent out of shape by years of subversion by vested interests. They still remain, however, our only hope of solving our differences without recourse to violence. In the current social and political context, once embarked on a path of violent disruption, we would unleash the very “war of all against all” that democratic politics seeks to protect us from.
Kevin Middleton
Stanford in the Vale, Oxfordshire
• George Monbiot is right to warn against using violence and direct action in the struggle against climate breakdown. Sabotage strengthens policing, security services and surveillance, as well as driving a wedge between activists and the public. It diverts campaigners from politics into dealing with the judicial system.
Monbiot is also right that our best hope is “social tipping” to widen support for systemic change. But we also need to use our democratic rights to build political support for the tough actions needed to tackle the climate crisis. Politicians fear losing votes more than anything else: this fear gave us the Scottish parliament, the referendum on Brexit, and the abolition of the fuel tax escalator, following direct action by lorry drivers in 2000. Local elections this week and the general election enable us to vote for decisive action on climate. We also need to lobby parties, councillors and MPs to address the existential threats to humanity.
Titus Alexander
Galashiels, Scotland
• I entirely agree with George Monbiot about the need to support only what one is prepared to do. I am prepared to be a surreptitious seed spreader personally, having realised that it does not need to be expensive, as dandelion seeds, among others, are freely available. However, I dream of wider action. Offers from conservation groups/activists to rewild all tedious lawns outside public and institutional buildings? Illicit organised wilding, including tree planting for the uncooperative? Fundraising to add to the variety of planting? Fruit tree planting on verges and at the side of roads?
I should exempt only farmland. May golf courses be turned back into forests, orchards and fruit farms. And, while damaging concrete and paved infrastructure is no doubt criminal, where the concrete and asphalt submit to natural forces of erosion, why not plant there? Let’s see how acorns do in potholes.
Elspeth Knights
St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
