SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
campus protests
Hear Me Out: In 2025, Climate Activists Should Spend Less Time on Climate
If you’re a climate activist who doesn’t know what to do for the next four years, the answer is remarkably simple: Join other movements.
Jan 09, 2025
Ever since my first foray into climate activism in 2019, I have dreaded the year 2025. In my mind, it’s always been the Big Deadline.
The 2015 Paris agreement concluded that greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 if we have any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
And yet, now that we’re standing at the precipice of this once-far off deadline, we are still so far from the meaningful climate action necessary to fend off unstoppable climate catastrophe. Indeed, we’ve just worsened our chances at a survivable future.
We need to build a strong left to fight fascism during Trump’s presidency and to build a just green future in its aftermath.
The U.S. became the largest oil producer in 2018 and continues to expand domestic fossil fuel production. American citizens just elected a fascist president who has promised to gut the EPA and establish U.S. “energy dominance,” but the Democrat who supposedly could have saved us from Donald Trump refused to ban fracking and praised U.S. oil production.
Technically, I should be panicking. I certainly was when my college graduation last May was preceded by some headlines announcing the 1.5°C limit had already been reached. But now, as a climate activist in New York City, I find myself surprisingly calm.
This calm isn’t simply due to local climate wins, though I have celebrated those. Gov. Kathy Hochul just signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law, which will require fossil fuel companies to pay billions into a fund to help New Yorkers recover from climate disasters. In other words, New York will force polluters to pay to clean up their own messes. This is a huge step in holding fossil fuel companies accountable.
Yet my optimism arises out of a different trend in the climate movement: Climate activists are (finally) showing up for other movements.
Historically, the climate movement has attempted to isolate itself from other political and social issues, arguing that climate policy is “just science.” This majority-white movement has failed to see that fossil fuel emissions are part of a larger history of the Global North colonizing and exploiting both people and the planet for decades. The climate crisis is a symptom of a broader exploitative system. To change that system, we need a united left that will fight for all people—not just those who identify as environmentalists.
In 2020, climate activists were rightfully berated for not showing up enough for the Black Lives Matter movement. Thankfully, I think many climate activists heard that message because today, they have come out in droves for Palestine.
Many of the college students who organized campus encampments last spring to urge their school administrators to divest from Israel and the U.S. imperial war machine were students who had previously organized for climate justice. I witnessed this firsthand at the Claremont Colleges when I was a senior: The student organizations demanding fossil fuel divestment fell to the wayside as the crisis in Gaza intensified. Globally, many climate organizations chose to speak out and take direct action to call for a cease-fire in Gaza.
But none of these climate activists had stopped caring about the climate. In fact, they often pointed out that Israel’s actions were not just genocide, but ecocide as well. The onslaught of bombs dropped on Gaza will contaminate the soil and groundwater in the region for decades. And the destruction has produced at least 54.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions of 16 coal-fired power plants.
Climate activists cannot claim to fight for a just future and stay silent about genocide. “If we, as climate activists, aren’t able to see and speak up against the current marginalization and oppression and killing of people today, then I don’t think we should be able to call ourselves climate justice [activists],” climate champion Greta Thunberg told Al Jazeera in early December 2024.
As Trump prepares to enter the White House, we will undoubtedly see more people oppressed and killed. Among the many groups who are vulnerable under his administration are undocumented immigrants, whom Trump has vowed to round up and deport.
Migrant justice has long been intertwined with climate justice. As climate change makes many areas around the world uninhabitable, climate refugees have no choice but to leave their home.
In response to Trump’s election, climate organizers Jeff Ordower and Ahmed Gaya called on their fellow activists to bring their experiences of shutting down pipelines and coal plants to fight the incarceration and deportation we can expect under Trump. Climate activists should answer this call: The struggles for migrant justice and climate justice are intertwined, and we must meet the needs of the current moment.
“[Climate is] not more urgent than kids being ripped away from their families and dying in the desert—anyone who tries to win that argument is monstrous themselves. We either merge, join forces, or we lose,” writer and activist Naomi Klein said in 2019.
With Trump as president, things will undoubtedly get worse before they get better. We need to build a strong left to fight fascism during Trump’s presidency and to build a just green future in its aftermath. To do so, climate activists must put their words into action when they say they fight for every living being.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Now 'Things Get Much Worse': Palestinian Rights Movement Under Threat as Trump Returns
"This administration will likely be coming very quickly to try to take down the Palestinian rights movement," said a Jewish Voice for Peace Action leader.
Jan 02, 2025
Victims of violence by U.S.-armed Israeli forces and advocates for Palestinian rights across the United States are sounding the alarm over Republican President-elect Donald Trump's looming return to the White House and GOP control of Congress.
President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the divided 118th Congress have faced intense criticism for giving Israel diplomatic and weapons support to kill at least 45,581 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the past 15 months and attack Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The outgoing Democratic administration and lawmakers have also faced backlash for their response to anti-war protests, particularly on U.S. university campuses, some of which were met with police brutality.
However, recent reporting in the United States and Israel has highlighted fear about promises from Trump and his Republican Party that, as the Israeli newspaper Haaretzput it last week, a "quick and complete" crackdown "on pro-Palestinian sentiment in America will be a defining factor of his administration's early days."
"The Palestinian rights movement is very clear-eyed in understanding that it is very likely that this Trump administration will mean that things get much worse for Palestinians."
Beth Miller, political director of the advocacy group Jewish Voice for Peace Action, toldPolitico on Wednesday that "the Palestinian rights movement is very clear-eyed in understanding that it is very likely that this Trump administration will mean that things get much worse for Palestinians."
"This administration will likely be coming very quickly to try to take down the Palestinian rights movement," Miller added.
Leaders with the Adalah Justice Project and Arab American Institute also noted concerns about efforts to silence advocates and even dismantle organizations—some of which are already underway. In November, 15 House Democrats joined all but one Republican in voting for the so-called Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495).
The legislation would enable the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it deems a "terrorist-supporting organization" without due process. Advocates for various causes have condemned what they call the "nonprofit killer bill."
Although H.R. 9495 never made it through the Democrat-held Senate, Republicans are set to take over the chamber on Friday. The GOP will also retain control of the House, which during this session has repeatedly voted to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, or discrimination against Jews.
In addition to likely facing a new wave of legislative attacks—potentially spearheaded by GOP leaders like incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a U.S. military veteran who has volunteered with the Israel Defense Forces and denied the existence of "innocent Palestinian civilians"—rights advocates in the United States could be targeted by key officials in the next Trump administration.
As Haaretz recently detailed, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump's second choice to lead the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), his nominee for secretary of state; and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), his candidate for ambassador to the United Nations, have expressed support for deporting pro-Palestinian protesters who have student visas.
Although former federal prosecutor Kash Patel, Trump's pick to direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "doesn't have much of a record on campus protests, he is most notorious for his desire to remove any of Trump's critics and doubters from the national security apparatus," the newspaper noted. "Further, Patel's experience as the National Security Council's senior director of counterterrorism during Trump's first term positions him to crack down on pro-Palestinian sympathizers."
Aggressively anti-Palestinian appointees, who tend to describe all campus protesters as Hamas supporters, will soon steer both foreign and domestic policy, creating a Trump administration united in seeking a crackdown on the pro-Palestinian movement. www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...
[image or embed]
— John Sloboda ( @johnsloboda.bsky.social) December 26, 2024 at 6:07 PM
Haaretz also highlighted comments from Harmeet Dhillon, Trump's pick to lead the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, and Linda McMahon, his nominee for education secretary, as well as Project Esther: A National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism—an October proposal from the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank that is also behind the sweeping Project 2025 policy agenda.
"The virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American groups comprising the so-called pro-Palestinian movement inside the United States are exclusively pro-Palestine and—more so—pro-Hamas," states the Project Esther report. "They are part of a highly organized, global Hamas Support Network (HSN) and therefore effectively a terrorist support network."
Two co-chairs of the Heritage-backed National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, James Carafano and Ellie Cohanim, wrote earlier this week at the Washington Examiner that "Project Esther is a blueprint to save the U.S. from those utilizing antisemitism to destroy it."
"The objective is to dismantle the infrastructure by denying it the resources required for its antisemitic activity," they argued. "Targeting the groups and organizations that receive the funding and deploy it to their grassroots followers who engage in antisemitic activity, the useful idiots we see on college campuses, for example, will divorce the means from the opportunity, thereby rendering these activists incapable of threatening U.S. citizens."
Posting the piece on X—the social media platform owned by billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk—Carafano
declared that "when Donald Trump starts to take on the global intifada he will need partners. We will need to be there."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Civil Discourse in a Time of Genocide
If there is to be a peaceful transition to a more just and equal world, it will not come through a polite exchange of views between the powerful and powerless.
Jan 01, 2025
Civil discourse is preferable to the alternatives of coerced silence and violence. Coerced silence means that one side has exercised power to end conversation—to say, in effect, there is no point in further discussion; be quiet and accept that our desires will prevail. Violence means that reason has failed and we are reduced to the condition of resolving disputes by means of fang and claw, rock and club, bullet and bomb.
Despite the dismal historical record of our species, as a professor I have held out hope that humans are capable of doing better. Ordinarily this would imply support for any effort, in universities or elsewhere, to promote civil discourse. But the efforts we see now—the selling of civil discourse as the solution to problems of polarization and rancor on our campuses and in society more generally—are a problem, because their main effect is to block change.
In recent years we’ve seen a proliferation of university-based programs ostensibly intended to promote civil discourse. There is the Civil Discourse Project at Duke; the Dialogue Project at Dartmouth; the Dialogues Initiative at Georgetown; the Civil Discourse Lab at Vanderbilt; ePluribus at Stanford; the Project on Civic Dialogue at American University; and School of Civic Life and Leadership at UNC-Chapel Hill. This is to name but a few.
If there is to be a peaceful transition to a more just and equal world, it will not come through a polite exchange of views between the powerful and powerless.
The claim most often made to justify these programs is that students today don’t know how to carry on mutually respectful dialogue or debate, and thus end up yelling at each other or, worse, yelling at administrators and members of university governing boards. An adjacent claim is that faculty—usually meaning leftist or liberal professors—have failed to impart these skills. And so it has been necessary, the argument goes, to create new programs and curricula devoted to teaching the arts of listening and of rationally exchanging views, especially about emotionally fraught topics.
Advocates of these programs have pointed to the campus anti-genocide protests last spring as evidence that special tutelage in civil discourse is needed now more than ever. The problem with those protests, civil discoursers allege, is that they were sometimes loud, got in the way of people moving about campus, made Zionist supporters of Israel feel unsafe, and were thus by definition uncivil. If students had only mastered the skills of polite civic engagement, no disruptions would have occurred, fewer feathers would have been ruffled, and more views would have been productively shared.
These appeals to make dialogue civil again are seductive. Of course we should strive to listen to each other carefully and speak to each other calmly and rationally. Of course we should try to hone our abilities to do these things, because these abilities in turn enable us to find the common good, identify what is just and unjust, and pursue change peacefully. Of course higher education should nurture these abilities. And yet, in the context of entrenched inequality, calls for civil discourse—and the university programs that sacralize it—are often conservative ploys to impede the pursuit of justice.
This is evident if we consider who is in a position to demand civility of whom, and who has the power to define what is civil. Historically, it has been those in power who demand civility from those who seek redress of grievances. “Speak politely, in soothing tones,” the subtext goes, “or we won’t listen to you at all.” The further message is that an inability to remain calm when trying to be heard, when trying to end an abusive state of affairs, will be taken as a sign of the irrationality of the demand. Today, we would call this gaslighting.
In the case of Israel’s assault on Palestinians, the call for civil discourse is cynical and galling, as if mere misunderstanding is what’s wrong.
Consider, for example, a request made by student protesters to discuss a university’s complicity in genocide. This would seem like an eminently civil first step. What is uncivil is the refusal on the part of administrators and governing bodies to engage in good-faith discussion of such matters. Which is exactly what we saw in last spring’s protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza. Protesters’ requests for dialogue were typically ignored, leading to escalation: louder voices, encampments, rallies, unauthorized postering, spray painting, etc. Administrators defined these actions as disruptive, calling in police to make arrests. That isn’t civility; it’s a reassertion of domination.
But what we are supposed to believe now, according to those who celebrate civil discourse, is that anti-genocide protesters—those who sought dialogue and a peaceful path to change—are at fault and in need of remedial instruction. Administrators who violently quash the expressive activity of protesters are lauded as voices of reason. Protesters who raise their voices in an attempt to be heard are dismissed as troublemakers undeserving of an audience. This smear tactic works because of differences in power between the groups confronting each other—ordinary people of conscience on one side, agents of the U.S. imperialist state on the other.
Another problem with most current calls for civil discourse is that the goal of discerning the truth is shunted aside. Instead, the goals are said to be a sharing of views, an exchange of stories, a chance to see things from the perspective of the other. Discourse itself, it seems, is sometimes the only goal. All this might be fine if the issues at hand concerned aesthetic judgments or quirks of personal experience. But what if we need to determine and agree upon the facts of the matter in a case of genocide? For this, sharing views is not enough.
I suspect that it is well understood, if seldom admitted by advocates of civil discourse, that sharing stories and views is not enough—that is, not enough to alter the behavior of political elites, the capitalist class, or the U.S. government. A feckless expenditure of energy is perhaps the real goal of the tactic: transform protest into well-contained talk so that business as usual can go on, leaving nothing changed at a larger level. Vent among yourselves if you like, share your views, but don’t get disruptive, or else the velvet gloves will come off.
In the case of Israel’s assault on Palestinians, the call for civil discourse is cynical and galling, as if mere misunderstanding is what’s wrong. Do the many anti-Zionist Jews who belong to Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, and B’Tselem not understand the Zionist view? By now, does any adult who has read the news in the past year not understand the Zionist narrative about Israel? It offends reason to claim that the problems of land dispossession, apartheid, daily humiliation, and genocide will be solved by politely sharing views in university seminar rooms. These problems can be solved only by changing the behavior of the U.S. government and the behavior of the Israeli state in Palestine.
Vent among yourselves if you like, share your views, but don’t get disruptive, or else the velvet gloves will come off.
What’s required—what Frederick Douglass reminded us is always required when confronting power—are demands that will inevitably be defined as uncivil. That’s why protest movements tend to escalate from petitions to marches, from marches to boycotts, and from boycotts to strikes and other forms of civil disobedience. Only when the costs of carrying on business as usual become greater than the costs of making concessions will concessions be made. In the face of vast inequality, that’s how change occurs. Only among equals who cannot coerce each other is civil discourse alone likely to be enough.
None of this is to say that civil discourse is not to be strived for. I still hold out hope that we can do better than beat each over the head as we try to end oppressive social arrangements—in Palestine, in the U.S., and around the planet. But the reality is that those who benefit from inequality will not be rationally argued into relinquishing power and privilege. History leads us to expect no such thing. In the world today, the powerful will first respond rhetorically—calling insistent demands for change uncivil; demanding in turn endless debate about complexities and nuances and impossibilities—as a prelude to responding violently.
If there is to be a peaceful transition to a more just and equal world, it will not come through a polite exchange of views between the powerful and powerless. Nor will it come from sharing views in forums of the powerless, unless those forums are also aimed at discerning the truth, making plans for change, and putting those plans into action. Our best hope then is for collective action that disrupts the status quo not by violently confronting the powerful, but by withholding co-operation until the once powerful are left with no one to wield their guns, drop their bombs, or tell their lies. That is the kind of civility worth fighting for.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular