

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"This is an escalation against the climate movement as a whole, and the next phase of this administration's crackdown on dissent," said Extinction Rebellion.
As the Trump administration broadens its efforts to criminalize dissent, a nonviolent climate advocacy group says the FBI is targeting it with a terrorism investigation.
Using a dubious legal designation of "domestic terrorism," the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has ramped up its efforts to surveil those it considers to be domestic enemies—including members of left-wing groups with no history of violence.
The New York City chapter of the group Extinction Rebellion said one of its former members came into the crosshairs earlier this month.
In a statement on Wednesday, the group said that a former member was visited by two special agents, one of whom was from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces, at their residence 200 miles outside New York City.
They said the agents asked about their involvement with Extinction Rebellion. The member declined to respond, referring the questions to their attorney.
The former member, who has chosen to remain anonymous, told the Intercept that they hadn't been involved with the group in two years and hadn't participated in any actions they thought would warrant FBI involvement.
“I believe this to be a significant escalation of the criminal legal system against Extinction Rebellion and find it very troubling,” Ron Kuby, an attorney for Extinction Rebellion, said. “This is usually the way we find out an actual investigation is underway and is often followed by other visits and other actions.”
He said he found it strange that Extinction Rebellion would become the target of a terrorism investigation. Members of the group take part in acts of what they call "nonviolent civil disobedience" such as blocking roads, sit-ins at public buildings, and occasional vandalism.
The group has sought to use these tactics to draw attention to leaders' inaction in fighting the climate crisis. Increasingly, they have launched protests against the Trump administration's policies more broadly, including its deployment of federal immigration agents in cities across the country.
While its actions can be disruptive, Extinction Rebellion has always been nonviolent, Kuby said, and its tactics are at worst misdemeanor offenses, which typically wouldn't interest federal law enforcement.
"[Extinction Rebellion NYC] is a nonviolent, decentralized group of artists, small business owners, parents, retired teachers, and everyday New Yorkers. We are not terrorists!" said a statement from Extinction Rebellion Global posted to social media on Tuesday. "We use artistic nonviolent organized protests, community outreach, and strategic advocacy to empower everyday citizens and drive meaningful environmental change."
"This is an escalation against the climate movement as a whole, and the next phase of this administration's crackdown on dissent that many of us have been expecting," the group continued.
The New York City chapter of Extinction Rebellion is not the first to receive FBI visits during the second Trump administration.
Last year, six members of its sister group in Boston said the feds came to their doors, all on the same day in March, and questioned them without providing any business cards or explanation for their visit.
According to WBUR reporting at the time, none of the activists questioned had a history of participating in violent protests or of facing felony charges in federal or Massachusetts courts.
Jeff Feuer, a lawyer in Cambridge who has represented climate activists for more than three decades, told the outlet, “Until this year, I have never heard about the FBI or any other federal law enforcement officer visiting or questioning any of the hundreds of climate activists that I have personally represented."
After months of denial, US Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month that the department does, in fact, have a list of "domestic terrorist organizations" being compiled under President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which was described as a national directive to use the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to focus on “leftist” political violence in America.
That memo, commonly referred to as NSPM-7, was first obtained by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein in September. It laid out a national strategy to “disrupt” individuals or groups that "foment political violence" before it takes place.
NSPM-7 described many vaguely defined political viewpoints as potential "indicators" that one is a possible domestic terorrist, including: "anti-Americanism," "anti-capitalism," and "Anti-Christianity"; "extremism" on "migration," "race," and "gender"; and "hostility to those who hold traditional views" on "family," "religion," and "morality."
In another memo that leaked in December, Bondi—who just months before pledged under oath there would “never be an enemies list” compiled by the DOJ—directed the department to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
It directs federal law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which will then undertake an “exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7” that will incorporate “a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities.”
During the hearing, Bondi refused to say which groups and entities were on the list of so-called "domestic terrorists," though she acknowledged it existed, saying, "I know antifa is part of that."
Trump designated "antifa," referring to a loose confederation of antifascist groups, as a "domestic terrorist organization" in October, even though there is no formal "domestic terrorism" statute in US law.
It is unclear whether a formal federal investigation into Extinction Rebellion is underway or if it is part of NSPM-7.
An internal document shared with the Guardian in November revealed that the FBI had launched “criminal and domestic terrorism investigations” into “threats against immigration enforcement activity” in at least 23 regions across the US—including New York. It acknowledged that some of the investigations were related to the "countering domestic terrorism" memo.
"'Domestic terrorism' may not yet be a criminal charge, but the Trump administration is gearing up to create it," Extinction Rebellion NYC said on Wednesday. "NSPM-7... will be the broadest criminalization of free speech since McCarthyism or the height of the Civil Rights Movement. And while this fossil-fueled administration has already failed in some attempts to silence critics, we understand the broader context within which our specific activities sit."
"The days of shackling America's oil, gas, and coal companies are over," said spokesperson Melinda McFossilShill.
A renaming ceremony for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was held at its Washington, D.C. headquarters on Thursday to give the EPA a name that reflects its priorities under Administrator Lee Zeldin and Republican President Donald Trump.
On the heels of Zeldin's visit to New England that spotlighted a push for the Constitution gas pipeline, a small group gathered outside the EPA building on Thursday to reintroduce it as the Environmental Pollution Agency and unveil its new logo.
"The days of shackling America's oil, gas, and coal companies are over," said Environmental Pollution Agency spokesperson Melinda McFossilShill. "The Trump administration stands for freedom, and that includes the freedom to pollute."
McFossilShill is not a real representative of the agency, but rather a critic of what it's become. Thursday's "Make Pollution Great Again!" event was a protest, led by groups including Shut Down D.C. and the local arm of Extinction Rebellion.
In addition to McFossilShill, protesters took on the personas of fossil fuel executives and backers, including Joe Gasfracker, vice president for corporate capture of government (a false name and position) at the (real) American Petroleum Institute.
"I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Administrator Zeldin and President Trump for finally ending the charade of so-called 'environmental protection' and making government work for our patriotic fossil fuel corporations again," he said.
"There are hundreds of people dying in floods, thousands dying in hurricanes, and millions being sickened by particulate matter pollution, wildfire smoke, and extreme heat, but we must balance that against the billions of dollars in profit that our members make," Gasfracker continued. "Billions are more than millions, so obviously our profits must take precedence."
Another protester—dubbed Pete Pollution, executive director of Energy Villains for Increased Leakage (EVIL)—declared that "the American Dream has always been about the freedom to pour toxic chemicals into every community."
"If we don't pollute America's environment, who will?" added Pollution. Other participants held signs that called for making rivers burn, causing more asthma, and destroying human health.

During Trump's second term, the EPA has faced intense criticism for a range of actions. Over the past month, the agency has put 144 employees on leave after they signed a letter criticizing the administration's "harmful" policies, eliminated its scientific research arm in the "ultimate Friday night purge," proposed reregistering a pesticide twice banned by federal courts, and moved to cancel $7 billion in solar grants for low- and middle-income households.
Perhaps most notably, the agency also unveiled a rule to rescind the 2009 "endangerment finding" that has enabled federal regulations aimed at the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency over the past 15 years.
Further, Trump last month signed a series of proclamations to provide what he called "regulatory relief" to over 100 coal, chemical manufacturing, iron ore processing, and sterile medical equipment facilities, with the White House claiming that rules imposed on them under former Democratic President Joe Biden's EPA were "burdensome."
At the time, John Walke, clean air director for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, accused Trump of signing a "literal free pass for polluters," and warned that "if your family lives downwind of these plants, this is going to mean more toxic chemicals in the air you breathe."
Elected Democrats—who have minorities in both chambers of Congress—have joined climate, environmental, and public health advocates in calling out Trump and Zeldin for various moves.
Jay Inslee: Trump and Zeldin have turned EPA into ‘Environmental Pollution Agency’ by revoking essential climate rule www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/w...
[image or embed]
— Ali Velshi (@velshi.com) August 4, 2025 at 11:51 AM
On Thursday, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) led a letter to Zeldin about his proposal to gut power plant pollution standards.
" Climate change and toxic air pollution are serious issues," dozens of Senate Democrats wrote to the EPA administrator. "We represent millions of constituents who risk poisoning from mercury and air toxics and who are facing the rising costs of the climate crisis."
"Congress established the Clean Air Act to protect our constituents from these dangers. We urge EPA to follow its directive," they added, urging Zeldin to withdraw two proposals on fossil fuel plant emissions.
In a Thursday statement, Schumer said that "the Trump administration is saying to hell with five decades worth of protection against deadly pollution and neurotoxins that has saved thousands of lives, made communities safer, and our economy stronger. Why? To appease Big Oil and fossil fuel billionaires."
"The Trump administration's obsession with gutting clean air protections and allowing more poison into the air is reckless, dangerous, and a clear reminder: Republicans care about their donors, not you," he charged. "The EPA needs to stop ignoring the science and the facts and immediately reverse course and put the health and safety of Americans first."
"We felt we needed a physical space where we could grieve together for what we are losing, and reflect on how to respond to the challenge now in front of us," said Alex Martin of Extinction Rebellion Cambridge.
Extinction Rebellion and other climate organizations on Saturday held a funeral for the Paris agreement's 1.5ºC temperature target in Cambridge, England.
"The mock funeral idea grew out of the need to process the enormity and sadness of this moment," Alex Martin of Extinction Rebellion (XR) Cambridge said in a statement. "While many people are distracted by 1,001 things on their phones, we felt we needed a physical space where we could grieve together for what we are losing, and reflect on how to respond to the challenge now in front of us."
Almost a decade ago, parties to the Paris treaty agreed to work toward limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC—but 2024 was the hottest year in human history, and countries around the world show no signs of reining in planet-wrecking fossil fuels anywhere near the degree that scientists warn is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown.
"Crossing 1.5ºC for a whole calendar year is a wake-up call for the world," said Olympic gold medalist and XR U.K. spokesperson Etienne Stott, highlighting another alarming record from last year. "If we want to avoid crossing further tipping points we need a complete transformation of society."

Scientists from universities in the United Kingdom and Germany warned in a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Earth System Dynamics last month that humankind is at risk of triggering various climate tipping points absent urgent action to dramatically reduce emissions from fossil fuels.
"There are levers policymakers can pull to rapidly phase out fossil fuels, but this requires standing up to powerful interests," Stott said Saturday. "Activists need to build power, resilience, and the world we want to see in our communities; but we also need to keep seeking the spark that will cause the worldwide transformation we need to see."
In addition to the Cambridge and U.K. arms of Extinction Rebellion, Saturday's action was organized by Cambridge Greenpeace, Cambridge Stop the War, and the Organization of Radical Cambridge Activists (ORCA).
Varsity, the independent student newspaper at the University of Cambridge, reported that the marchers "rallied at Christ's Pieces, where they heard from one of the organizers, who emphasised the harm caused by exceeding 1.5ºC of warming."
"The march then proceeded up Christ's Lane and down Sidney Street, led by a group of 'Red Rebels,' dressed in red robes with faces painted white, followed by 'pall bearers' carrying coffins painted black, with the words 'Inaction Is Death' in white," according to Varsity. "The procession was completed by a samba band who drummed as they walked, followed by protesters carrying a large sign reading 'Don't silence the science,' along with many other smaller placards."

Photos from organizers show participants displaying banners with messages such as "No Future on a Dead Planet," and additional messages painted on the black coffins: "1.5ºC Is Dead," "Act Now," "Ecocide," "RIP Earth," and "Web of Life."
"Politicians have broken their promises to keep global temperature rises to a livable 1.5ºC," declared Zoe Flint, a spokesperson for XR Cambridge. "For decades, people around the world have been resisting environmental devastation in their own communities and beyond—often facing state repression and violence as a result."
"With dozens of political protesters now in prison in this country, that repression has come to the U.K. too," Flint noted. "But when those least responsible for climate breakdown suffer the worst effects, we can't afford to give up the fight."
Parties to the Paris agreement are set to gather next in November at the United Nations climate summit, COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
On both sides of the Atlantic, volleys of laws threatening long-term imprisonment for nonviolent dissent are being put on the books to cow the climate movement into silence. Trump promises to go further.
In August, climate activist and cellist John Mark Rozendaal was arrested and charged with criminal contempt for playing a few minutes of Bach outside Citibank’s headquarters in New York City. Rozendaal, 63, was prominent in the “Summer of Heat on Wall Street” campaign that targeted Citibank for its prolific financing of fossil-fuel projects. He and a co-defendant now face up to seven years imprisonment if convicted.
Meanwhile in Atlanta, more than 50 justice and environmental activists are awaiting trial on domestic terrorism and other charges arising from their years-long defense of the city’s South River Forest against the construction of an 85-acre police training center there. They are being prosecuted under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) law. Any of them found guilty of “racketeering” would have five to 20 years of imprisonment added to their sentences for the alleged underlying crimes.
Such situations are symptomatic of a grim trend in both the United States and Europe. Nonviolent, nondestructive climate protest is increasingly being subjected to criminal prosecution, while punishments are being ratcheted up to levels befitting violent and far more serious crimes.
The state abuses described in this article should be considered a preview of what is almost guaranteed to be even worse to come if Donald Trump does indeed retake the White House and the Republicans win majorities in the House and Senate.
Across the Global South, such environmental protests are all too often being met by corporate and state forces with extreme extrajudicial violence, especially in Indigenous communities. Here in the Global North, however, the clampdown on protest has largely been through legal action, at least so far. But that might—especially in an America with Donald Trump as its president again—only be a prelude to more violent kinds of suppression as global warming accelerates.
For embattled American climate activists, this trend further raises the stakes of the November 5 election. The crackdowns on climate protest are so far being carried out by state and local governments. But the state abuses described in this article should be considered a preview of what is almost guaranteed to be even worse to come if Donald Trump does indeed retake the White House and the Republicans win majorities in the House and Senate. As recently as October 13, in fact, Trump insisted that, once back in the White House, he’d call in the military to quash domestic dissent of any sort.
In addition, a Trumpian Congress would be likely to pass laws gutting federal climate policies and imposing extreme penalties on future climate protesters. Both prospects also feature prominently in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, produced in part by a gaggle of former Trump officials. That now-infamous blueprint for his possible second administration calls explicitly for—as the Center for American Progress describes it—“suppressing dissent and fomenting political violence.” Among other things, Project 2025 suggests that a future President Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would indeed allow him to use the military to punish lawful nonviolent protest. And count on it, he’s almost certain to exploit that act if he does indeed become president again.
Since 2016, 21 states have passed a total of 56 laws criminalizing protest or dramatically increasing the penalties for engaging in it. To be sure, John Mark Rozendaal was arrested in New York, a city located in a blue state, but all the states that have adopted new anti-protest laws are governed by Republican-majority legislatures. And the specific activity most frequently targeted for prosecution is protesting the construction or existence of oil and gas pipelines. (Note that all state laws mentioned below are described in detail in a recent report by the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, or ICNL.)
The state of Alabama, for example, can now punish a person who simply enters an area containing “critical infrastructure,” including such pipelines, with up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $6,000. If you go near a pipeline in Arkansas, you’re at significantly higher risk: imprisonment of up to six years and a $10,000 fine. Impeding access to a pipeline or a pipeline construction site in Mississippi carries a sentence of up to seven years. Do that in North Carolina as a member of a group and you’ve got even bigger problems. As the ICNL reports, “[A] group of people protesting the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline could face more than 15 years in prison and a mandatory $250,000 fine if they impede or impair the construction of a pipeline.”
Even as protest is being criminalized, assaulting protesters by car is, in effect, being decriminalized.
Many such sentences for protesting are wildly disproportionate to the severity of the act committed. In Florida, trespassing on property that contains pipelines can result in up to five years imprisonment, compared to only 60 days for trespassing just about anywhere else. Enter a pipeline facility in Ohio with the intention of tampering with it in any way and face a potential ten-year sentence. Simply spraying graffiti on an Ohio pipeline installation can carry a six-year sentence, while anyone who “conspires” with the person creating such graffiti could be fined an eye-popping $100,000.
Many climate marches or demonstrations involve walking or standing in roadways. Politicians have been exploiting the fact that “automobile supremacy is inscribed in law by every branch of government and at every level of authority” (in the words of law professor Gregory Shill) to pass highly punitive measures against street protests with little fear of having them overturned. In effect, the laws privilege fossil-fueled vehicles over the human beings who speak out against them.
In May, the Tennessee legislature passed a law that mandates a prison sentence of 2 to 12 years for protesters convicted of knowingly obstructing roadways. In Florida, groups of 25 or more protesters impeding traffic can be charged with “rioting” and face up to 15 years imprisonment. Anyone in Louisiana who does no more than help plan a protest that would impede traffic can be charged with conspiracy or with “aiding and abetting,” even if the protest ends up not hindering traffic or not occurring at all.
In Iowa, being on the street or sidewalk during a vociferous but nonviolent protest can cost you five years in prison, yet (believe it or not) a driver who runs into you during a protest, causing injury, is immune from civil liability if that driver can convince authorities that he or she had taken “due care.”
Laws that permit drivers to run into or over pedestrians engaged in protest have been passed in four states. Three of those laws hit the books in 2021 in the midst of a 16-month period during which American drivers deliberately rammed into groups of protesters a whopping 139 times, according to a Boston Globe analysis. Three victims were killed and at least 100 injured. Drivers were criminally charged in fewer than half of the ramming incidents and in only four was a driver actually convicted of a felony. In other words, even as protest is being criminalized, assaulting protesters by car is, in effect, being decriminalized.
Finally, Louisiana can file RICO charges against people who, as part of a “tumultuous” demonstration, block roads or damage oil or gas pipelines. And protesters beware, since that state’s RICO law carries the possibility of 50 years in prison at hard labor and a $1 million fine. (And yes, you read that right!)
Many laws that impose severe penalties for protest were passed in the wake of the Indigenous-led campaign against the Dakota Access oil pipeline in 2016-2017. Hundreds of people were arrested in that struggle. More than 700 protesters with the Indigenous Environment Network have been criminalized for their untiring efforts to impede or halt pipeline projects across North America.
If the dozens of state anti-protest laws display many suspicious similarities, that’s no coincidence. In response to pipeline protests, oil and gas companies teamed up with the American Legislative Exchange Council, which draws up “model legislation” for Republicans in statehouses across the country to use as templates for bills that push various corporate and hard-right priorities. Once this genre of legislation was directed toward on-site pipeline protests and passed in state after state, it was also seized upon to criminalize street marches and demonstrations, including those against racist violence, fossil fuels, and other ills—all with “traffic safety” as a pretext.
Following the lead of their kindred state legislators, Republicans in Congress have proposed their own raft of bills criminalizing protest. Fortunately, they haven’t succeeded in getting any of them passed—yet. Many of the bills were prompted by campus protests against U.S.-supported genocide in Gaza or over climate policy and against the fossil-fuel industry.
Some of the congressional bills amounted to less-than-serious grandstanding. One, for instance, would have required a person convicted of “unlawful activity” on a university campus at any time since last October 7 to perform six months of “community service” in Gaza. But there were also dead-serious bills like the one prescribing a prison sentence of up to 15 years for inhibiting traffic on an interstate highway. Other proposed bills would have withheld federal funding (in one case, even pandemic aid) from states that refused to prosecute people who took part in protests on public roadways.
Punitive measures against climate protest are reaching new extremes in Europe, too. Since the British Parliament passed harsh new anti-protest laws in 2022, more than 3,000 activists associated with the Just Stop Oil movement have been arrested. According to CNN, “Most of those arrests have been for planning or carrying out direct actions, including slow marching,” which impedes traffic.
In response to such repression, Michel Forst, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders, wrote that under the Aarhus Convention (a 1998 agreement most European countries have signed but not the United States), “Whether intended or not, any disruptions that [environmental] actions may cause, such as traffic jams or disturbances to normal economic activity, does not remove the protection for the exercise of fundamental rights during such action under international human rights law.”
In defiance of that principle, the new British laws prescribe a sentence of up to 10 years imprisonment for those convicted of planning protests judged to be a “public nuisance” (which often means disrupting traffic). Such prison terms, noted CNN, are comparable to those for aggravated robbery or rape under British law.
When the climate change group Extinction Rebellion announced an action near The Hague in September 2023, more than 10,000 people of all ages showed up. They’d come to protest the more than $40 billion in subsidies that the Netherlands government gives fossil fuel companies annually. The police blasted the crowd with water cannons, then arrested and hauled away 2,400 protesters, including children.
The group Climate Rights International (CRI) reports that “some democratic countries are even taking measures designed to stop peaceful climate protests before they start.” In June 2023, for instance, German police detained an activist before he could even leave his home to join a climate protest. Five months earlier, a Dutch activist was held in custody for two days to keep him from an action by Extinction Rebellion. He ended up being convicted of sedition (yes, sedition!) for encouraging others to attend the protest. None of that sounds like something “democratic countries,” as CRI called them, should be doing.
People charged with nonviolent protest often invoke the “necessity defense,” declaring that they committed a minor law violation to stop a far greater crime. Unfortunately, that defense almost never succeeds and judges often forbid defendants from even explaining their motives during a trial.
That’s what happened to members of the group Insulate Britain who stood trial this year for a climate protest that disrupted traffic by nonviolently occupying streets and climbing onto overpasses along a major London ring road in 2022. The judge presiding over their trials ordered the defendants not to mention climate change in court. Several of the activists defied that order, citing the climate emergency as their motivation, so the judge promptly held them in contempt of court and sent two of them to jail for seven weeks.
One of the protesters cited for contempt, Nick Till, told CRI that, while trying to bar him and the others from explaining the purpose of their actions, the judge allowed the prosecutors to depict the defendants as threats to society. “There’s an attempt to insinuate we’re a ‘cell,’” Till said, “which is language that implies some kind of revolutionary group. They had an expert in counterterrorism testify. They tried to portray us as dangerous extremists.”
Though also being threatened with increasing penalties under state laws, Americans have somewhat stronger protections under the First Amendment.
In July, four people who planned the London protests were convicted and sentenced to a draconian four years in prison. A fifth defendant, Roger Hallam, one of the most prominent British climate activists, was sentenced to five years even though, bizarrely enough, he was neither a planner of the protest nor a participant. He was charged instead for a speech he gave regarding civil disobedience as an effective form of climate action in a Zoom call with that protest’s planners.
In their trial, the five defendants represented themselves. Over the course of four days, with the judge repeatedly trying and failing to silence them, they presented what could be the most extensive and compelling version of the necessity defense ever heard in a courtroom. (Later, in his prison cell, Hallam wrote up an account of the trial. It’s well worth reading.)
On both sides of the Atlantic, volleys of laws threatening long-term imprisonment for nonviolent dissent are being put on the books to cow the climate movement into silence. So far, European protesters who dare to resist are getting hit hardest with convictions and sentences. Though also being threatened with increasing penalties under state laws, Americans have somewhat stronger protections under the First Amendment. But how long will dissent continue to enjoy such protections in this country? That largely depends on how we all vote between now and November 5.
"This new normal isn't static, it will get worse as we continue to burn more fossil fuels," one protester said.
Ten Extinction Rebellion protesters blockaded an English oil and gas field on Monday in support of a landmark U.K. Supreme Court ruling that was supposed to stop drilling at the site.
In June of this year, the court ruled that the Surrey County Council failed to consider the climate consequences of burning the oil obtained from a site near London's Gatwick Airport when it granted U.K. Oil and Gas (UKOG) permission to exploit the so-called Horse Hill oil extraction site. Despite the ruling, however, UKOG continues to pump oil.
"The Supreme Court decision was a beacon of light in a world of dire climate news," protester Helen Burnett, a Parish priest who lives within five miles of the site, said in a statement. "With U.K. crop yields plummeting, flooding at scale on every continent, droughts, intense hurricanes supercharged by a hotter sea, one after the other. This new normal isn't static, it will get worse as we continue to burn more fossil fuels. I urge Surrey's officers and councilors to respect the Supreme Court decision, and order UKOG to stop work at Horse Hill immediately."
"It's really quite simple. Surrey County Council need to tell Mr. Sanderson to stop all activity at Horse Hill until UKOG have planning permission."
A small group of protesters sat in front of the site to block any vehicles from entering, holding signs reading, "Surrey County Council, Stop UKOG Flouting Supreme Court Horse Hill Ruling," "[UKOG] CEO Stephen Sanderson Stop Pumping Oil Unlawfully at Horse Hill," and "No More Planet Killing Emissions—Time to Restore Horse Hill to Nature."
At stake in the Supreme Court case is whether or not a governing body, when considering approval for a new fossil fuel site, must consider only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced directly by activities at the site or whether it must account for the climate pollution produced by the oil, gas, or coal once extracted.
When the Surrey County Council granted UKOG permission to drill for 3.3 million metric tons of crude oil for 20 years at Horse Hill, it only weighed the impacts of the former, prompting Extinction Rebellion member Sarah Finch to sue. Finch argued that 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations required review of downstream emissions. After an appeals court failed to reach a decision, the Supreme Court agreed.
In a June 20 judgment, Lord Leggatt wrote:
It is agreed that the project under consideration involves the extraction of oil for commercial purposes for a period estimated at 20 years in quantities sufficient to make an EIA mandatory. It is also agreed that it is not merely likely, but inevitable, that the oil extracted will be sent to refineries and that the refined oil will eventually undergo combustion, which will produce GHG emissions. It is not disputed that these emissions, which can easily be quantified, will have a significant impact on climate. The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems to me plain that they are.
At the time, the ruling was considered a major win for the climate movement, with the potential to halt larger scale projects such as the Rosebank and Jackdaw North Sea fossil fuel fields.
"The words 'Finch ruling' now invoke dread in oil, coal, and gas company boardrooms," The Times wrote in September.
Yet the ruling will have no impact if companies like UKOG simply ignore the courts and local authorities don't stop them.
"Stephen Sanderson, CEO of failing oil company UKOG, is making Surrey County Council look weak and ineffectual in the face of blatantly unlawful oil extraction," said protester James Knapp from Dorking, who has three children.
Knapp also expressed concerns that UKOG's attitude of lawlessness could extend to other issues at Horse Hill:
The site has been plagued by incidents in its short history including a rig fire, local residents and grazing horses affected by noxious fumes, hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage from the earthquake swarm which coincided with oil workers returning to the site, and a fine from the Health and Safety Executive for irregularities which left the oil well vulnerable in blow out situations.
Another protester, 69-year-old retired teacher Jackie Macey, summed it up: "It's really quite simple. Surrey County Council need to tell Mr. Sanderson to stop all activity at Horse Hill until UKOG have planning permission. They will be enforcing a Supreme Court judgment and no reasonable person could possibly criticize them for that, so I urge them now to do what they should have done as soon as the Supreme Court decision was handed down; instruct them to stop the works now."
As to what should happen to the site going forward?
"If a new planning application does ever arrive from UKOG, we will be making the case that the site should be restored to nature," Macey said. "Enough is enough!"
Sure, there might be a few people who will drink from the doomer cup and curl into fetal surrender. But there will be far more who will take this message and fight back.
I recently complained that public narratives about climate—those promoted on so called mainstream platforms, and featured in cryptic one-liners from Democratic Party hopefuls—boil down to evasive bullshit.
We are rather stuck with a climate narrative that offers two wrong answers, and, in its bifurcated and reductionist limitations, rather mirrors our two party system that offers two, and only two bad choices. The Republicans loudly tell us that climate overheating is an outright hoax, or some minor and wholly natural fluctuation of geological cycles. The Democrats counter this with a fetishized future of wind and solar power. Meanwhile corporate arsonists burn coal, oil and gas with ever more maniacal fervor.
I don't need to debunk Republican climate orthodoxy—it thrives on drooling acolytes who have capitulated to facile explanations. The popular Democratic Party fairytale on climate, however, may need to be examined here—many of us mindlessly accept that a future of limitless indulgence will inevitably come to pass. Wind and sunlight shine, and blow upon the faces of the rich and poor alike. Once we harvest these free gifts from creation, the collective wealth of our species will be "decoupled" from the alleged finite resources of the planet. We can all have everything we want. It will be as if we each had our own private Amazon/Walmart nirvana. The climate apocalypse has raged against a population morally and cognitively broken by false hopes.
Even if we pretend that human society will lurch into a utopian phase with no war, no overproduction and no burning of fossil fuels, it may be too late to prevent wholesale species extinction and further environmental collapse.
Many of us have been so disabled by impossible promises that we miss four enormous points: 1) Nations cannot create energy systems to harvest the unlimited wind and sunlight without exhausting planetary resources. 2) The required extracted materials to manufacture solar panels and renewable storage batteries must be stolen from the Global South. 3) Renewable energy under capitalism does not replace fossil fuels—it creates additional growth thereby expanding the need to burn even more fossil fuels. 4) The collapse of our ecosystems from greenhouse gasses and industrial poisons is so far along that massive sea level rise, heating and degradation of oceans (coral reef bleaching, anoxic waters, fish die offs) and inland desertification will inevitably continue well into the future by the sheer momentum already launched. Even if we pretend that human society will lurch into a utopian phase with no war, no overproduction and no burning of fossil fuels, it may be too late to prevent wholesale species extinction and further environmental collapse.
The climate/environmental momentum toward hell, however, is but one component that drives inevitable pessimism. Far worse is the suicidal intentions of corporations, governments, and our concomitant air of mass indifference. Most of us are not resigned from a sense of hopelessness, but disabled by unwarranted optimism, or buoyed by a delusional faith in technology and reason. Even on the left there is little narrative climate clarity—our confusion likely inspires triumphant chuckles in the private board meetings of the oil industry. One truly bizarre story told in progressive circles is that mass resistance to environmental destruction has been eroded by "doomerism."
Here, for example, is Nathan Robinson's take on climate from a piece in Current Affairs:
Writing about climate change in a way that makes people feel scared and hopeless, like they are going to die in a wildfire whether they like it or not, is, in my opinion, part of why climate coverage is such a “ratings killer.” My suspicion is not that nobody wants to confront the subject of climate change—Don’t Look Up faces the matter head-on, and is hugely popular—but that if discussion of it just feels disempowering and depressing, there is no reason for anyone to read about it. Here at Current Affairs, two of our most popular recent articles have been on climate change, but the underlying message has been about taking action rather than merely forecasting the inevitable apocalypse.) I do not think it is helpful to tell anyone to “settle into the trans-apocalypse.” No! Join the Sunrise Movement and throw political leaders who refuse to act on climate out of office.
Robinson's warnings about the dangers of large-scale pessimism echo those of Michael Mann who asserted that "Doomerism is the new denial." As an aside, I must mention that I am an admirer of both Robinson and Mann. The former is one of our most important progressive writers (and the first editor to post one of my pieces on a large platform!) while Mann has been a critically important scientist in detailing the trajectory of our climate. His "Hockey Stick" climate graphs inspired the term and popularized the concept.
But the entire construct of doomerism (as Robinson and Mann understand it) rests on a shibboleth—is inaction really founded on collective despair—or is fear of doomerism another distracting trope? Do masses of people go from understanding that corporate goons burn our world to a crisp, to tossing up their hands and saying, “Fuck it, it’s hopeless?” At some sudden moment in time do they simply come (so the story of doomerism goes) to accept that there is no point to civil disobedience? Are we truly disabled due to a vision of unstoppable, irredeemable collapse? To the contrary, perhaps pessimism inevitably accompanies an honest appraisal of our precarious environmental future.
The oil industry understands with pristine clarity that hopeless people are as likely to respond with violent rage as with passivity.
If doomerism is really the "new denial," if a brigade of fatalistic and resigned people eagerly reject hope and let the oil industry off the hook, we would expect to see screeds by Guy McPherson and Eliot Jacobson posted prominently at The Heartland Institute.
However, we see no such thing. The last thing that oil companies and fascist think tanks want to convey to the public is that corporate crimes have ruined the planet and nothing can be done to change it. The oil industry understands with pristine clarity that hopeless people are as likely to respond with violent rage as with passivity. Doomerism is not the new denial. In fact, you will never see a word of pessimism on an oil industry funded propaganda platform. The industry honchos want your brain to be infused with optimism—hope, upbeat faith in human schemes to find new and better ways serves the cause of energy profits. Here is a Chevron happy ad to prove my point.
- YouTubeyoutu.be
Recent Pew research shows that some 63% of US citizens feel that climate is not the most critical issue facing the country. Less than a third of U.S. adults favor phasing out fossil fuels. We are clearly not a nation beset by fatalistic resignation, and collective environmental surrender, but, rather, a country collectively neutered by Chevron-style ad campaigns.
Even our best climate narratives stumble at the point where capitalism enters the story. Many writers insert a ghostly entity known as "we," as in a superbly written piece by Priya Satia entitled, "The Way We Talk About Climate Change is Wrong."
We will not be ushered past the grim reaper by optimists.
Satia argues quite originally that the notion of time that is indispensable to the capitalist mindset—the prioritizing of the future as it exists in the concept of delayed gratification—drives the system of imperial plunder and overconsumption. But who is the "we" in Satia's narrative that talks about climate in the wrong way?
There is no we—no public that owns a unique climate narrative. "We" are all tools of industry and politicians. Our climate narratives have been injected into our heads by means of well practiced repetition. Satia argues that indigenous people have historically lived according to natural rhythms. They have, from their intimacy with the earth, developed the capacity to take pleasure in the moment (a perspective embraced by some western writers as well, such as Thoreau). The political force needed to initiate a mass movement willing to abandon capitalist addictions for a deeper happiness can only take place under the leadership and passion of people with little to lose.
Even a writer with the depth of Priya Satia reduces climate mitigation to an act of mental transformation. She understands that capitalist mindsets comprise an obstacle, but does not explicitly discuss the critical preliminary task—the overthrowing of capitalism. The leadership in such an improbable effort—if we can even imagine it—will have to come from people who conceive of their choices in the darkest terms. If we are to survive another century, doomers will be the key to an eleventh hour reprieve. We will not be ushered past the grim reaper by optimists.
Extinction Rebellion insists that governments tell the truth about climate. If this were to happen, doomerism would flood our collective mindset—most of us would be doomers. Governments know that they can only retain power by sugar coating the climate story with fantasies about solar powered utopias.
A few years ago both Jonathan Franzen and Roy Scranton wrote, in effect, that it is highly unlikely that a massive climate catastrophe can be averted. Both were attacked in intellectual circles despite the fact that neither discouraged climate activism, and neither had access to platforms affecting mass opinion. Nor were their positions illogical considering what we know about capitalist history. I believe that the real threats to climate centered civil disobedience are not pessimists from the literary world, but optimists from corporate propaganda platforms, party politicians and mainstream media. Barack Obama stated at the 2024 DNC Convention that the U.S. will "lead the way on climate." If only those espousing Pollyannaish bullshit were attacked the way that Franzen was, the climate future might be less dire.
The fiercest fighters might well be those who have no chance to succeed.
In short, we need doomers—people encouraged to use their platform to scream that we are fucked. There might be a few people who will drink from the doomer cup and curl into fetal surrender. There will be far more who will take this message and fight back.
Anyone familiar with the Nazi Holocaust recalls that prisoners confined to the Warsaw Ghetto only rebelled when all hope was lost. Hopelessness has historically been the driver of action. Perhaps Nat Turner was a doomer, John Brown as well. The fiercest fighters might well be those who have no chance to succeed. I am not saying that we have no hope to survive and maybe even flourish, but anyone who does not consider that hopelessness may be a rational response to current reality is living in a fantasy world.
Hope is a tranquilizer. The first step to mass civil disobedience involves a shared pessimism, a deep understanding that we are truly and inescapably fucked. Only then can we form a movement that has a chance. Nathan Robinson and Michael Mann are two brilliant figures but dead wrong about doomers. We need more of them—there can never be enough.
"Rather than doing something about its role in the climate crisis, Citi is choosing instead to target climate activists with false charges and unwarranted arrests," said cellist John Mark Rozendaal.
Climate campaigners expressed incredulous outrage Thursday following the arrest of a 63-year-old Extinction Rebellion activist who violated a dubious restraining order by playing a cello outside Citibank's New York headquarters during a protest against the bank's funding of fossil fuel projects.
John Mark Rozendaal, a professional cellist and grandfather, performed Bach's "Suites for Cello" before he was arrested in the public plaza outside Citibank's headquarters in Lower Manhattan during a "Summer of Heat on Wall Street" protest against banks' fossil fuel financing. New York Police Department (NYPD) officers also arrested 14 peaceful protesters who encircled Rozendaal.
Last month, a Citibank security guard obtained what Extinction Rebellion said was an unconstitutional restraining order against Rozendaal and another activist, Stop the Money Pipeline director Alec Connon. According to the activists, the security guard claimed he was assaulted after hitting his head on a plastic pipe that demonstrators were using to block an entrance to the bank.
Rozendaal and Connon were warned that any violation of the restraining order could result in criminal contempt charges carrying a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.
"Over the last decade, Citibank has been the world's number one funder of fossil fuel expansion," Rozendaal said Thursday. "Yet rather than doing something about its role in the climate crisis, Citi is choosing instead to target climate activists with false charges and unwarranted arrests."
Thousands of people have rallied to demand an end to fossil fuel financing during two months of ongoing Summer of Heat demonstrations. More than 475 activists—including scientists, faith leaders, elders, students, and parents—have been arrested during the protests.
"It's alarming that Citibank is resorting to scare tactics to intimidate climate activists that are simply trying to get the bank to stop financing the fossil fuel industry that is killing our planet and polluting our communities," Democratic New York City Councilwoman Sandy Nurse said in response to Rozendaal's arrest.
"Citi should stop targeting activists and focus instead on ending its support for fossil fuels," Nurse added.
The Center for International Environmental Law, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit advocacy group, said that "the use of vague restraining orders to keep protesters away from Citi's New York headquarters represents a troubling effort to suppress these lawful demonstrations and mute advocacy for a just and sustainable world."
"Such measures not only threaten democratic freedoms and hinder crucial advocacy against environmental racism, but most importantly undermine efforts to challenge the financial underpinnings of the climate crisis," the group added.
New York Communities for Change climate campaigner Alice Hu said on social media that "it's wild Citi would have NYPD arrest the 63-year-old peaceful protester for *checks notes* playing the cello."
"But, ultimately unsurprising from the top funder of new fossil fuels since 2016," Hu added. "After all, the floods, fires, and famines that Citi funds are the epitome of violence."
Rafael Shimunov, who hosts the "Beyond the Pale" program on left-wing New York radio station WBAI, quipped, "Thank you NYPD and Citibank, our streets are so much safer without this 63-year-old cellist on them."
The Summer of Heat on Wall Street is set to continue next week, as immigration rights groups are planning to lead a "Migrants Grieve and Rage Against Climate Destruction" day of action outside Citibank's headquarters on August 13.
"We left the leading lights of the industry in no doubt about what they need to do: Stop insuring new oil, gas, and coal and focus on underwriting renewable energy," one activist said.
Key industry players arriving at London's Royal Albert Hall Wednesday night for the British Insurance Awards were met with a warning: Stop underwriting new oil, gas, and coal projects or face direct action from Extinction Rebellion.
Climate activists greeted the insurers with signs, photographs of extreme U.K. flooding, protest music, performance art, and business cards announcing XR's new "Insure Our Survival" campaign to pressure the industry away from backing fossil fuels.
"This is just the beginning," Insure Our Survival spokesperson Alex Penson said in a statement. "Thousands of XR activists stand ready to focus their nonviolent direct action energy on the insurance firms who are greenlighting the climate crisis by providing fossil fuel crooks with the insurance they need to dig and drill for oil, gas, and coal."
"It's time for insurers to use their superpower or be held responsible when all of our children face a future like the children in the photographs we showed at our protest,"
The insurance industry has emerged as a target of the climate movement in recent years, as advocates point out that new fossil fuel projects would not be able to move forward without it.
"The insurance industry has a superpower," Penson said. "At a stroke, it could stop the fossil fuel crooks in their tracks and save the lives of billions of people threatened from the worst-case climate scenarios that scientists are saying are increasingly possible."
However, to date the industry has not chosen to use that power. According to the most recent report from the global Insure Our Future campaign, not one of the 30 major insurance firms it analyzed in 2023 had policies in line with limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. The insurers included in the U.K.-based Lloyd's market were the leading fossil fuel insurers, Insure Our Future found, earning $1.6-2.2 billion in premiums from oil, gas, and coal in 2022.
"It's time for insurers to use their superpower or be held responsible when all of our children face a future like the children in the photographs we showed at our protest," Penson continued, "struggling to survive in barely habitable countries haunted by crop failures, malnutrition, deadly storms, floods, and heatwaves."
At Wednesday's event, XR activists held up photos taken by photographer Gideon Mendell, showing massive flooding in the U.K. that has been made worse by the climate emergency. They also held up signs reading, "Stop Insuring New Fossil Fuels" and "Insure Our Survival."

At the sound of a violin, XR's Oil Slickers—activists draped in black cloth to resemble an oil spill—glided around the insurance luminaries as they approached the hall for the industry's annual awards ceremony.

A choir also sang a song to the tune of "Imagine," including the line, "Imagine all insurers, fighting for us all."
"Last night we challenged insurers having a good time and congratulating each other on their good work at the Royal Albert Hall to face up to some uncomfortable truths—that some of their work leads to flooded homes and wrecked lives for their customers facing more and more climate crisis-driven extreme weather events," Penson said.
The activists also distributed business cards to the attendees warning them that, if they continued to back new fossil fuel projects, XR would target them with direct action designed to hurt both their reputations and their bottom line.
Pension said: "We left the leading lights of the industry in no doubt about what they need to do: Stop insuring new oil, gas, and coal and focus on underwriting renewable energy to speed a just transition to a low or no-carbon economy."
XR's U.K.-based Insure Our Survival campaign emerged from the global Insure Our Future campaign, and in particular an international week of action it organized in late February and early March, including events in London and around the U.K.
About a month after the protests, Zurich Insurance announced that it would no longer underwrite new oil and gas projects.
Sierra Signorelli, Zurich's chief executive of commercial insurance, said at the time that Zurich took the action in keeping with its goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
"Further exploration and development of fossil fuels isn't required for the transition," Signorelli said. "We think it's the right time to evolve our position."
Insure Our Survival campaigner Lucy Porter said that since the spring, many insurance employees, in both senior and junior positions, had spoken to XR saying they supported a move away from backing climate-polluting projects.
"We intend to work with them to make insurance part of the climate solution, not part of the problem, and we invite other people in the industry to contact us and work with us," Porter said.
Porter continued, "To those who continue to put their profits before a livable planet we say: We will hold you accountable through an escalating campaign of nonviolent direct action across the country."
Nothing organization is perfect, but it seems the two need one another. And from this union, we all would benefit.
The other day I went on Extinction Rebellion's (XR) website and signed myself up. I had been thinking about this for a while. The UK-based organization, known as XR for short, operates with a loosely affiliated, decentralized, global model, and I knew that there is a group in nearby Franklin County, Massachusetts. I am simply attempting to bring my personal commitment in line with my rhetoric. I admire XR, but not without reservations. People familiar with my writing know that I view the issue of climate as an ongoing confrontation between corporate intentions and organized activism. I have repeatedly raised a few points:
1) Without massive resistance and civil disobedience we are politically and environmentally doomed.
2) Resistance is, critically, a matter of building coalitions and attaching the climate movement to other issues: workers' rights and union building, human rights, housing, universal health care, voting rights, and military spending—just to name a few.
3) The climate movement often reflects class imbalance—many have pointed out that XR in particular, and the climate movement in general is too white, too middle class and too immersed in academic rhetoric—thereby cutting off poor and working class participation and passion.
4) Climate activism should be inherently political, anti-capitalist and based on the understanding that the political structures that have pushed us collectively to the brink of apocalypse cannot be redeployed to get us out of danger.
5) The poorest people are a wellspring of potential power that has been reduced—via the brainwashing of media and the immediacy of personal threats to survival—to the status of passive bystanders. Those that inhabit housing waitlists, or live in subsidized housing projects, or occupy Section 8 housing, are both the most vulnerable to climate related events, and an untapped progressive voting block and source for activism. Very poor people are almost never sympathetic to Trumpist fascism. As a long time (now retired) mental health outreach worker, I never heard a good word about Trump from anyone living in subsidized housing, and many of my clients were white.
6) Poor people are disproportionately subjected to climate suffering, whether through catastrophic heat waves, rising food prices, or floods. Where I worked, in Greenfield, Massachusetts, all three housing projects and many poor neighborhoods have been built adjacent to the Green River, which has flooded many times in recent years, and has the potential to cause terrible damage. It must be a goal of the climate movement to pursue rapprochement with those most threatened by climate instability. Poor people should not be patronized or marginalized within the climate community, but be seen as a cornerstone of a coalition.
I mentioned that I had joined XR, but that is not the whole story. The group has been criticized for lack of class and racial diversity, and for hedging on ties to larger political issues. XR has avoided the natural inclination to identify itself with any of the fundamental left wing ideological touchstones—including socialism, degrowth, redistribution of wealth, etc.—and yet leftist ideology permeates XR as an often unacknowledged undercurrent.
The organization has promoted itself as an apolitical organization, founded solely on the common cause of climate, but this self definition fails to address the political issues that have caused the climate apocalypse in the first place: that is, the political power and lobbying influence of corporate rulers, who keep fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and industrial agriculture locked into the eternal status of unregulated juggernauts of societal fate.
For me, XR can therefore only be an incomplete platform for activism. The Poor People's Campaign (which has scheduled "The Mass Poor People's and Low Wage Worker's Assembly and Moral March on Washington D.C. and to the Polls!" for June, 29th) ticks all the boxes. The Poor People's Campaign has issued a 17-point agenda that ties climate issues to the full social justice context that I believe XR ought to add to their well known three demands.
These points are:
The 11th point above—"environmental justice that secures clean air and water" —does not fully delineate and represent the issue of climate. The climate point in the Poor People's Agenda is incomplete in much the same way that XR is incomplete because it does not place the climate crisis within the larger context of social injustice and class inequity.
Perhaps XR and the Poor People's Campaign ought to get married. It may not be a perfect marriage—few are—but, rather, a marriage of convenience. I'd rent a tux and be there enthusiastically in time for the vows.
"The fact that national governments are subsidizing fossil fuels is akin to a crime against humanity," said one Extinction Rebellion organizer.
The climate action group Extinction Rebellion Belgium on Saturday decried what it called "disproportionate police violence" against nonviolent demonstrators who were arrested during a protest in Brussels demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies.
Hundreds of Extinction Rebellion-led climate defenders blocked Rue Belliard in the European Quarter, the de facto European Union capital, during EU Open Day, when agencies of the 27-nation bloc open their doors to the public. In what Extinction Rebellion called an "unprecedented police response," officers allegedly struck protesters with batons and used chemical agents against demonstrators.
Brussels police said 132 activists—some of whom glued themselves to the ground—were arrested.
"This police behavior toward nonviolent protesters exercising their freedom of assembly is illegal and authoritarian," Extinction Rebellion Belgium said in a statement Saturday.
"We call on the police to exercise restraint and respect the right to demonstrate peacefully and without violence," the group added.
The activists are calling on European governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels amid a worsening planetary crisis. They're also demanding the declaration of a climate emergency.
"National and European governments are spending at least €405 billion each year subsidizing major fossil fuel corporations," protest spokesperson Bertina Maes told The Brussels Times. "That's ten times more than what's spent on climate policy."
Maes said the Belgian government alone spent as much as €20 billion ($21.5 billion) on fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, more than 2% of the country's gross domestic product.
"The fact that national governments are subsidizing fossil fuels is akin to a crime against humanity," she asserted.
This weekend's demonstration and arrests come a month before E.U. parliamentary elections. According to an April Eurobarometer survey conducted by the European Parliament, climate action is the fifth-most important issue to voters, after poverty and social exclusion, health, jobs, and defense and security.