Extinction Rebellion (‘XR’) does not need to be popular. It would be good if it were – it would probably be a step in the right direction in addressing the climate crisis. However, unlike a political party or a charity, XR doesn’t need to build a coalition of support or attract donors. XR sets out and needs to cause mass disruption, which forces the government and those with power to engage with the climate crisis. Even to me, this sounds counter-intuitive, but throughout history, mass civil disobedience has been both incredibly successful and immensely unpopular at the same time. The women’s vote movement, the salt marchers in India, and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States all used civil disobedience as a tactic. It was as controversial then as it is now, but, ultimately, it was successful.
Extinction Rebellion’s approach is based around moving the Overton Window – the group of policies that most of the public consider acceptable and normal. To do this XR, doesn’t need to be popular. It simply needs to generate debate in a way that gets the science relating to the climate crisis in the news. A common criticism of XR is, ‘I agree that action needs to be taken on climate change, I just don’t agree with their tactics.’ However, this criticism is a success from the perspective of XR. People may dislike XR, but they are unlikely to reduce the steps they have taken to be more sustainable because of this. Someone who has bought an electronic car is unlikely to sell it and buy a Lamborghini based on the popularity of a tangentially related social movement.
Alongside this, XR seeks to cause mass disruption to force the government into a conversation. Environmental issues are so often pushed down the agenda, while infrastructure projects like HS2 are touted as environmental silver bullets. However, to avoid the worse ravages of the climate crisis, governments across the globe must work together to form a strategy for dealing with this crisis that begins immediately. This is not going to be easy, and often in the face of what looks like insurmountable challenge, inaction seems like the best option. Actions which cost the police £37 million (October 2019), stop the distribution of over 1 million newspapers, or block roads are inconvenient to many. And yet they are unlikely to be as inconvenient as the problems we face even in the best-case scenario put forward by climate scientists. People are, rightly, concerned that protests like this put pressure on under-resourced police. This is a legitimate concern – but protesters are not asking to be arrested. It is the government who is seeking to further criminalise protest.
The important question is, ‘is XR’s approach working?’ The answer is a qualified yes. While no government is on course to meet any of XR’s 3 demands, the movement has been successful in reframing the conversation.
People are talking, and even if they don’t like XR, the movement has forced many people to join the debate. After its action in April 2019, it has gained meetings with Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, and Claire Perry, the Minister for State for Energy and Clean Growth. This built a political moment, and the government declared a climate emergency soon after the rebellion. Other government policies – such as the United Kingdom becoming the first major economy to set a greenhouse gas net-zero goal – have been made easier by changes in the public and political landscape relating to the climate.
As for growing the conversation on the climate catastrophe and biodiversity loss, XR has managed to engage a list of celebrities that would make any publicist drool. From actors such as Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson, to writers such as Zadie Smith, Phillip Pullman and Margaret Atwood and musicians like Massive Attack, Thom Yorke and Charlotte Church. Perhaps more surprisingly, the movement has seen many public figures get arrested for the cause including George Monbiot, the author and journalist, Etienne Stott, an Olympic gold medallist, James Brown, a Paralympic cyclist, Johnathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, and Princess Esmerelda, a Belgian royal. While this list makes XR sound like the new BandAid, the movement can also be shockingly humble. Images like a praying Rabbi getting arrested in the City of London show just how diverse XR’s support base is. I know for a fact it is not all celebrities – even my own mum was arrested, a vegetable farmer from Somerset.
The involvement of such a diverse group of people undoubtedly has an impact on the public conversation. While XR may not be the most popular of movements, its existence correlates with a large change in public perception relating to environmental issues. In the 2017 general election, only 8% of the British public considered the environment one of the top three policy issues; in the 2019 election, this figure had risen to 26%. This is a startling change over two years. It is highly unlikely that XR can claim all responsibility; tragedies like the fires in the Amazon also highlighted the issue. However, XR has played a major role in forcing the conversation. Many argue that XR’s controversial actions are likely to put people off climate issues, but this is clearly not the case: in the past year, while XR’s popularity has been down, major charities that deal with the environment have become more popular.
Of course, XR cannot claim full responsibility for the changes in public opinion, but its constant presence in the media must have played a role. The effects it has had have been felt far and wide. The old adage, ‘no publicity is bad publicity’, could well apply. Shortly after the April rebellion, the Guardian changed its editorial standards for reporting on the climate crisis to avoid creating confusion and ambiguity about the nature of these threats. They have also taken proactive action elsewhere, for example banning advertising by fossil fuel companies. Other newspapers have been less positive in their response. But they too have struggled to avoid reporting on XR actions targeting the likes of the BBC and The Sun. The highest profile action targeting the media was the recent protest that stopped distribution from Murdoch’s printing press. This was no mean feat for a movement the Daily Mail called an ‘eco rabble’ and a ‘middle-class mob’.
Many critics are keen to suggest that Extinction Rebellion’s star has waned: their proverbial 15 minutes of fame is over. I would caution those who are eager to see its demise. While XR’s recent actions have been smaller than those in the past their ability to mobilise enough people to cause mass disruption was unquestioned, and they managed to force a conversation on climate in the media. Irrespective of how Extinction Rebellion’s popularity fluctuates in the future, their legacy is secure as a social movement that forced a complacent political, media, and corporate elite to discuss the climate catastrophe. They have also been a key pressure group at a time when the British public is paying increasing attention to issues relating to the climate and biodiversity. Like previous movements that rely on civil disobedience, it is a mistake to measure XR’s success by their popularity. Instead, it should be measured by whether we are still talking about them.
