Skating On Thin Ice - Activism in Times of Climate Crisis - Anne Ruijter

SKATING ON THIN ICE 1
Skating on Thin Ice: Activism in Times of Climate Crisis
Anne Ruijter (497862)
Custom Major: Societal Change
Capstone: Thesis
Capstone Supervisor: Roy Kemmers
Erasmus University College
23-06-2023
Words: 9984
Keywords:
Climate Activism, Nonviolent Direct Action, Ecological Sabotage, Social Movements,
Radical Activism
Abstract
The protest strategy known as eco-sabotage has further complicated a scholarly debate
on the classification of (non)violence and success in protests. This research brought a missing
perspective to this debate by conducting qualitative interviews with climate activists in the
Netherlands about (non)violence and eco-sabotage. Findings indicate that interviewees
recognize abstract violence and are critical of capitalism and certain democratic processes.
Based on interviewees’ differences in values in activism, investment in activism, future
vision, and attitude towards eco-sabotage, a typology was constructed consisting of four
types: the Democratizers, the Harmonizers, the Communicators, and the Disruptors. This
research shows protest theories are not uniformly adopted by interviewees but are related to
their distinctive, personal worldviews. The latter might readdress societal concerns about
radicalizing climate activists towards underlying mechanisms, such as impeded democratic
processes in the Netherlands. Also, interviewees’ suggested criteria for successful eco-
sabotage are valuable for further research.

Table of Contents
Introduction - Skating on Thin Ice: Activism in Times of Climate Crisis .................................. 4
Theoretical Framework – Amongst Debates ............................................................................ 6
Methodology – Confidential Conversations ......................................................................... 14
Analysis & Results – Correlative & Contrasting Views ........................................................ 16
Discussion – The Importance of Differing Perspectives ....................................................... 31
Conclusion – Precautions on Thin Ice ................................................................................. 35
References ............................................................................................................................ 38
Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 43
Skating on Thin Ice: Activism in Times of Climate Crisis
The risks of the climate crisis are exacerbating as the international community loses
grip on a scenario where global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius (IPCC, 2022).
Climate activists are aware of the environment’s precarious situation and have been voicing
their concerns for decades. A wide palette of climate protests have been organized, such as
marches, strikes, blockades, occupations, and sit-ins. Typically, these protests followed the
principles of nonviolent resistance, refraining from the threat or use of violence.
Yet, in light of the hazards the climate crisis brings and the urgency to take climate
action, protest strategies including more violent elements compared to nonviolent resistance
are gaining interest. Especially the strategy of eco-sabotage received profound attention in
academics, activism, media, and fiction. A source often referred to is the book How to Blow
Up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm (2021), which focuses primarily on the why behind
sabotaging pipelines. For Malm, a direct reasoning behind eco-sabotage is to prevent,
postpone, discourage, and/or problematize the act of polluting the environment. This is done
by inflicting damages on machines or property that, for example, emit the polluting
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
The spiked interest in eco-sabotage poses not only an ethical dilemma for the climate
movement on whether or not damaging objects to prevent harm to the environment fits the
parameters of nonviolence, but it also presents an inherently strategical discussion. Currently,
major environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion refer to the work
by Chenoweth and Stephan (2011) on the strategic success of nonviolent protests. However,
Malm argues that the authors wrongfully classified key protest movements as nonviolent. He
states how connected to these protests, forms of property damage or other physical
confrontations with the prevailing order occurred. The latter disagreement is situated in a
broader debate within movement sciences on how to define, classify, and calculate
nonviolence and success in protests (see, for example, Anisin, 2020; Delina, 2021; and Onken
et al., 2022). The continuous debate on the characteristics of successful protest remains
complex and difficult to give conclusive clarity to on paper.
Thus far, the perspective of climate activists themselves has been neglected in the
debate above. In theories about eco-sabotage and nonviolent resistance, climate activists are
merely assumed to act as pawns in protest strategies. While, following fundamental
sociological insights, individuals think differently about things and have personal motivations
for their actions (Macionis & Plummer, 1997). As research shows, climate activists have
differing motivations behind their activism as well (Martiskainen et al., 2020). Yet, it remains
unclear how climate activists personally make sense of what violence and nonviolence mean
in the context of the climate crisis. Furthermore, it remains unclear how the personal
experiences and opinions of climate activists inform their view on eco-sabotage.
Therefore, this research dives into the missing perspective of climate activists on
nonviolent protests and eco-sabotage. The following research question has been formulated:
How do climate activists in the Netherlands view (non)violent activism and ecological
sabotage in times of climate crisis? Through qualitative interviews, this research aims to
understand how climate activists view (non)violence. This will bring up how they place their
definitions of (non)violence within activist strategies, within the societal landscape, and
within times of urgent climate crisis. Through this route, the topic of eco-sabotage can be
brought up, and it can be explored how this strategy relates to the opinions and experiences of
climate activists. In this way, a perspective rooted in opinions and experiences of climate
activists themselves can contribute valuable insights to the theoretical debate on (non)violence
and success of protests.
Activists who are part of the climate movement within the Netherlands are the focus
of this research. Although the climate movement can be seen as a transnational movement, its
way of operating is likely to be influenced by a national context (Baumgarten, 2014). This
national context may influence the way activists view concepts of (non)violence. Also,
conversations on eco-sabotage are only sensible in a country such as the Netherlands, which
experiences a high level of democracy, including the right to protest (EIU, 2022). Discussing
acts of eco-sabotage would be incongruous in countries where protestors already face harsh
repression for milder actions (Van der Heiden, 2005; Malm, 2021; “Will embracing Climate
Sabotage”, 2022). Also, the situatedness of the researcher within the Netherlands informed the
choice of context.
Additionally, this study is done with a belief that research could support a social
movement. While climate activists show interest in the concept of eco-sabotage, this interest
is cause for concern among other societal parties. In the Netherlands, this recently led to the
cancellation of a debate on the proportionality of radical climate actions (Gordijn & Timmer,
2023). Insights into the personal perspectives of climate activists on nonviolence and eco-
sabotage could address these concerns and raise more understanding of climate activists.
Moreover, it could be valuable for the environmental movement to gain deeper insight into
how activists personally perceive (non)violence and eco-sabotage, as the concepts address
cornerstones of the movement. To strengthen the last points raised, research insights will form
the basis of an artistic project with the aim of communicating these findings to society and
activist circles.
Amongst Debates
This section touches upon the theoretical bodies of work this research is in
conversation with. First, the strategies of eco-sabotage and nonviolent resistance, including
their key differences, are further illustrated. Secondly, the debate within social movement
studies on calculating the success of (non)violent protests is discussed, and the difficulty
defining (non)violence is given further depth. Lastly, the (inter)national context regarding
eco-sabotage and climate activism of relevance for this study is presented.
(Non)Violent Disruption
Eco-sabotage
As eco-sabotage plays a key role in this research, the protest strategy deserves further
elaboration. Eco-sabotage is alternatively referred to as ecological sabotage, intelligent
sabotage, climatage, ecotage, property destruction, or monkeywrenching and falls under the
broader concept of climate militancy or ecodefense. Though, authorities occasionally refer to
the term eco-terrorism (Van der Heiden, 2005; Malm, 2021; Delina, 2022; Sovacool &
Dunlap, 2022). Eco-sabotage is not a newly speculated method and was, for instance, used by
the group Earth Liberation Front in the nineties. Sabotage occurred in other struggles as well,
such as the sabotaging of pipelines by the paramilitary wing of the South African ANC or
Iraqi resistance against US occupation (Van der Heiden, 2005; Malm, 2021).
Eco-sabotage may involve minor acts like deflating tires of high-emission vehicles in
wealthy neighbourhoods and placing metal spikes in trees to damage harvesting machinery.
Also, larger infrastructure, such as oil or gas pipelines and trains transporting fossil fuels,
could be targeted. Those propagating eco-sabotage stress that the strategy requires careful
planning and consideration to prevent harming humans, nature, or objects necessary for
subsistence (Van der Heiden, 2005; Malm, 2021). Yet, Malm posits that “sabotage can be
done softly, even gingerly” (p. 79).
Malm encourages the climate movement to deploy eco-sabotage on a large scale in
western countries, in addition to practicing nonviolent resistance. He argues that using eco-
sabotage is justified and necessary:

States have fully proven that they will not be the prime movers. The question is not if
sabotage from a militant wing of the climate movement will solve the climate crisis on
its own – clearly a pipe dream – but if the disruptive commotion necessary for shaking
business-as-usual out of the ruts can come about without it. (pp. 69-70)
Nonviolent Resistance
The strategy of nonviolent resistance needs further illustration as well. Nonviolent
resistance is alternatively known as Non Violent Direct Action (NVDA), civil resistance, civil
disobedience, satyagraha, or pacifica militancia (Cox, 2019). As stated by Sharp (2005),
“Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used to wage conflict through social,
psychological, economic, and political means without the threat or use of violence. It includes
acts of omission, acts of commission, or a combination of both.” (p. 9). The theory by
Chenoweth and Stephan (2011), popular within the environmental movement, relies not on
ethical, principled nonviolence, but rather provides strategic arguments for nonviolence. They
also underline that, while avoiding violence, nonviolent resistance can be disruptive in nature.
Persuading the Public
The arguments behind nonviolent resistance and eco-sabotage are in disagreement on
the workings behind public support and how this benefits a protest movement. Starting with
Chenoweth and Stephan, they give two reasons why nonviolent methods are superior. Their
first argument describes how nonviolent protest can undermine a regime’s power:
Repressing nonviolent campaigns may backfire. (…). Backfire leads to power shifts
by increasing the internal solidarity of the resistance campaign, creating dissent and
conflicts among the opponent’s supporters, increasing external support for the
resistance campaign, and decreasing external support for the opponent. (p. 11)
Secondly, the authors argue how nonviolence not only fosters support for the protest
movement amongst the public but can also receive sympathy amongst regime members:
“Regime supporters are more likely to bargain with resistance groups that are not killing or
maiming their comrades.” (p. 13). The two arguments are supported by correspondence
inference theory, which “posits that a person makes judgments about how to respond to an
adversary based on the adversary’s actions” (p. 13). Chenoweth and Stephan argue that
contrary to violent protestors, nonviolent protestors appear nonthreatening, avoidant of using
violence and open to negotiation. They conclude nonviolence therefore receives more positive
responses from both civilians and regime members.
While Chenoweth and Stephan press the need for wide acceptance by the public,
Malm argues how public opinion can shift “when one wing, flanking the rising tide in the
mainstream, prepares to blow the status quo sky-high” (p. 50). He refers to the radical flank
effect (RFE). This is a statistical value representing the associations people have with radical
and moderate factions of a social movement. The positive RFE explains how a moderate
faction of a movement receives more public support when a radical flank of the movement
threatens with, or uses, violence or property destruction (Simpson et al., 2022). The workings
of the positive RFE remind one of the Overton Window. This is a framework of what is
accepted in society, which supposedly would shift if more radical ideas are voiced (Astor,
2019).
Classifying and Calculating Success
Next to disagreeing on the workings of public support, Malm criticizes Chenoweth
and Stephan’s analysis. He argues that key movements used in their analysis, are incorrectly
categorized as nonviolent. This concerns the struggle against slavery, the anti-apartheid
movement, the Civil Rights movement, and mobilizations against dictatorships such as the
Arab Spring and the Iranian Revolution. In an interview, Malm states: “All of these struggles
included very significant components of physical confrontation with the prevailing order, and
property destruction has been integral to all of these movements in one form or another.”
(Stephenson, 2021, para. 30).

As mentioned, the dispute above is situated in a larger debate on how to understand,
categorize, and calculate (non)violence and success. Delina (2022) provides a different
reading of Chenoweth and Stephan’s analysis, moving away from the strict focus on
nonviolence: “crucial in these findings is that success in past movements was often hinged on
those movements’ capacity to adjust strategically to their changing conditions” (p. 3).
Meaning that nonviolent movements most successfully played into the balance of forces.
Delina speculates that since Chenoweth and Stephan did not specify this, these nonviolent
movements might have occasionally used more violent elements like sabotage.
Anisin (2020) argues the analysis of Chenoweth and Stephan included a: “blatant
omission of cases of both successful violent campaigns and failed nonviolent campaigns” (p.
1135). He states “manipulative strategies waged by elites” (p. 1136) to be responsible for the
latter due to Chenoweth and Stephan “being funded by non-neutral institutions and actors” (p.
1136). While redoing their analysis, Anisin included the previously omitted cases and came to
the conclusion that violent campaigns are slightly more successful than nonviolent ones, with
a combination of both elements being most successful.
Reviewing both analyses, Onken et al. (2021) acknowledge the difficulty in
statistically categorizing protest movements: “Statistical comparisons reduce complex social
interactions into simplified sets of numbers that cannot capture the nuances of actual cases.”
(p. 1200). They therefore recommend to include more detailed data factors, such as the
training and use of technology amongst armed state forces.
Statistical discussion also exists regarding the literature on the RFE. Simpson et al.
(2022) describe how some empirical studies indeed find evidence for a positive RFE, while
others do not find any evidence that a radical flank either increases or decreases public
support for moderate factions. They note that only a few studies found a negative RFE, where
a radical flank is linked to a decrease in public support for moderate factions. Their
explanation for the inconsistencies in findings is as follows: “Observational data on radical
flank effects cannot generally distinguish between radical flanks as causes or consequences of
variation in public support or success of intra-movement factions.” (p. 2).
Defining Violence
The complexity of statistically analysing protests is heightened by the various
interpretations of violence and nonviolence. Gelderloos (2013) argues that first of all,
violence is “so vague, so hard to define” (p. 15). Yet, he states, people’s definition of violence
is strongly influenced by the mainstream media and the government, who promote visions
exclusively supporting nonviolence. Gelderloos illustrates that within smaller
counterinformation sources, alternative views on violence are circulating. Such as the theory
that nonviolence functions as a veil for more structural or abstract types of violence,
simultaneously legitimizing the state’s monopoly on violence. Gelderloos identifies the
following mainstream view on violence, which, as he notes, legitimizes the power of the state:
Most people will be persuaded that the thing that triggers a release of adrenaline, that
has a sense of danger—a riot, a shooting, smashing things, shouting and running
around, crime—is violent, whereas the thing that is abstract, bureaucratic, or
invisible—a million slow deaths on another continent, the price of medicine, a prison
sentence—is not violent. (p. 17)
In line with the above, eco-sabotage has received varying labels of violence as well.
Malm himself states: “We must accept that property destruction is violence. (…) we must
insist on it being different in kind from the violence that hits a human (or an animal).” (p.
102). While Sovacool and Dunlap (2022), reviewing protest methods from an anarchist
perspective, regard acts of sabotage that protect against immediate, institutional, or systemic
threats as self-defense, and should be regarded as nonviolent.
A Personal Perspective
As illustrated above, an inconclusive debate exists on which type of protest is the most
strategic and how to statistically prove the latter, with authors disagreeing on the definition
and categorization of nonviolent and violent protests and which factors to include in
calculating protests’ success. The complexity defining violence and converting protest reality
into statistics calls for a different approach. While the mentioned authors conceptualize and
calculate protest theory, activists deal with protest reality on the ground. Yet, the perspectives
of individual activists, rooted in experience and engagement in climate activism, are
disregarded in the debate. This research, investigating personal views of climate activists on
the concepts of (non)violent protest and eco-sabotage, adds an empirical, sociological
perspective to the so far theoretical and statistical debate. Perhaps climate activists make use
of the scientific theories to conceptualize (non)violent protest and eco-sabotage, yet personal
beliefs, feelings, experiences, or other factors might be at play. Especially the factor of an
urgent, multidimensional climate crisis could be of importance, which differs from the
regimes most protest movements in the discussed data sets aim to confront.
(Inter)National Context
Not only does the case for eco-sabotage further complicate how to define, classify, and
calculate nonviolence and success, but it also poses a dilemma for the climate movement on
how far protests should go to address the climate crisis. Experimentation and discussions of
the latter have led to clashes with, or concerns from other societal parties. Prominent
examples are presented below, as this could be relevant to the worldview of the interviewees.
A well-known case of activists engaging in eco-sabotage occurred in the US, two
activists received 6 and 8 year sentences on the basis of terrorism charges after damaging a
pipeline project yet to be completed (Bruggeman, 2022). Moving closer to the Dutch border,
the German activist group Latzte Generation was investigated by authorities after members
closed the emergency valve of an oil pipeline (Andersen, 2022). Activists belonging to the
group Tire Extinguishers, active in the Netherlands and surrounding European countries,
claim to have successfully deflated more than 10.000 SUV tires they deem pollutive, without
causing permanent damage (Gayle, 2022). The scarcity of examples of eco-sabotage shows
that, currently, Malm’s call to use eco-sabotage en masse remains an exhortation.
Yet, societal concern within the Netherlands regarding radicalizing climate protests
exists. This year, a debate organized to discuss the limits of radical and potentially violent
protest tactics during the climate crisis was cancelled. Various societal parties interpreted the
debate as a call for violence (Gordijn & Timmer, 2023). For example, a politician from the
right-wing party JA21 tweeted about the debate: ‘terrifying that the extreme left will seriously
talk about the application of violence’ (Nanninga, 2023, own translation).
Besides societal concerns, the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service
(AIVD) reports that the environmental movement in the Netherlands upholds democratic
values and cannot be classified as violent or extremist. Although, they mention that sometimes
little is needed for activism to turn into extremism. They view the involvement of
insurrectional anarchists with a higher tendency for violence, inspiration by a more radical
protest culture in other countries, or extremist groups active in the past as possible risk factors
(AIVD, 2021; AIVD, 2022). The latter might refer to the Dutch group RaRa, active in the
nineties. They used sabotage by setting fire to four supermarkets, successfully forcing a trade
association to withdraw support for the Apartheid regime in South Africa. (“RaRa is nog
steeds”, 2011).
The Dutch environmental movement, seemingly not investigated by the AIVD, does
face difficulty practicing their democratic right to protest, as reported by Amnesty
International in 2022. Their report warns that Dutch authorities often perceive protests as
public disturbances instead of investigating how to facilitate the protest and ensure protestors
safety. In January 2023, a solidarity protest was held in The Hague, pleading for the right to
protest as well. This occurred after the city disallowed a demonstration on a highway and the
police pre-emptively arrested activists (“Honderden Arrestaties bij”, 2023).
Confidential Conversations
In order to gain in depth insights into the perspective of climate activists on
(non)violent protest and eco-sabotage, semi-structured, qualitative interviews with people
engaged in climate activism were conducted. Interviews allow for an open space for
participants to share their opinions to the extent they are comfortable with (Boeije, 2010).
This atmosphere is suitable when discussing sensitive topics such as violence and eco-
sabotage. Especially semi-structured interviews are beneficial when studying members of
social movements since they create enough space to dive into what is important to the
interviewee, while ensuring to cover a list of pre-determined topics (Weiss, 1994; Blee &
Taylor, 2002). Preceding the interviews, pre-determined topics were captured in an interview
guide containing primarily open questions about interviewees’ engagement in activism,
experience of the climate crisis, definition(s) of violence, and thoughts on (non)violent
activism and eco-sabotage (see Appendix A). The interview guide was used flexibly during
the interviews, aiding the natural flow of conversation. Follow up questions allowed
interviewees to explain their views more, which also gave space for the possible mentioning
of any theoretical concepts that might have influenced their opinions.
Interviewees were found using a sampling strategy that was both purposive and
convenient. Purposive sampling was applied since interviewees shared the characteristic of
being climate activists in the Netherlands. Convenient sampling was used, as interviewees
were found through the researcher’s personal connections with climate activists and presence
within online activist channels, through which interview requests were shared. The interview
requests clarified the research topic and mentioned that anyone engaged in climate activism
could participate.
Eventually, most interviewees had a Dutch nationality, and all originated from western
countries. Everyone currently lived in the ‘Randstad’ area. Interviewees were in their twenties
or thirties, and one interviewee was in their fifties. All participants were active in one or more
climate activist groups. Most interviewees were involved in climate activism for a few years,
while a few were involved for several months, and one interviewee was involved for over 20
years.
Interviews were conducted in the months of March and April 2023, in either Dutch or
English. Half the interviewees chose to have the interview conducted online through a private
video connection, while the other half preferred to be interviewed in a café or at the home of
either the interviewee or the researcher. After participants gave verbal consent to be
interviewed for research purposes, the interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 1.5 hours.
After conducting and transcribing the interviews, a grounded theory approach was
used to undergo a cycle of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding of possible
relevant parts of the interviews (see Appendix B). For this process, the password-protected
desktop version of ATLAS.ti was used. To further safeguard anonymity, digital
communication with the interviewees was deleted, interview recordings were deleted after
transcription, and transcriptions were stored on a separate hard drive. The names of the
interviewees were not asked for nor documented. For the coding process, interviewees were
assigned a number ranging from 1 to 12. In the analysis presented below, these numbers were
randomly converted to an alphabetic code ranging from respondent A (R-A) to respondent L
(R-L).
Correlative & Contrasting Views
In this section, an analysis of the interviews is given to inform the research question:
How do climate activists in the Netherlands view (non)violent activism and ecological
sabotage in times of climate crisis? To ensure the analysis is grounded in data, direct quotes
from the interviews are displayed. Dutch quotes have been translated to English by the
researcher, whereas English quotes are displayed in their original form.
After analysing the distribution of codes among the interviewees, findings indicate
that the interviewed climate activists have a shared framework regarding their views on
violence, concerns about democracy, and urgency to pursue climate action. Yet interviewees
hold differing views regarding what they value in climate activism and how they experience
the climate crisis. Based on these differences, four types of climate activists were discerned
from the sample. The shared framework plays different roles among these four types of
activists as well.
This section will first describe the shared framework and then, illustrate the identified
types. This way, it can be understood how activists view (non)violent activism and the
concept of eco-sabotage in times of climate crisis. Note the term ‘concept of eco-sabotage’, as
it was neither relevant for this research nor the case that an interviewee is planning to use eco-
sabotage in the future. Yet, individuals have formed thoughts and opinions about the
conceptual term, which were explored in the interviews.
Views on Violence, Democracy & Urgency
Abstract, Capitalist Violence
As this research engages with concepts of (non)violence, it is important to state that a
key aspect of the shared framework amongst the interviewees is a strong disinclination
towards violence. This means no interviewee regards violence as a desired tool, or an end in
itself. Instead, interviewees have given what violence means in-depth thought. Interviewee R-
G describes violence as: “Hurting anything that is living, I would define it as harm.” Other
interviewees voice how violence can be induced on humans and non-humans as well:
‘Violence against humans, animals and nature, verbally or physically, is all very clearly
violence.’ (R-L). Similar to interviewee R-L, interviewees mention various forms of violence:
‘physical violence (..) emotional violence, mental violence’ (R-A), ‘physical damage (…)
emotional violence’ (R-H). Thus, the interviewees describe violence as something that could
be physical, verbal, or mental harm towards humans, animals, or other forms of life, including
nature in general. The shared view on violence simultaneously informs interviewees’
understanding of nonviolence, in which harm towards all these different forms of life should
be avoided. This makes interviewees’ evaluation of violence towards objects rather complex,
as objects are ‘lifeless’ (R-L), yet “there is all the things that it [the object] is connected to”
(R-G). This means interviewees regard violence towards objects in differing ways, depending
on the context and those indirectly impacted.
Moreover, interviewees specifically mention violence to occur in relation to the
climate crisis. They identify humans and non-humans falling victim to the violence caused by
the climate crisis: ‘That [the climate crisis] gives violence to people, animals, and others.’ (R-
D). Interviewees indicate the violence induced by the climate crisis to take shape in the form
of natural disasters such as ‘droughts, floods, forest fires’ (R-E), pollution, such as
‘contamination of drinking water’ (R-H), or increasing structural issues: ‘a lot of hunger, a lot
of diseases’ (R-I).
Besides describing how humans and non-humans suffer from the climate crisis, 11 out
of 12 interviewees judge actions contributing to this crisis as inherently violent. Often,
interviewees point to the violence inflicted upon the earth and its inhabitants by polluting
companies: ‘big companies are the most violent systems’ (R-H), or: ‘they [Shell] clearly use
indirect violence’ (R-F). Several interviewees perceive governments to engage in violence as
well: ‘the current climate policy is a form of violence’ (R-E). Two interviewees describe the
damaging of the environment on a large scale, may it be by governments or companies, as

“ecocide” (R-E) and ‘slow genocide’ (R-A). In the following sections, the term ‘polluting
structures’ is used to denote all mentioned acts of violence.
Especially the mentioned violence of polluting companies, hints at an underlying
criticism of capitalism amongst the interviewees. This exists of disapproval of the capitalist
system in general, as interviewee R-I expresses: ‘something has to be done about the capitalist
system’. Or, more specifically, interviewees disapproved of the profit incentive behind
capitalist economy, which disregards negative (environmental) externalities. About polluting
companies like Shell, interviewees state they are “intentionally causing harm for the sake of
greed” (R-G) and “just worrying about their pocketbook, not the consequences” (R-J).
Interviewee R-E explains how these companies impede climate action, by referring to the
Dutch company Tata Steel: ‘Tata who says: ‘We cannot deliver steel in a green way before
2030’, yes, you can, but you would hand in a lot of profit.’
Polluted Democracy
Interviewees’ disapproval of polluting structures and capitalist profit incentives aligns
with the concerns interviewees have about the functioning of certain democratic elements in
the Netherlands. These concerns were brought up by several interviewees and were not
discussed with every participant. Yet the concerns were at play amongst interviewees
identified as different types and are therefore regarded as part of the shared framework as
well.
While interviewees point out that polluting structures fuel the climate crisis, they also
view the workings of Dutch democracy as inadequately addressing the latter, as interviewee
R-F says: ‘We have a democratic system, but we do not have a good climate, so somewhere,
something goes wrong.’ First of all, interviewees express concerns about the role big,
polluting companies play in Dutch politics, enabling them to continue their practices while
disregarding regulations:
That democracy actually does not really function. I find that very worrisome, and I think that
people do not really understand how well companies like Shell or Tata Steel or you
name it, how well they manoeuvre themselves away from the rules and get away with
it. (R-I)
Lobbying is seen as a key method these companies use to exert their influence: ‘I think the
current democratic system indeed doesn’t function so well because lobbyists have too much
power and can practice their influence too much.’ (R-H).
Secondly, interviewees experienced obstructions in practicing their democratic right to
protest. While this right to protest is deemed highly important: ‘when I take action, I express
my opinion, and I find that I have the right to do so’ (R-K). Interviewees hold grievances
against occasions where this democratic right was disrespected. Interviewee R-J refers to
Dutch police wrongfully pre-arresting protestors for planning a blockade of a highway in the
Hague:
Protesters for Extinction Rebellion get arrested for discussing and planning a future protest.
Well, in my opinion, that's bullshit. Because that, the ability to address your grievances
to people that are creating those grievances, is in my opinion one of the core elements
of living in a democracy.
Interviewee R-D says that same blockade should have taken place: ‘it could have simply been
facilitated by the municipality, and they are actually obliged to’. The two quotes highlight
how interviewees view Dutch authorities as inadequately facilitating their right to protest.
Sense of Urgency
All interviewees underline the urgent necessity for climate action. This is, amongst
others, expressed by interviewee R-I: ‘The climate crisis is a little peculiar because it is
getting worse very fast.’ and interviewee R-E says: ‘We should have started the day before
yesterday with harsh measures, otherwise we won’t make it.’ The climate urgency is not
experienced solely as a fact, but carries emotional consequences that differ across the four
types of activists. For some, the sense of urgency feels rather abstract: ‘for me directly, I don’t
really experience that urgency’ (R-D). While others are emotionally impacted: ‘We are simply
in a major emergency situation, and I am just so horribly worried.’ (R-B).
Shared Framework, Diverse Dimensions
In short, the interviewees align with a shared framework on what violence means, with
an acknowledgement of abstract forms and subjects of violence. The framework includes a
critical view of capitalism, with profit incentives hampering climate action. Climate action is
deemed urgent, yet interviewees experience a lack of facilitation of climate protests by Dutch
authorities and view the role of polluting companies in Dutch politics as too powerful. This
shared framework takes on different dimensions for the four types of activists, which is
already apparent in how the urgency of climate action is emotionally experienced or how
violence towards objects, and thus the act of eco-sabotage, is evaluated.
Democracy, Harmony, Communication & Disruption
The shared framework informs the opinions of the four activist types on eco-sabotage
and (non)violent activism differently, depending on their values in activism, investment in
activism, and future vision. The identified activist types received the following fictional
names, aiming to reflect their essence: the Democratizers, the Harmonizers, the
Communicators, and the Disruptors. An overview of the types is illustrated below in Table 1.
Excerpts of this table are used in the following paragraphs to clarify the types.
Table 1
Overview of the four types of activists
Characteristics / Key Values Investment in Future Vision Attitude towards

Activists Types Activism Eco-sabotage
Democratizers Nonviolence More moral Less hopeful More cautiously
Democracy investment unreceptive
Harmonizers Nonviolence More inclusive More hopeful More cautiously
Safety investment receptive
Communicators Communication- More pragmatic Fabricated hope More cautiously
strategy investment receptive
Disruptors Targeting polluting More emotional Concerns about More cautiously
companies investment time to act now receptive
The Democratizers
The top row of Table 1, displayed below in Table 1A, displays key aspects of the type
coined the Democratizers. The Democratizers value nonviolence and democracy, have a less
hopeful future vision, and have moral reasoning behind climate activism. They are the only
type with a more unreceptive attitude towards the concept of eco-sabotage.
Table 1A
The Democratizers
Key Values Investment in Future Vision Attitude towards

Activism Eco-sabotage
The Nonviolence More moral Less hopeful More cautiously
Democratizers Democracy investment unreceptive
The Democratizers highly value the democratic setting in which activism takes place:
‘It is very valuable to have a political system that combines the will of the people into
political policy.’ (R-F). As interviewee R-J states, this democratic setting “allows everyone to
have their opinion”. The Democratizers voice that activism situated in the Netherlands should
adhere to democratic, political principles. For example, interviewee R-D says: ‘There is a
border until where you can demand your right, because eventually the society as a whole
makes a choice’. This reflects how the Democratizers view that activists should aim to get a
portion of society to support their demands. Interviewee R-F explains how public support for
climate activists is important to influence politics: ‘We live in a parliamentary democracy (…)
when you create public support then politics will listen to you.’ (R-F).
In order to influence public opinion effectively, this group stresses the importance of
nonviolent activism. Interviewee R-J describes how using violence is counterproductive for
growing public support: “When you're more violent and more destructive (…) it will distract
from your message. And also it will, in a way, push people away. Because if this person was
being violent, what is their credibility?” (R-J). And as interviewee R-D says: ‘As soon as you
use violence, I think you are no longer operating legitimate anymore. (…) you then just lose
the moral high ground.’ Compared to violence, nonviolence is believed to give climate
activists a legitimate and morally just public image. Therefore, the Democratizers view
nonviolent activism as essential to grow public support and eventually influence politics.
As hinted at in the quotes above, the Democratizers often argue from a moral stance,
with nonviolent protest seen as morally just. Despite having little hope for a future in which
adequate climate action is taken: ‘I don’t have the hope that we would solve the climate crisis’
(R-F), a moral duty motivates them to stay engaged in activism: “I still feel it’s important to
do something that I can” (R-J). For the Democratizers, climate action is about limiting harm:
‘the difference we can make between 2 degrees or 2.5 degrees or 3 degrees’ (R-D).
The described values of democracy, nonviolence, and morality, as well as being less
hopeful for the future, inform the more cautiously unreceptive attitude of the Democratizers
towards the concept of eco-sabotage. They argue that eco-sabotage would be perceived as
violent, harming public opinion and support for the climate movement: “If you use violent,
destructive eco-sabotaging and it motivates everyone against the message you're trying to
send, you're less likely to be productive in the future because you get everyone to disagree
with you.” (R-J). Simultaneously, the Democratizers view eco-sabotage as an unproportional
tool within a democratic system: ‘in the Netherlands, we have different tools you could use’
(R-D). While acknowledging that eco-sabotage against violent, pollutive structures could be
justified, this group does not view it is moral or strategical to respond to violence with
violence: ‘but that it is justified does not mean that you should do it’ (R-F). Instead, the
Democratizers recommend to create structural change through democratic pathways: “If you
work towards structural change, you may not push people away.” (R-J). Perhaps their lesser
optimism for the future informs their unreceptiveness for eco-sabotage, as they lack hope that
any scenario, including a scenario with eco-sabotage, would fully tackle the climate crisis.
All in all, similar to other interviewees, this group experiences the urgency of the
climate crisis and is critical of polluting structures. Yet their democratic, moral, and
nonviolent values, and, perhaps, little hope for the future, result in a cautious, unreceptive
attitude towards eco-sabotage. Even though the Democratizers voiced concerns about the
workings of Dutch democracy, they view the democratic route as the most viable for activists
to influence public opinion, pressure politics, and create structural change.
The Harmonizers
While the Democratizers value democracy, nonviolence, and morality, the
Harmonizers, highlighted below in Table 1B, share the value of nonviolence, yet are more
hopeful for the future and emphasize the importance of safety and inclusion of others.
Table 1B
The Harmonizers

Harmonizers Nonviolence More inclusive More hopeful More cautiously
Safety investment receptive
Besides acknowledging the value of nonviolence for public support, the Harmonizers
primarily view nonviolence as vital for within the climate movement. As interviewee R-C
explains: “We tried to bring big groups of people together. And if it were more violent actions,
I would feel the responsibility of excluding people.” While violence would discourage others
from joining, nonviolence is viewed as making activism more safe and inclusive: “If you are
nonviolent, there’s a bigger chance of you aligning people in your movement that are not
necessarily suit for violence (…) it is more inclusive when you are peaceful.” (R-G).
The high regard for nonviolence connects to the Harmonizers view on safety and
inclusion. About the safety nonviolence provides, interviewee R-G says, “we will be avoiding
violence, so I feel safe” and interviewee R-E states ‘I also feel pleasant and safe with that’.
The inclusive nature of nonviolence also corresponds with an investment the Harmonizers
have to include, inspire, and connect with others in their activism. For example, interviewee
R-E explains about their activism: ‘with that I could also bring people in or inform them’ and
interviewee R-C says: “everything that I do is also creating moments of learning with each
other”
Next to that, the Harmonizers have a more hopeful future vision on climate issues
compared to other interviewees. Mentioned reasons are people working together towards
change, may it be through developing new technology: ‘you cannot be solely pessimistic
about the technology yet to come’ (R-E) or uniting in activist communities: “What gives me
hope is all the amounts of people trying their best.” (R-G).
With all that being said, the Harmonizers are more cautiously receptive towards the
concept of eco-sabotage. They are cautious about the possible physical or legal risk eco-
sabotage entails for climate activists: “When you sabotage (…) it's more risky because it is
more violent.” (R-C). Also, employees are mentioned to possibly be harmed: “people losing
their job (…) hurting workers maybe that work there” (R-G). These risks clash with the
Harmonizers values of nonviolence, safety, and inclusion. To safeguard their own principles,
they suggest the possibility of a separate group using eco-sabotage: “a group that is doing
ecological sabotage for those that want to do it” (R-C). This reflects their inclusive approach,
accommodating individuals who may support eco-sabotage while protecting their own
nonviolent image: ‘You should not carry out sabotage actions somewhere using the XR
[Extinction Rebellion] flag, because they should keep the image that we are peaceful.’ (R-E).
Next to acknowledging risks, their hopeful future vision allows the Harmonizers to
consider the positive sides of eco-sabotage as well. From their nonviolent values, they reason
how eco-sabotage might reduce the violence caused by pollution: “one less structure harming
the planet” (R-G). Interviewee R-C speaks of eco-sabotage as “an act of liberation” from
“violence inflicted on the earth”. Another justification for eco-sabotage is the Harmonizer’s
view that companies and governments neglected their responsibility to take climate action,
even though this is urgently needed:
Depending on the impact, I would find a certain form of eco-sabotage to be permitted. We

are now at a point that we cannot discuss for 10 years about measures that would take
20 years to execute. We are past that point. And they [polluting companies] chose for
that. (R-E)
In short, the Harmonizers aim to create a hopeful harmony in activism through
nonviolence, safety, and inclusion of others. The shared framework of the violence of
polluting structures and perhaps the obstructed workings of democracy, makes this group
view eco-sabotage as justified and accepting of others who might want to engage in eco-
sabotage. Yet, the Harmonizers are concerned about the possible risks eco-sabotage brings,
which clash with their own values in activism. Therefore, they suggest nonviolent groups
refrain from using eco-sabotage.
The Communicators
While the Democratizers focus on nonviolence, democracy and morality and the
Harmonizers focus on nonviolence, safety and inclusion, the Communicators, summarized in
Table 1C below, have a pragmatic mindset, fabricated hope for the future and highlight the
importance of communications.
Table 1C
The Communicators

Communicators Communication- More pragmatic Fabricated hope More cautiously
strategy investment receptive
The Communicators view creative and disruptive nonviolent civil disobedience as
great tools to communicate. Interviewee R-A voices how, already symbolically, a protest can
deliver a strong message: ‘With their action they [Extinction Rebellion protestors] actually
say visually that this world does not work anymore, we need a new one.’ The Communicators
highlight the potential of protests to generate media coverage and convince a wide public of
their message: ‘If your goal is to get something to change in society, then it is important that
the media reports about this, and eventually it is important that most of the people will agree
with you. Because that creates pressure.’ (R-K). In this phrase, interviewee R-K points to how
public support for protestors can influence politics as well. Especially protests with specific
demands are viewed by the Communicators as receiving attention in politics: ‘that works
better, because the politicians can respond to that’ (R-H). Interviewee R-H explains how
politicians agreeing with the demands could, for example, submit ‘a proposal for a motion’.
As apparent above, the Communicators are aware of strategies behind communication.
They mention that unlikable acts of direct activism could also generate attention and public
support for the underlying message: ‘He did not agree with the action. But it did have the
incidental we wanted, because he does feel in a way that we have to do something to change.’
(R-H). This reasoning reminds one of the radical flank effect, yet this was not referred to by
these interviewees.
The Communicators have a pragmatic investment in activism revolving around doing:
‘I just have to do something’ (R-A). The Communicators’ focus on ‘doing’ is best explained in
combination with their future vision. The Communicators ignore concerns about the future to
keep practicing activism. Interviewee R-K says about their environmental concerns: ‘if I
would let that in, then I would only sit miserably on the couch and do nothing’. Instead, the
Communicators have a vision of fabricated hope: ‘I am also prepared to stay fake hopeful (…)
otherwise, I become so apathetically climate depressed.’ (R-A). Interviewee R-H describes
how hope is needed to act: ‘You have to hope in the best of humanity, because otherwise, it
does not make sense to do something at all.’ For the Communicators, a difference exists
between internalizing climate distress and communicating about climate urgency: ‘of course
you have to communicate that pressure to the outside’ (R-K).
Regarding eco-sabotage, the Communicators are cautiously receptive. Their pragmatic
mindset contributes to their opinion that eco-sabotage could be nonviolent, especially if it is
directed towards violent, polluting companies: ‘The destroying, not of private property, but of
property of big companies who have earned money from violence and destruction, I do not
find that violent actually.’ (R-H). Next to being cautious about targeting property of
individuals, the Communicators warn for crossing a certain line in acts of sabotage that the
public would simply not reason with: ‘I do not agree with everything because I do think the
societal backlash could be so huge.’ (R-A).
Yet, the Communicators argue from their understanding of communications, certain
acts of eco-sabotage with clear messaging could still receive public support: ‘if you explain
why you do this sabotage, then you even have the chance that the critical mass has a lot of
sympathy for that’ (R-K). For the latter, Interviewee R-H stressed the importance of
communicating about violence: ‘It is very important to show (…) what our vision is on
violence. And that is not the destruction of big capital, but that is violence that capitalist
companies are causing.’
In summary, the Communicators view communication as essential both for nonviolent
activism and eco-sabotage. Eco-sabotage and climate activism in general are viewed with a
pragmatic investment focused on doing, leaving personal anxieties outside of the equation.
The Communicators view successful communication about eco-sabotage directed towards
polluting companies as possible, especially if this is done with a critical attitude towards the
violence inherent in capitalism. Yet, they voice caution about targeting individuals’ property
and crossing certain boundaries that would heavily harm public opinion.
The Disruptors
With the Democratizers valuing nonviolence, democracy, and morality, the
Harmonizers valuing nonviolence, safety, and inclusion and the Communicators valuing
communications and acting pragmatically, the Disrupters, displayed in Table 1D, have a more
emotional investment in activism and aim to target polluting companies.

Table 1D
The Disruptors

Disruptors Targeting polluting More emotional Concerns about More cautiously
companies investment time to act now receptive
The Disruptors’ activism is preferably aimed to, quite literally, block pollutive
activities or locations: ‘I focus quite a bit on actions that are specifically targeted at big
industry and multinationals.’ (R-I). They argue this form of activism causes ‘direct disruption
and economic damage to the company’ (R-L). In this way, they protest not in public space, but
directly at the polluter: ‘you create disruption exactly at the place where it should happen’ (R-
B). These types of protests are furthermore believed by the Disruptors to receive public
support, since normal citizens are not inconvenienced: ‘if you sit on a road, you know that
people who drive there actually have nothing to do with it’ (R-B). This means that in addition
to targeting polluters, the Disruptors indirectly target public opinion: ‘you get media attention
and that hopefully helps to change public opinion, which again helps with the public pressure’
(R-I).
The reasoning behind protesting directly at the polluters is enriched by an emotional
investment. For the Disruptors, activism helps to cope with their distress about the climate
crisis: ‘activism is also a type of coping mechanism to turn that desperation and anger into
something productive’ (R-L). While their emotions are a motivator for activism, activism also
brings up distressing thoughts. To illustrate, interviewee R-I describes the emotional impact of
blocking fossil fuel transport: ‘You witness (…) how big everything is, and that of course also
calls that feeling, that realization like: it is all going to be broken.’ While they carry a
distressing image of the future, the Disruptors are mostly concerned about the closing window
to act now: ‘the continuation of humankind is on the table, I think it’s not going fast enough
yet’ (R-B).
Regarding eco-sabotage, the Disruptors are cautiously receptive to the concept. It
aligns well with their objective to financially impede polluting companies: ‘If you can
sabotage a company in such a way that it is not lucrative anymore for them to exist, then
maybe you reach your goal slightly more directly.’ (R-L). Also, the argument that eco-
sabotage would problematize CO2 emissions connects with the Disruptors’ belief that action
is urgently needed: ‘the last bit of CO2 is so crucial’ (R-I).
Concepts from Malm’s book possibly give some weight to the theorizations of two
interviewees identified as Disruptors. Both interviewees refer to historical examples of violent
acts aiding a nonviolent movement, such as ‘the suffragettes doing a lot of property damage’
(R-L), and ‘Martin Luther King with antiracism (…) Gandhi (…) in those struggles you also
had violent groups’ (R-B). Additionally, both interviewees voice how radical actions might
positively influence public opinion. Interviewee R-L reasons with the radical flank effect: ‘If
you have a radical flank, other, less intense methods would be more accepted by the wider
public.’ Interviewee R-B refers to the Overton Window: ‘If that window of public opinion
shifts slightly by radical actions, then in general that is really good for the climate movement.’
Despite voicing arguments in favour of eco-sabotage, the Disruptors mention that eco-
sabotage carries much larger risks compared to non-violently blocking something. An excerpt
of the mentioned risks are the loss of public support: ‘you really have to find the balance
between more radical actions and if the public still somewhat likes you’ (R-B), harming
employees: ‘for the employees of those companies it is quite bad’ (R-I) and legal obstacles:
‘there is just such a big legal risk to it’ (R-L). All the mentioned risks leave the Disruptors in
doubt about eco-sabotage’s effectiveness and unconvinced by their own pro-arguments for the
strategy: ‘something like sabotage, I just wonder if that could really be effective’ (R-B).
To sum up, the Disruptors emotional experience of climate urgency is paired with a
direct goal to target polluting companies, perhaps to still do something substantial about the
climate crisis within a short time frame. Whether eco-sabotage can achieve the latter more
adequately than nonviolent disruption remains questionable for these interviewees.
Caution and (Un)Receptiveness
In summary, the interviewees view (non)violent activism and eco-sabotage in times of
climate crisis from a similar framework, yet in differing ways. All acknowledge abstract acts
and subjects of violence due to the climate crisis. Big, pollutive companies are believed to
follow harmful, capitalist profit incentives, while simultaneously exercising too much power
within Dutch politics. Democratic workings are furthermore perceived to be troubled by
authorities lack to facilitate climate protests, which interviewees deem vital to voice their
concerns about the urgency of the climate crisis. Nonetheless, the shared framework does not
inform interviewees to confidently side with the concept of eco-sabotage. Instead,
interviewees are cautiously receptive or unreceptive to the concept. Amongst the four activist
types, the Democratizers, the Harmonizers, the Communicators, and the Disruptors, differing
views on (non)violent activism and eco-sabotage, including various reasons for caution, are
expressed based on their values in activism, investment in activism, and future vision.
The Importance of Differing Perspectives
In the following paragraphs, the importance of this research is illustrated. First,
relevance for current literature on eco-sabotage and (non)violent activism is discussed.
Second, insights are used to address societal concerns about radical tactics such as eco-
sabotage. Lastly, recommendations for further research are given.
Perspectives Beyond Theory
This research aimed to add perspective from climate activists themselves regarding
concepts of (non)violence and eco-sabotage. To begin with, interviewees seemed to have little
connection to specific theoretical works. Key authors such as Chenoweth and Stephan (2011),
remained unmentioned, only arguments from Malm (2021) received scarce reference.
Additionally, the naming of strategic concepts such as, the radical flank theory and the
Overton Window, occurred rarely and only possibly influenced the thoughts on eco-sabotage
of at most two interviewees. Though, interviewees did speak of mechanisms that are
addressed within theory, such as how to reach public support to influence politics, how to
grow a movement, or how radical tactics can affect public opinion. This signifies that
interviewees have a personal line of reasoning on the workings of climate activism, which
may have been inspired by theory but may as well have been spread through being in contact
with other activists or from personal experience with what works in activism. Perhaps,
following theorizations by Gelderloos (2013), interviewees’ recognition of abstract violence
towards the environment caused by capitalist, profit-seeking acts suggests interviewees are
more in contact with smaller, counterinformation sources compared to most people.
Anyhow, Malm’s book may have sparked renewed interest in the concept of eco-
sabotage, yet interviewees do not simply adopt and repeat what Malm, or other theorists for
that matter, state. Strategical theories are viewed by interviewees as something that could
possibly be the case and do not provide them with rock-solid beliefs. Especially when the
strategies contain risks and potentially clash with individuals values, which was the case for
eco-sabotage, an attitude of caution emerges. Rather, theoretical concepts, may it only be
awareness of the concept itself, are, if at all, applied as individuals see fit to their personal
experiences, investments, and values regarding climate activism.
The typology identified in this study exemplifies how meaning making by individuals
significantly influences the diverse ways in which interviewees perceive the concepts of
(non)violent activism and eco-sabotage. This underlines the sociological perspective that
different individuals view concepts differently (Macionis & Plummer, 1997). All in all,
researchers and society as a whole should be aware that exposure to theoretical arguments on
protest does not lead to uniform adoption of these theories amongst activists.
The Roots of Radical Interests
Results are relevant as well for societal concerns about climate activists adopting
radical thoughts that lean towards violence. Prominent cases are the cancelled discussion on
potential violence in climate protests and the AIVD consecutively mentioning the possible
radicalization of the environmental movement (AIVD, 2021; AIVD, 2022; Gordijn &
Timmer, 2023). As aforementioned, findings reveal that individuals do not simply adopt the
reasoning behind theories like eco-sabotage but interpret these theories through their own
worldview and framework of thought, leading to diverse perspectives. From these
perspectives, varying benefits of nonviolence and varying cautions for eco-sabotage are
mentioned. Individuals’ awareness of all these different viewpoints could be lost if
discussions on violence in protests are silenced and/or stigmatized within society. Moreover,
as numerous studies show, individuals’ access to other people’s perspectives is a factor that
would prevent radicalization towards violent behaviour, and should therefore not be impeded.
To explain this mechanism, prior to engaging in radical, violent behaviour, a process
of radicalization could occur. A common definition in literature is: “Radicalization is a
process through which people become increasingly motivated to use violent means against
members of an out-group or symbolic targets to achieve behavioural change and political
goals.” (Doosje et al., 2016, p. 79). Most people developing radical, violent ideas never put
these ideas into practice, yet a fractional minority does (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017).
Especially the workings of ingroup and outgroup processes contributing to radicalization,
point to how access to different perspectives could help prevent radicalization. In literature,
the radicalization of individuals is linked to a process of loosening ties with outgroup
members and increasing interaction with a small ingroup. After conducting an extensive
literature review, Malthaner and Lindekilde (2015) conclude about radicalizing ingroups: “the
radicalizing effect of small-group-dynamics, that is, interactions among members of small,
confined cliques of friends which push individuals towards adopting more extreme attitudes
and exert peer-group pressure towards participation in high-risk activism” (p. 3).
The described process suggests that facilitated discussions on violent protest tactics
within the climate movement could promote perspective-sharing. Conversely, stigmatizing or
prohibiting such conversations may restrict individuals to sharing their thoughts on the topic
within like-minded, trusted groups, potentially fostering radicalization. Thus, suppressing
debates on escalating tactics could counterproductively encourage a small group of
individuals to consider such tactics. This is also suggested by the findings in this research, as
the sample shows individuals value nonviolence and have differing attitudes of caution
towards eco-sabotage. Awareness of these reasons for caution could guide those interested in
eco-sabotage towards safer practices of eco-sabotage or nonviolent methods, thus preventing
irrational, radicalized actions.
Instead of disallowing discussions on radical tactics or reporting potential
radicalization within climate activism, in light of prevention, it is more fruitful to understand
and address the root causes that lead to interest in such tactics. This study indicates how
dissatisfaction with democratic processes can increase receptiveness towards eco-sabotage.
Interviewees regard the powerful role polluting companies have in Dutch politics as
undemocratic. Additionally, interviewees feel their democratic protest rights are neglected by
authorities, reflecting Amnesty International's report from 2022 on Dutch protests lacking
facilitation. Addressing the interference of polluting companies in politics and improving
climate protest facilitation, might decrease receptiveness towards strategies like eco-sabotage,
as trust in democratic pathways of climate activism would be restored.
Diving into Democracy, Success and Diversity

A suggestion for future research is to investigate the possible link between concerns
about certain democratic processes and receptiveness towards escalating tactics like eco-
sabotage. Negative evaluations of the workings of democracy surfaced within the interview
answers, yet more understanding of these mechanisms could be obtained through interviews
focused on this topic.
Since interviewees view the concept of eco-sabotage from different perspectives, they
also suggest specific parameters for eco-sabotage to occur more closely to their own values.
For example, that eco-sabotage should be done by a separate group, solely directed towards
polluting companies, or communicated clearly about. In the theoretical debate on protests’
success, breaking down the category of eco-sabotage using the specified parameters could
provide for a more specific analysis of cases of eco-sabotage.
Lastly, it needs to be noted how the sample is not fully representative of all climate
activists in the Netherlands due to its limited size and lack of diversity, particularly in terms of
age (mostly 20s and 30s), education (primarily highly educated), and cultural background (all
originating from western countries). Future research should therefore strive for a more diverse
sample. However, people with these characteristics are highly present within the Dutch
climate movement, as, for instance, stated by Johannes writing for Milieudefensie (2021).
Which means, this sample does relate to a considerable part of the climate activists in the
Netherlands.
Precautions on Thin Ice
This research aimed to contribute a missing perspective from climate activists to the
scholarly debate on the success of eco-sabotage versus nonviolent resistance and how to
define (non)violence in times of climate crisis. Insights into this perspective are relevant for a
debate in society and within the climate movement on how thoughts on escalating protest
tactics should be received in times of climate urgency. Moving away from statistical and
abstract conceptualizations on how to classify (non)violence and calculate success, this
research interviewed 12 climate activists active in the Netherlands on their views surrounding
climate activism, the climate crisis, violence, (non)violent protest, and eco-sabotage.
Results show interviewees share similar views on possible acts and subjects of
violence, including who or what is causing or suffering from environmental harm, with
capitalist profit incentives as one of the mechanisms behind the latter. They also share
concerns about the urgency of the climate crisis and certain (un)democratic processes in the
Netherlands. Departing from this shared framework, differing views on what is important in
activism and underlying experiences of the climate crisis result in different evaluations and
considerations of eco-sabotage and (non)violent activism, categorized by four types of
interviewees: the Democratizers, the Harmonizers, the Communicators, and the Disruptors.
Regarding the scholarly debate on eco-sabotage and (non)violent protest, the identified
types of climate activists do not reason much with theoretical concepts, yet view the topic
from their own worldview, reasoning from their distinctive values regarding activism,
investment in activism, and future vision. This shows that when moving the statistical
discussion from paper to the real perspectives of individuals, the discussion becomes more
detailed as well. Interviewees bring forward from their own line of reasoning the
characteristics of successful eco-sabotage. Translating this into a statistical analysis, it might
be helpful to diversify the category of eco-sabotage along these mentioned parameters.
The differing perspectives of the interviewed climate activists also inform various
attitudes of caution towards the concept of eco-sabotage. It is therefore important to facilitate
discussion on topics such as eco-sabotage or other escalating tactics. This fosters exposure to
diverse opinions, thereby mitigating the potentially radicalizing risk of individuals solely
discussing this topic in trusted, like-minded ingroups. Since findings indicate the discussion
of eco-sabotage does not lead to people simply adopting its reasonings, enabling conversation
on this topic would more likely prevent than encourage individuals from engaging in
irrational, radical acts.
Yet, for those in society expressing concerns about the interest in radical tactics like
eco-sabotage, instead of silencing discussion on the topic, underlying mechanisms informing
this interest could be addressed. This research linked the evaluation of impeded democratic
workings in the Netherlands to more receptiveness towards eco-sabotage. The experience of
diminished facilitation of climate protests by Dutch authorities and the interference of
polluting companies in Dutch politics are believed by interviewees to impede the democratic
routes activists in the Netherlands can follow to pressure politics. Addressing these two
obstacles could therefore lead to fewer arguments for strategies like eco-sabotage.
Nevertheless, for those wishing for sustainable prevention of activists discussing or
considering radical acts like eco-sabotage, one simple idea can be brought forward. Even if
democratic pathways for activists receive more space, the violence towards the environment
from polluting, profit-seeking structures is crystal clear in the eyes of climate activists. This
awareness will only grow as the violence of the climate crisis escalates, fuelling the
consideration and justification of radical tactics. Perhaps, a truly radical suggestion is for
governments, companies, and society as a whole to quit skating on thin ice and instead,
urgently address the climate crisis. This would melt the rationale behind eco-sabotage into
thin air.
References
Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst. (2021). AIVD-jaarverslag 2021. Retrieved
January 10, 2023, from
https://www.aivd.nl/documenten/jaarverslagen/2022/04/28/aivd-jaarverslag-2021
Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst. (2022). AIVD-jaarverslag 2022. Retrieved
January 10, 2023, from
https://www.aivd.nl/documenten/jaarverslagen/2022/04/28/aivd-jaarverslag-2021
Amnesty International. (2022). Demonstratierecht onder druk. Retrieved April 6, 2023, from
https://www.amnesty.nl/actueel/inperkingen-demonstratierecht-nederland-in-strijd-
met-de-mensenrechten
Anisin, A . (2020). Debunking the myths behind nonviolent resistance. Critical Sociology.
46(7-8), 1121-1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/089692052091398
Andersen, R. (2022, December 14). Duitsland lijkt korte metten te willen maken met de
klimaatactivisten van Letzte Generation. De Volkskrant.
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/duitsland-lijkt-korte-metten-te-willen-
maken-met-de-klimaatactivisten-van-letzte-generation~b9e4fcde/
Astor, M. (2019, February 26). How the politically unthinkable can become mainstream. The
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/us/politics/overton-window-
democrats.html
Baumgarten, B. (2014). Culture and activism across borders. In: Baumgarten, B., Daphi, P.,
Ullrich, P. (Eds.). Conceptualizing culture in social movement research (pp. 91-112).
Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan.

Blee, K. M., & Taylor, V. (2002). Semi-structured interviewing in social movement research.
In: Klandermans, B. & Staggenborg, S. (Eds.), Methods of social movement research
(pp. 92–117). University of Minnesota Press.
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Bruggeman, L. (2022, September 27). Climate activist who targeted Dakota Access Pipeline
sentenced to 6 years after terrorism enhancement. ABC News. Retrieved May 20,
2023, from
https://abcnews.go.com/US/climate-activist-targeted-dakota-access-pipeline-
sentenced-years/story?id=90546657
Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of
nonviolent conflict. Amsterdam University Press.
Cox, L. (2019, October 28). Understanding Non-Violent Direct Action (NVDA). Extinction
Rebellion York. Retrieved January 10, 2023, from
https://www.xryork.org.uk/blog/understanding-nonviolent-direct- action/
Delina, L. L. (2022). Moving people from the balcony to the trenches: Time to adopt
“climatage” in climate activism?. Energy Research & Social Science, 90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102586
Doosje, B., Moghaddam, F. M., Kruglanski, A. W., de Wolf, A., Mann, L., & Feddes, A. R.
(2016). Terrorism, radicalization and de-radicalization. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 11, 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.008
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). (2022). Democracy Index 2022.
https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2022/
Gayle, D. (2022, November 29). Tyre Extinguishers deflate tyres of 900 SUVs in ‘biggest
ever action’. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/29/tyre-extinguishers-deflate-
tyres-of-900-suvs-in-biggest-ever-action
Gelderloos, P. (2013). The failure of nonviolence. Left Bank Books.
Gordijn, J. & Timmer, E. (2023, February 19). Pakhuis de Zwijger annuleert debatavond over
klimaatactivisme na ophef over ‘heroverwegen van geweld’. Het Parool.
https://www.parool.nl/nederland/pakhuis-de-zwijger-annuleert-debatavond-over-
klimaatactivisme-na-ophef-over-heroverwegen-van-geweld~bfba1a62/
Honderden arrestaties bij klimaatdemonstratie op A12 Den Haag. (2023, January 28). Het
Parool. https://www.parool.nl/nederland/honderden-arrestaties-bij-
klimaatdemonstratie-op-a12-den-haag~b1080128/
IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of
working group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Johannes, D. (2021, March 20). Klimaatracisme? Geef ruimte aan verhalen en inzichten uit
andere culturen. Milieudefensie. Retrieved May 15, 2023, from
https://milieudefensie.nl/actueel/klimaatracisme-ruimte-voor-verhalen-en-inzichten-
uit-andere-culturen
Linkekilde, L. & Malthaner, S. (2017). Analyzing pathways of lone-actor radicalization: a
relational approach. In M. Stohl, R. Burchill & S. Englund (Ed.), Constructions of
terrorism: an interdisciplinary approach to research and policy (pp. 163-180).
University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520967397-014
Macionis, J. & Plummer, K. (1997). Sociology: A global introduction. Pearson Education
Limited.
Malm, A. (2021). How to blow up a pipeline. Verso Books.
Martiskainen, M., Axon, S., Sovacool, B. K., Sareen, S., Del Rio, D. F., & Axon, K. (2020).
Contextualizing climate justice activism: Knowledge, emotions, motivations, and
actions among climate strikers in six cities. Global Environmental Change, 65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102180
McCauley, C. & Moskalenko, S. (2017) Understanding political radicalization: the two-
pyramids model. American Psychologist, 72(3), 205–21.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000062
Nanninga, A. [@ANanninga]. (2023, February 19). Een @groenlinks kamerlid gaat gezellig
babbelen of klimaatactivisten geweld kunnen gebruiken? In een zaal gesubsidieerd
door de gemeente Amsterdam nota [Tweet]. Twitter. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from
https://twitter.com/ANanninga/status/1627307085368098823?lang=en
Onken, M., Shemia-Goeke, D., & Martin, B. (2021). Learning from criticism of civil
resistance. Critical Sociology, 47(7-8), 1191-1203.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205211025819
Rara is nog steeds geheimzinnig clubje. (2011, December 16). Het Parool.
https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/rara-is-nog-steeds-geheimzinnig-
clubje~b77309bd/#:~:text=Het%20is%20zondag%2025%20jaar,het%20boek%2080's
%20Dilemma%20verscheen
Sharp, G. (2005). Waging nonviolent struggle: 20th century practice and 21st century
potential. Porter Sargent.
Simpson, B., Willer, R., & Feinberg, M. (2022). Radical flanks of social movements can
increase support for moderate factions. PNAS Nexus, 1(3).
https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac110
Sovacool, B. K., & Dunlap, A. (2022). Anarchy, war, or revolt? Radical perspectives for
climate protection, insurgency and civil disobedience in a low-carbon era. Energy
Research & Social Science, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102416
Stephenson, W. (2021, January 5). No safe options: a conversation with Andreas Malm. Los
Angeles Review of Books. Retrieved January 5, 2023, from
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/no-safe-options-a-conversation-with-andreas-
malm/
Van der Heiden, S. (2005). Eco-terrorism or justified resistance? Radical environmentalism
and the “War on Terror”. Politics & Society, 33(3), 425–447.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329205278462
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers. The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Will embracing climate sabotage help save the planet? (2022, August 25). [Video file].
Retrieved December 10, 2023, from https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-
stream/2022/8/25/will-embracing-climate-sabotage-help-save-the-planet
Appendix A
Interview Guide
RQ: How do climate activists in the Netherlands view (non)violent activism and ecological
sabotage in times of climate crisis?
This interview guide can be used flexibly within the interviews.
Topic List
Introduction from researcher, explain own background, explaining purpose, anonymity, time
and structure of interview, permission to record
Short Introduction
- Shortly introduce yourself?
(Age, occupation, where are you from, favourite colour, etc.)
Involvement in Activism
- How would you describe your involvement in activism from when you started up until
now?
- What was the most uplifting moment/realization?
- What was the most frustrating moment/realization?
- Which group(s) / Years / Motivation to join / Role
Activism Practices
- How would you describe the activism methods you’re a part of? What do you do?
What do you not do?
- What is the reasoning behind practicing activism in this way?
- How does it impact society?

- What does it mean for you personally to do activism in this way?
- Did you always think about activism in this way or did this develop over time? If yes,
how did it develop? (give space for eventual mentioning of sources/influences)
- Ask further about nonviolence – what does it mean for you that the groups you’re part
of state they are nonviolent?
Activism within Society
- When you practice activism, are you interested with how it is perceived by the media
// passersby // public perception ?
- How do you experience the urgency for drastic change within climate activism?
- How do you balance that with other realities in society? (such as personal life, legal
implications etc).
Eco-sabotage
- Heard of it? What do you think of it?
- How do you think this strategy would play out in Dutch society? Compared to strict
nonviolent methods? Why?
- Reaction of police/ legal system on eco-sabotage
- Any sources that informed your opinion, or is it constructed personally / through
conversations
Justifying Activism
- How do you define violence? And how do you define violence in times of climate
crisis?
- Would you view ecological sabotage as a violent act?
- How do you view companies/governments etc that are ignoring climate goals?
- Do you think eco-sabotage is a good/justified technique against those
companies/governments?
- What for you are the boundaries, if any, of what activities you can do as an activist?
Any circumstances in which violence is justified/strategical?
The future
- Which way forward should activism go in your opinion?
- Are you still hopeful for the future? Why?
Extra
- Is there anything you would like to add?
- Give summary from what interviewee said and how researcher interprets it.
Interviewee can confirm/add to this.
Background Info
- If something is still missing: age, occupation, activist role etc.

Appendix B
Codes and Themes Framework
For privacy reasons, individual quotes within the coding frameworks are not displayed
and transcripts are not provided. If needed, a request can be send to the researcher.
Grand Theme Subtheme Codes

theme
Motivation Internal Outlet for Feelings Activism as coping mechanism
Motivation Anger and frustration motivate for action
Desperation motivates for action
Became worried about climate crisis
Awareness Climate Crisis Became very aware of climate crisis
Moral Calling Goals over personal comfort
Moral duty to stop climate wrongdoings
Contribute what I can
Stand up for what you believe in
Care for Life/Nature Cared for nature since childhood
Preserve/improve life out of love
Goal Oriented Activism to inspire or inform others
Activism to set things in motion
Activism to target root of the problem
Quakers: use own body to stop evil
Extra Togetherness Shared goals/concerns with other activists
Motivator Activism became social life
Group care
Being with like-minded people
Started activism through a friend
Christianity Christian belief helps with continuing to do
activism
Disruption Civil Disobedience Being disobedient
Civil disobedience right way to protest now
Historical reasoning for civil disobedience
Attention Disruption to demand attention (and show
change is needed)
- Subcode: Wants attention from politics

- Subcode: Standing somewhere with a
sign doesn’t work
Targeting Companies Likes directly targeting companies
Disruption to cause economic damage
Activism to simply show you do not like a
company
Disrupting normal people is not nice
Public Use the Media It matters what other people think
Opinion Media helps to spread message
Be smart with how you play into the media
Big groups aid your message
Doesn’t care what people think, cares about
eventual societal effect
Feeling Misunderstood Importance media depends on goal
Okay with mixed response from media and
people
It is frustrating when people or media do not
understand your message
Sad about disinformation
Sensationalism in media
Strategic Broad View on Activism Views activism as an accumulation of acts
View (Direct action > attention > political pressure)
Strategy More clear and repeated goals
Diversity of tactics needed
Togetherness Values support/solidarity
Values community
Considerations Blocking people is okay
Disrupting normal people is not so nice
You have to be very careful during actions to
not cause harm or negative impact
Urgency Concerns Things are not moving fast enough yet
Sad if it feels an action didn’t make any impact
Nonviolent Strategic Growth & Acceptance Nonviolence to grow support
Activsm Nonviolent
Activism
Nonviolence to grow movement

Nonviolence to let people hear your thoughts
Legal Nonviolence for legal reasons
Show Injustice Nonviolence to point out violent system
Safety Nonviolence feels safe
Ethical Vision Nonviolence to work towards a nonviolent
Nonviolent future
Activism
Personal Values Personally dislikes violence
Values all life
The Democracy Inadequacy Political Political system not dealing well with climate
System System crisis
Democracy is not perfect (in NL)
Big companies too much power in politics
Democratic System Values democracy
Protest as democratic right
Capitalism Powerlessness System feels hard to change
Huge power of fossil fuel companies
System-critical Critical of capitalism (or system)
Disapproval of polluting companies
Polluting structures are violent
Aware of privilege
Radical Action Concerns Scared of where radical activism will go
Too much radicalizing loses support
Radical acts draw security services to
movement with negative consequences
Suggests not violence but creativity
Violence distracts from your message
Becoming Accepted More radical activism to show the situation is
bad
Understands urge for more radical activism
Norm of what is accepted in activism is
changing
Wondering about more Blocking things now feels like a repeating
story, is this it? Or can we do more?
Imagined to have gone much further
Meaning Nonviolence = no Harm Nonviolence = no physical, verbal or mental

(Non)Violence harm to anything that lives (violence =
opposite)
Activism shouldn’t impactfully harm humans
Violence could be anything that is destructive
Violence could also be intimidation
Violence could also be theft or damage to
possessions (depending on owner)
Recognize Abstract Violence could be abstract or structural
Violence Polluting structures are violent
Violence to Objects Violence against object is not the same as
violence to living beings
Severity of violence against object depends on
those impacted by the damaged object
Non-violent civil disobedience can contain
minor damages to objects
Using Violence when no In some political/societal circumstances
Alternative violence in activism is understandable
Encountering Negative Experiences Negative experience with violence in protest
the State or Negative experience police violence
the Police Negative experience with secret services
When Police/State uses Repressive reaction police/state
Violence Strange feeling when encountering large
groups of police
Police initiating violence
Different outlook when police uses violence on
small or big group
Eco- Opinion eco- Is it Violent? It can be
sabotage sabotage Yes
No
Opinion Undecided opinion of eco-sabotage
Likes concept of eco-sabotage
Likes concept of eco- sabotage to a certain
extent
Dislikes concept of eco-sabotage
Informed Informed about eco-sabotage (through

resources)
Informed about eco-sabotage (through
resources): vaguely
Not informed about eco-sabotage
Talks about eco-sabotage with others
Repeats doesn’t know much about eco-
sabotage
Suggestions Suggests separate group for eco-sabotage
Suggests instead of sabotage to prevent
building new structures
Cons Eco- Concerns Public Opinion Eco-sabotage distracts from message
sabotage Eco-sabotage perceived as violent
Most (Dutch) people not okay with eco-
sabotage (they don’t understand/feel urgency)
Eco-sabotage backlash climate movement
Eco-sabotage criminalizing movement
Eco-sabotage doesn’t feel proportional
Personal and/or Legal risk
Movement Implications Physical risk
Prison time as negative sacrifice
Eco-sabotage: too afraid to do it
Not every activist would support eco-sabotage
Questionable Usefulness Will eco-sabotage harm companies enough?
Eco-sabotage does not solve reliance on fossil
fuel
External Damages Eco-sabotage harming employees
Undemocratic Civil democratic means first
Scared that extreme right would do the same
Pro’s Eco- Public Opinion Power of symbolism when destroying
sabotage something
Part of Dutch people okay with eco-sabotage
Bravery Spread courageousness
Prison time as positive
Increase Pressure Eco-sabotage another layer of tactic
Eco-sabotage as a threat to get what you want
Things are not moving fast enough yet

Confront Harmful Eco-sabotage to financially harm companies
Companies Eco-sabotage to show companies they cannot
act without consequences
Directly hit your target
Urgency If large scale, force energy transition
One less structure harming the planet
Effects sabotage much less worse than effect
future climate crisis
Supporting Theories Historical reasons for eco-sabotage
Theorizes with radical flank theory
Theorizes with Overton Window
Operationalization Eco-sabotage can be done smart and easy
Considerations Be Mindful Be mindful how you tell your story
Eco-sabotage
Be mindful of harm to human, animal, nature
Justifying Eco- Justified Eco-sabotage justified against harmful
sabotage companies
Eco-sabotage justified context dependent: only
when proportional
Not Justified Violence not justified against violent instances
Eco-sabotage not against private persons
Irrelevant Justifying eco-sabotage is irrelevant, it’s about
public opinion
View on Urgency & Urgency Feels experience of urgency
Future Hope Experience of urgency on abstract level
Experience of sadness about climate situation
Hopeful for Future to a Hopeful for future
certain extent Hopeful for future, but now without harm
Not allowing self to get frozen by fear (must
stay hopeful)
Hopeful and also not hopeful
Not Hopeful for Future Not hopeful for future
Not hopeful for future, it is about limiting
damage
Suggested Growth Movement Hopes climate movement will grow bigger

Solution
Hopes that climate crisis is seen as more
important
Systemic Change Global government action
Local small scale projects
Representation of nature in parliament
Focus on structural change
Degrowth

Skating On Thin Ice - Activism in Times of Climate Crisis - Anne Ruijter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Skating On Thin Ice - Activism in Times of Climate Crisis - Anne Ruijter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SKATING ON THIN ICE 1

Skating on Thin Ice: Activism in Times of Climate Crisis

Anne Ruijter (497862)

Custom Major: Societal Change

Capstone Supervisor: Roy Kemmers

Erasmus University College

Climate Activism, Nonviolent Direct Action, Ecological Sabotage, Social Movements,

Netherlands about (non)violence and eco-sabotage. Findings indicate that interviewees

Based on interviewees’ differences in values in activism, investment in activism, future

radicalizing climate activists towards underlying mechanisms, such as impeded democratic

sabotage are valuable for further research.

Introduction - Skating on Thin Ice: Activism in Times of Climate Crisis .................................. 4

Theoretical Framework – Amongst Debates ............................................................................ 6

Methodology – Confidential Conversations ......................................................................... 14

Analysis & Results – Correlative & Contrasting Views ........................................................ 16

Discussion – The Importance of Differing Perspectives ....................................................... 31

Conclusion – Precautions on Thin Ice ................................................................................. 35

Skating on Thin Ice: Activism in Times of Climate Crisis

principles of nonviolent resistance, refraining from the threat or use of violence.

sabotaging pipelines. For Malm, a direct reasoning behind eco-sabotage is to prevent,

greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

parameters of nonviolence, but it also presents an inherently strategical discussion. Currently,

complex and difficult to give conclusive clarity to on paper.

merely assumed to act as pawns in protest strategies. While, following fundamental

experiences and opinions of climate activists inform their view on eco-sabotage.

and success of protests.

way of operating is likely to be influenced by a national context (Baumgarten, 2014). This

eco-sabotage and climate activism of relevance for this study is presented.

elaboration. Eco-sabotage is alternatively referred to as ecological sabotage, intelligent

broader concept of climate militancy or ecodefense. Though, authorities occasionally refer to

done softly, even gingerly” (p. 79).

Malm encourages the climate movement to deploy eco-sabotage on a large scale in

sabotage is justified and necessary:

The strategy of nonviolent resistance needs further illustration as well. Nonviolent

disobedience, satyagraha, or pacifica militancia (Cox, 2019). As stated by Sharp (2005),

“Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used to wage conflict through social,

Persuading the Public

The arguments behind nonviolent resistance and eco-sabotage are in disagreement on

contrary to violent protestors, nonviolent protestors appear nonthreatening, avoidant of using

responses from both civilians and regime members.

Classifying and Calculating Success

Next to disagreeing on the workings of public support, Malm criticizes Chenoweth

(Stephenson, 2021, para. 30).

As mentioned, the dispute above is situated in a larger debate on how to understand,

a combination of both elements being most successful.

Reviewing both analyses, Onken et al. (2021) acknowledge the difficulty in

statistically categorizing protest movements: “Statistical comparisons reduce complex social

training and use of technology amongst armed state forces.

explanation for the inconsistencies in findings is as follows: “Observational data on radical

variation in public support or success of intra-movement factions.” (p. 2).

The complexity of statistically analysing protests is heightened by the various

exclusively supporting nonviolence. Gelderloos illustrates that within smaller

simultaneously legitimizing the state’s monopoly on violence. Gelderloos identifies the

threats as self-defense, and should be regarded as nonviolent.

of individual activists, rooted in experience and engagement in climate activism, are

the concepts of (non)violent protest and eco-sabotage, adds an empirical, sociological

A well-known case of activists engaging in eco-sabotage occurred in the US, two

that, currently, Malm’s call to use eco-sabotage en masse remains an exhortation.

talk about the application of violence’ (Nanninga, 2023, own translation).

face difficulty practicing their democratic right to protest, as reported by Amnesty

police pre-emptively arrested activists (“Honderden Arrestaties bij”, 2023).

In order to gain in depth insights into the perspective of climate activists on

(non)violent protest and eco-sabotage, semi-structured, qualitative interviews with people