The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
Terrorism is useless without a party attached to it (but separate enough for plausible deniability) that can come out and explain to the public why these acts are being done. Terrorism for its own sake will only lead to further repression.
There's a difference between terrorism to make a political point and sabotage to disable critical infrastructure, which I think is what most people really mean when they say "eco terrorism". Make it too difficult and expensive to operate as-is.
Yeah that's fair, but I do think it's possible that even sabotage could end up running counter to what we're trying to do without a vanguard party to explain the actions. Say you destroy a pipeline, yes that shuts the pipeline down for x amount of time, but when gas prices go up and there's no public explanation as to the motives, I feel that would simply be a temporary inconvenience for the capitalist class while setting back the cause for the masses.
Considering you would really need a mass movement to cripple infrastructure long-term, I think it's more helpful to continue building in ways that may still be dubiously legal but have more chance to really build a mass movement i.e. the many indigenous groups fighting to protect their land from pipelines.
Terrorism is useless without a party attached to it (but separate enough for plausible deniability) that can come out and explain to the public why these acts are being done. Terrorism for its own sake will only lead to further repression.
There's a difference between terrorism to make a political point and sabotage to disable critical infrastructure, which I think is what most people really mean when they say "eco terrorism". Make it too difficult and expensive to operate as-is.
Yeah that's fair, but I do think it's possible that even sabotage could end up running counter to what we're trying to do without a vanguard party to explain the actions. Say you destroy a pipeline, yes that shuts the pipeline down for x amount of time, but when gas prices go up and there's no public explanation as to the motives, I feel that would simply be a temporary inconvenience for the capitalist class while setting back the cause for the masses.
Considering you would really need a mass movement to cripple infrastructure long-term, I think it's more helpful to continue building in ways that may still be dubiously legal but have more chance to really build a mass movement i.e. the many indigenous groups fighting to protect their land from pipelines.