Home | About | Donate

Climate Coalition Vows 'Peaceful, Escalated' Actions Until 'We Break Free from Fossil Fuels'


Climate Coalition Vows 'Peaceful, Escalated' Actions Until 'We Break Free from Fossil Fuels'

Nika Knight, staff writer

A global coalition of climate activists are joining together in a new civil disobedience campaign, Break Free from Fossil Fuels, seeking to to disrupt the power of the fossil fuel industry through "a series of peaceful, escalated actions...targeting the world’s most dangerous and unnecessary fossil fuel projects" in May, the environmental group 350.org announced on Wednesday.


Absolutely necessary!

Organized, global resistance; escalating, nonviolent tactics; in a larger strategic campaign to shut down fossil fuels, and transition society to a lower-impact, higher-justice, ecological and humanistic economics.

Blessings to organizers and participants. And i’m looking up local organizers for the Break Free week of action in May 2016. Get on board!


Sour stuff this time Matt. Would you rather that people did nothing? These are folks of good will attempting to do something and the fact is that every little bit helps.

Btw so you will be not driving anymore and not wearing or using anything fossil fueled based right? To do so would seem a tad hypocritical since you criticize others for doing so. Just saying.

I think that letting the public at large see that other people are willing to make the issue visible by any peaceful means is a definite plus instead of people sitting at home complaining that what they do probably won’t work.

Small protests probably did more to convince people than anybody ever realized back in the sixties. They were locals and “if they were having a protest in our small town then it shows that the issue must be serious.”

As more and more people start seeing protests everywhere… The momentum becomes unstoppable. Silence and quiet is the enemy. Activism of any kind is what changes other people’s minds.


Great Waves of Change, p. 3:…"…Or will they recognize the great danger, & will they unite to begin to prepare for its impact & to build a new & different kind of future for humanity?. For you cannot maintain the way you live now…for they must be prepared to change the way they live, to live far more simply, to live far more equitably, for the sharing of the remaining resources will require this…And the power of the Great Waves of change have the power to lead human civilization to failure. That is how great they are. That is how long reaching their impact will be."…from the New Revelations; newmessage.org.


I don’t get your point quite simply. Are you seriously suggesting that people not protest about these projects (targeting the most dangerous and unnecessary)? I included all protests because I think they made a difference back in the day because it communicates people to people (even though carried through the media news broadcasts). Protests make opinions visible! Whether it was civil rights marches or anti war protests, it communicated to people that other people were serious.

As to your point? Well what point did you make with your first post actually? Your second post actually makes a different point and one less mocking and derisive too. But I ask again whether or not people should protest fossil fuels? The XL pipeline and tar sands come to mind. Mountain top removal is another. Shouldn’t people protest these? Those spills in Peruvian jungles and in Nigeria? I just don’t get you mocking people speaking out about something so important and protest and peaceful civil disobedience is most definitely speaking out.

So what if the fossil fuel interests ‘shout’ that we need to keep using fossil fuels? Yes we need a replacement but do you think they will give us one out of the generosity of their hearts without being forced to? I don’t. I think public pressure motivates politicians and affects investors (divestment does anyway).

The phenomenal surge in solar and wind power investment and installation is only because the issue of climate change has been brought to public attention. Change happens when people make it happen.


Many people don’t want to give up their despair. They’re quite attached to it and having to consider the real possibility of change for the better deeply threatens their worldview in the same way that the possibility of egalitarian cooperation, government action and decentralized and low-tech energy threatens the worldview of climate-denying delayalists. We need to get beyond such limiting identities and become more conscious so we can be better instruments of peaceful change.

Beyond the immediate and dire crisis, we see the coalescing of hatred and violence on the right, and know in times of chaos and danger, that unhealthy, unequal and divided societies strongly tilt toward simplistic, black and white answers and authoritarian structures and leaders. A citizenry that sees peaceful action as the first and last choice to solve problems, including the problem of conflict, can resist that authoritarian impulse and do a much better job healing those who can’t resist it. It’s much more likely to set up institutions–educational, economic, ecologic, and others–that will spread those values. We know that hard times are coming as climate catastrophe spreads natural, political, social and cultural chaos; we need to have people and cultures in place that can respond before it all goes too far.


I’d vote for ya!
If only we could. I think Bernie would let the decency in people come out of hiding. People are afraid of being taken advantaged of when they act like the way they were raised. Older people especially. It is like that America is disappearing under oligarchy. I think Bernie would let people feel that being more decent would be okay again. They’d trust more and try to make things better feeling that they aren’t the only ones and that everybody is trying again. That is what a leader should do. Trump would obviously incite hate and anger. Hillary wouldn’t inspire trust nor would she do the things that might inspire it at least concerning oligarchy and the dominance of power over the populace. Imagine a woman who gets paid $600,000 for speeches to the rich and powerful suggesting that poor people should be paid only $12 per hour instead of $15!

That is truly a bad sign and we would best avoid the risk associated with either of those two choices and save our collective asses by electing Bernie.


thanks for the support. I don’t know what you’d vote for me for, but if Bernie doesn’t run in the general I know I’d have at least 5 write in votes now… so we’re on our way.

I see another CD article just out:

Drumpf thugs are almost certainly going to be showing up at Sanders’ events from now on. It’s our first opportunity to exercise our peaceful resistance. I read a story once (Whole Earth catalog?) about someone throwing a bottle at a Frank Zappa concert. Zappa stopped playing, called for house lights and said he would start again when the person was gone. A lot of people knew generally where it came from, the closer they were the more precisely they knew, and the people right around the guy knew who it was. Within a few seconds every person in the place was looking at one guy, who meekly let himself be led away by security. (It could have been a group of peaceful escorts from around him).

And let’s see, at $12/hour, that’s only a 50,000 hour speech… Not impossible… right? What’s the record for a Senate filibuster?


Aside from the media’s obvious rigging of the vote in regards to you since I’ve yet to hear any mention of your candidacy… You’d think they’d stop doing that seeing how Bernie keeps rising in popularity despite their doing it to him. I suppose in all fairness and to be honest while I would vote for you… the truth is that I’d only vote for you…a little.

Trump is once again shooting himself in the foot and then putting it in his mouth. If he does as he says he is nuts. His handlers won’t allow it to be sure. It would be incredibly dumb and lose him the relatively sane conservatives who are getting leery of voting for him but still can’t bring themselves to let Hillary win.

Speaking of she whose name is always mentioned. I truly think it incredible that someone with her money would be against a poor person earning a measly $3 bucks an hour more with prices and rents the way they are. Seriously terrible and a sign of how remote she is from the regular public and ordinary people.


On the other hand, Herr Drumpf has already done it. It seems certain to me that having seen videos of what he said, Drumpf supporters will now be showing up at Sanders events. I have no idea what his campaign staff is like but it seems to me Drumpf is such a self-aggrandizing narcissist (only half the diagnosis at most) he would be unhandleable. Certainly his wild financial swings suggest that. Of all the fascists and dictators I’ve heard him compared to and not, he reminds me most of Idi Amin. Is it possible the other part of his problem is tertiary syphilis?


What are the chances any political operative types would suggest the things he’s said?

As if we needed more proof that Clinton’s out of touch with minimum wage workers… when do you think the last time she earned $10 an hour was? Of course she’s against raising it–whatever she says to win. She’s a conservative and thinks in conservative frames–rich and poor both have what they deserve, the rich should be rewarded for being rich, the bidness of Murica is bidness… etc. And above all, corporations have to be free to do anything. As I’ve said, the only difference between the right wing and the far right wing of the duopoly party are how fast each wants to gallop toward fascism and which segment of the population they expect to fool into voting for corporate power with their set of lies.