“[Climate activists] should continue to spray paint stuff, block traffic, disrupt speeches, shows and performances, throw food and much, much more.” – Dana R. Fisher and Hajar Yazdiha (below)
Climate disobedience has quieted. The Progressive Left is in shock at the Trump Administration’s dismantlement of Deep-state Climatism. And there is little news from the UK, a hotbed of alarmism with their economy being sacrificed in return for no effect on global climate.
This was not the call from the beginning of this year. Consider “Why climate activists are becoming more radicalized (and why that’s not a bad thing)” by Dana R. Fisher and Hajar Yazdiha, which began:
…In 2024, they spray painted Stonehenge, held “die-ins,” teach-ins and other actions in front of Citibank HQ, blocked the entrance to the Department of Energy and spray-painted planes on a private airfield.
“The Center for Climate Psychology is the Deep Ecologist’s final refuge. It is other worldly, worshiping Nature as if mankind was the plague. But under a human betterment standard, Nature can be just fine–and preserved from wind, solar, and battery industrialization.”
The Centre for Climate Psychology (“nurturing collective wisdom in times of collective upheaval”) is layering alarm on alarm with its peculiar, futile, wasteful mission. Instead of questioning its assumption of climate crisis due to modern industrial living, the group marches on the Road to Psychological Serfdom.
CCP describes their urgency:
…What we feed our minds and hearts can nourish or diminish our personal health and well being. As we move to meet an ever threatened world by climate catastrophe and changing political landscapes, how do we meet the coming challenges with resilience?
“I still don’t love talking about climate adaptation. I wish we didn’t have to…. I’m not admitting defeat. But I am realistic that we need to adapt too.” ( – Tim McPhie, below)
In the post-Net Zero CO2 world (yes, here we are), the new argument is every-little-bit counts “to avoid the worst effects of climate change.” Forget precision or cost/benefit analysis; it is a qualitative ‘deep ecology‘ argument. They know that the real math is daunting with negative CO2 emissions being required starting decades ago.
Brave talk about energy transformation will continue, but reality is creeping in. Consider this from Tim McPhie, a five-year climate communication expert at the European Commission. “I’ll admit it,”, he posted on social media, “I was never really comfortable talking about climate adaptation.”…