Within Reason - #44 Just Stop Oil - How Far Will They Go?

Episode Date: October 19, 2023

Just Stop Oil are one of the most well-known and thoroughly hated political groups in the UK. You may recognise them as the brand behind stunts such as throwing soup over Van Gogh's Sunflowers, covering the felt of a snooker table at a world championship with orange powder, blocking traffic on busy roads, and, most recently, climbing on stage during a production of Les Misérables in London's West End. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Within Reason. My name is Alex O'Connor. Just Stop Oil are one of the most controversial political organizations in the United Kingdom. They're an environmental activist group with a focus on pressuring the British government to completely end new fossil fuel licensing and production. The controversy surrounds their methods. The group is well known for taking part in direct action and disruptive protests which have brought them considerable media attention and inspired volumes of backlash and anger from members of the public and media personalities. Their methods have previously included things like in 2022 throwing a tin of soup over Van Gogh's sunflowers in the National Gallery in London, which was, importantly, behind a layer of glass. They disrupted the

2003 World Snooker Championship with an astonishing video showing a protester climbing onto a snooker table mid-game and covering the felt in orange powder. Protesters also invaded the tracks. at the Grand Prix in 2022, sitting down on the asphalt before being pulled off by security. Most famously, the group regularly physically blocks traffic on busy roads in London, causing that traffic to come to a standstill. A video of one such protest features a woman who gets out of her vehicle, claiming she has a baby in the car and needs to get to the hospital. The protesters do not move out of the way for her. Stunts like these will be discussed in what you're about to hear. I reached out to Just Stop Oil to see if there might be

somebody willing to speak with me about the ethics and the efficacy of such protest methods as these. I was introduced to James Skeet, a member of the organisation's media team, who has appeared on television numerous times to defend the mission and behaviours of the group. I wanted an opportunity to see how far this organisation is willing to go, whether they recognise the ethical scandal of potentially blocking a mother from taking her child to the hospital, and whether they have any functional policies in place to prevent physical harm from befalling people in situations such as these during what are supposed to be non-violent demonstrations. This organisation is one of the most well-known and thoroughly hated groups in the entire

country. I hope that you enjoy my attempt to put some of the reasons for this to them directly and to understand their mindset just a little bit better. James Skeet, thanks for being here. Thanks very much for having me, Alex. I'm a big admirer of your work, so I've been looking forward to chatting to you. Well, it's unusual for me to speak to somebody on this podcast who I don't really know anything about. Usually when I have people on there here to talk about their own views, they're there to represent their position, perhaps a book that they've been writing. I rarely consider bringing somebody on to represent an institution or an organization or a movement.

It's not really the kind of thing that I do. But Justop Oil has become such a cultural and political phenomenon that I thought it would be interesting to sit down and talk about some of the more controversial issues that surround your campaigning. So I reached out to your press at Justop Oil and said, if there's anybody that you can send as a representative to talk about Justop Oil and some of those stories, then do so. and they sent you. So I know that you like to begin media interviews generally by talking briefly about what Justop Oil is and what its aims are. So I'll give you the space to do that now and say thank you for coming on the podcast. Thanks for having me, Alex. Yeah, Justop Oil is a campaign utilizing disruptive direct action as a means of drawing attention to the fact that the government's licensing over 100 new fossil fuel projects. Those have been greenlit in the last week.

as many of your viewers might have seen. And yeah, basically, the focus of our campaign is to force that issue up the news agenda and to the forefront of the public consciousness. So that's what we've been doing the last year and a half, two years or so. And before we talk about what it is that makes just up oil so often reach headlines, at least in the UK, maybe you can tell us a little bit about yourself and your own involvement in the organisation. I know that at least at one point you've been to prison as a result of activities with Justop Oil. So maybe you can tell us about that and what it is that you do and have

done for the organisation. Sure thing. So I've been involved in animal rights and environmental movements probably since about 2017, 2018. I used to work for animal rebellion. So I've involved in some of the large scale distribution center disruptions you might have seen in around 2021. I was asked to join JustUp Oil in early part of 2022 when we were looking at basically taking action at 11 key oil distribution terminals across the UK. And basically my work the last year has been involved in actions. And in this last year, I've been predominantly focused on media. And so now that's what I do for the campaign. I sort of write quite a large percentage of probably the stuff people actually end up reading in the newspapers because a lot of the

time journalists just copy and paste what we write. Sure. And what is it that took you to Belmarsh Prison? Well, that was an interesting. That was an interesting. excursion for sure. So in April of last year, I took part in an occupation of an oil terminal and Grease in Essex for about 40 hours. That involved scaling into the loading bays of the oil terminal. We occupied it for about 40 hours. It was not a nice 40 hours. I can tell you that. It was the worst night's sleep I've ever had, balanced on three pipes at about three stories high. But on the back of that, I ended up basically getting remanded and I was, I spent a, I spent some time at Balmash prisoners on the back of that, which was certainly an interesting experience. I can only imagine. I wanted to talk to you about the ethics of some of the protests like the ones that you've just spoken about. I know that for any political movement, any, uh, any, uh, any sort of rights-based movement, any social justice movement throughout history,

direct action is always an important aspect of advocacy. There's always disruption. There's sometimes violence, and there's certainly a lot of hostility from people who don't want to change the way that they live their lives. Now, as far as I can see, every time Justopold hit the news, there are sort of different levels to the outrage and the scandal. sometimes people just see you as a nuisance. Sometimes, you know, you blocked their car

while they were trying to get home from work and it annoyed them. Sometimes it's dangerous. Your organization stepped on to the track at the Grand Prix while Formula One racing cars were still active on the track and sat down, causing potential risk to the safety and the lives

of not just the protesters, but also, of course, the drivers. This seems a little bit more than just a nuisance. This seems like quite dangerous activity. And then there are things like a widely circulated video of a mother trying to get her baby to the hospital and couldn't get through because members of your organization were stood on the road blocking the cars. Now, these are vastly different in terms of the response that I think is appropriate for philosophical discussion. For what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned, like I say, direct. action as a part of any kind of protest movement. But what I wanted to talk to you today about

are some of those more controversial moments, whether you think that your organization should regret them, whether you think that they are legitimate, whether you think they're justified, and how far that justification goes in your view. So perhaps we can we can talk first about how it is that justop oil choose what it is that they're going to do to disrupt the everyday affairs of people around them. Yeah, for sure. So civil resistance, unlike, say, armed conflict, is about communicating to society that there's a moral issue that needs to change, right? And unless you've got millions of eyeballs, you're not in the ballpark of achieving significant social change, right? So there's a couple of

different options available to any kind of civil resistance group. You could look at engaging in material disruption, such as what we were talking about earlier in basically going to the oil terminals or taking it directly to government departments and things like that that are directly responsible for licensing new fossil fuels. Or you could look at things that are more public or cultural disruptions, right? Now, what we've seen pretty consistently is that unfortunately, it's probably partially due to the sort of media ecosystem that we live in. We live in a sort of outrage economy effectively. But essentially, the media will only cover you if they can vilify you, right? 80% of UK media is owned by five billionaires. And basically,

as a result of that, you know, an agenda that's sort of beneficial to them is one that sort of tends to percolate throughout the news discourse. Now, in normal times, I think we can all agree that the public has a right to not be disrupted. However, what I would argue, you is that we are not in normal times, right? And where there is a significant moral issue to deal with, such as the one that's unfolding before us. And I think if anyone's been paying attention to the news in last week, I think we can all see what's actually happening. Then I do think that disruption is justified. Now, disruption, sure. But I think that the most jarring to me of the examples that I just spoke about.

And I have a lot of American listeners. I'm not sure how interested they'll be in this conversation. I also don't know if Justop Oil has much of a presence or engagement with the American public. I'm not entirely sure. But people might not be aware and might not have seen what it is that you do. And it seems to me that one of the most popular forms of protest that Justop Oil partaken is slow marches on busy roads. So going to London at rush hour, standing on the middle of an incredibly busy road that people are using to get to work, to get to school, and indeed, that emergency vehicles are also using to get to hospitals and to police stations and to criminal activity and blocking the cars from moving. Now, the most jarring, like I say, of the examples that I've seen of this is that video of some Justop Oil protesters stood in the road saying, we're causing disruption.

because we want to bring attention to the issue of climate change and oil. And a mother gets out of her car and says, I have a baby in the back. We need to get to the hospital. I'm the, baby, you move, now. Now, move. And the protesters don't budge.

They don't let the car through. And so I don't know who this woman is. I don't know. I mean, for all I know, she could be completely making it up. But in theory, she has a baby in the back. of a car who's in need of emergency medical care and is being blocked from accessing it by members of your organisation stood in orange t-shirts blocking the road do you think that that is a legitimate form of disruption i think it's a i think we're in a pretty difficult situation

to be honest i like i think that just we just have to have a look at the big picture here right we're in a situation where we are um well i mean we're we're in a situation where we're in a situation vision that the Secretary General of the United Nations recently has basically said that the climate crisis is out of control, right? He said that we've entered an era of global boiling. In recent weeks, we've seen quarter of a million Somalis displaced. Last year, we saw 33 million people displaced in Pakistan. An area the size of the Netherlands has burnt down in Canada, you know, I mean, millions of New Yorkers couldn't leave their homes recently because of blood orange skies. we are seeing sustained crop failure as a result of climate collapse, right?

And if that goes undelt with, we are on course for civilizational collapse. Now, in the face of that, I would say that a few minutes of short term road disruption is justified. Now, is it something I'm comfortable with? No, I don't think, I think it's a horrible tactic, ultimately. But the fact of the matter is, is that if we stood at the side of the road with a banner, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you right now. We wouldn't have dominated the headlines. We wouldn't have forced this issue of what this government is doing.

They're engaged in complete criminality, licensing new fossil fuels against all better judgment, against the entire scientific consensus, against the advice of the United Nations, the International Energy Agency, the British Medical Association. That is a very long list. We have to accept that we have limited options available to us as normal people, right? We are up against the entire fossil fuel economy, right? They have been funneling trillions of dollars into clouding clarity around this whole issue. In the face of that, we have to cause disruption in order to get this issue to the forefront.

front of the public consciousness and yeah it's you know we recognize the antennae of a situation it's it's not a nice thing but we've you know honestly we've tried we've tried everything else the last 50 years we've tried the marches we've tried the petitions we've tried you know contact hearing MPs and stuff it doesn't work right but I tell you what has worked in terms of like getting the media attention this last 13 14 weeks or this last year and a half however long you want to look at it, is disruption. I can't recall a single campaign group that has maintained this level of prevalence in the media

for this amount of time. Yes, quite right. And I agree with you that this has certainly put the issue on the agenda, but it does seem to me that the thing that's really been put on the agenda is, for example, you're on this podcast and you're quite right, that I wouldn't have invited you on, where it not for these tactics, but I'm inviting you on specifically to talk about and potentially condemn those tactics.

a moment ago, you know, a few minutes of road disruption. In a medical emergency, a few minutes can be the difference between life and death. And I wonder if you'd have the same attitude, and would you be answering this question in the same way that you just did, had that baby died, had that baby experienced a medical emergency that was a direct result of the blockage of that road by your protesters, would your answer change? I mean, it's all very well and good as getting into hypotheticals, Alex, but the fact is people are already dying. You know, I mean, we're looking at,

we're looking at 2 billion people being forced out of the, the condition suitable to support human life by 2030. Now, it's, you're right, it's an ethical quagmire, but, you know, we are, we are, we're at a crunch time for us as a species. It seems to me like a uteritarian calculus that wouldn't run in other circumstances. For example, justop oil engages in nonviolent protest. That is, I don't think you would condone tactics such as taking hostages or political terrorism as a means to procure your goals. But surely somebody could say the same thing.

If I took a hostage and held them at gunpoint demanding that the government stop drilling for oil and you said, well, we don't condone this. This is non-violent. And I say, but look, I mean, sure, like these people are being violently disrupted. but think of all the violence that the eco-catastrophe is going to cause. I don't see why this justification suddenly comes to a stop as soon as violence is involved, especially when, if blocking the roads does lead to a child having a medical emergency, or indeed an adult having a medical emergency, it seems like that protest has become unintentionally,

but still become a violent protest, in that some form of physical harm and danger is being brought upon human beings. as a result of that action. And so the reason I asked you if it would change if that baby died is because it sounds like your answer is no, if that baby had died, and that was the news story that a baby had died because they'd failed to get this child to hospital in time because of your protesters, you'd have to say something like, well, obviously that's really bad, but, you know, what are you going to do about it?

I mean, that's certainly not what I would say, Alex. I think that, you know, there'd be devastating. I mean, I, you know, I don't want any harm to ever come to anyone. And crucially, no harm has ever come to anyone. I mean, contrary to what the British media might have you believe, I mean, we did a freedom of information request for the London Ambulance Service. They never once complained to us about anything being delayed. There was an incident of an empty ambulance that didn't have its siren on.

There was delayed for about three minutes that was not on an emergency call. And that might, you may well have seen. that footage circulating on GB News, but it is really overblown. And the amount of false stories we see about this sort of thing is really, you'd be surprised. What I'd say is I don't necessarily believe everything that you read. I mean, I can't speak for that particular incident because I wasn't on the road. I think that there was probably a, you know, there would have been sort of considerations. They will have had access to more information than we will have,

them either of us have um and but you know i can't speak to the specifics of that particular incident i guess what i want to do is is and the reason that i invited you on this podcast we were talking just beforehand and um i i i was late because i was having some technical issues and i was just reflecting on how ironic it is that i want to say something like sorry for the inconvenience to a member of jist off oil we were talking about the fact that you don't often get the space to to talk about this at length you're on television you're get a six minute segment. And so what I want to give you the opportunity to do here is really flesh out this position, go into the ifs, go into the whats, because I think people are scared. You may say

that, well, no harm has been caused as a result of our protests. And people would say, well, that's not guaranteed to remain the same. I mean, I can ask you a direct question, which is if it were you in that car, and it were the case that your child in the back needed medical attention within the next five minutes or that child's potentially going to die. And up ahead, you see that the cars have stopped moving because members of Justop Oil have gotten out onto the road and blocked the cars. Your wife is next to you in hysterics that your child is about to die. What do you do in that circumstance? So you just say, you know, honey, I know that this is terrible, but we have to think of the bigger picture. I think I'd be outraged, understandably. I mean, it's outrageous.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Of course it's outrageous. But we do have to ask ourselves, what has driven, you know, vickers, scientists, students, you know, people from all walks of life, cleaners, you know, bartenders, you know, what has actually driven them to do this? You know, are they all mental or have they assessed the science and can they see that their government is basically taking a course of action that's going to kill hundreds of millions of people? And like, in the face of that, what are we to do? Because like us doing nothing is just, it's unacceptable, you know, that it's going to result in hundreds of millions of death.

It is resulting in millions of death right now. And, you know, it's a, it's a horrible situation to find ourselves in as a species. But I think it's very important that we sort of, we actually emotionally connect with what's happening because I think an awful lot of people, you know, we understand the climate crisis on an intellectual level,

but I think a lot of people haven't necessarily emotionally connected with what it actually means for us at home, you know, the fact that it's going to result in food shortages. And, and, you know, we're talking like massive economic inflation. We're talking about the loss of our pensions. We're talking about the loss of everything that we care about. And it's, it's, it's, you're right. It's, it's a, it's a, it's a horrible situation to be in. And like, you know, and I, I, I, I, I don't relish. you know, having to sort of take the actions that we do. But we are, it's just that serious, I'm afraid.

So why then the strict line in the sand when it comes to violent protest? If the line is something like, and I've heard this said many times, I don't want to be out here blocking the roads. I don't want to glue myself to this, you know, to this football post or whatever. But look, I've got no other option. This is the last resort. We've tried everything. This is the only thing we have left.

Well, that's not true because you haven't tried violence. And so if this doesn't work, what is the reason, as I say, for this line in the sand, where you'll say, well, if it becomes the case that our true last resort is violence, we're not going to do that. How can we trust that that's the case if your justification right now is that the only reason you're doing this? And sometimes unintentionally causing what could be described as, if not violence, because it's not directly inflicted, certainly physical safety risk and potential harm. why draw the line at violence? Why not take hostages? Why not commit acts of eco-terrorism? Wouldn't that be an even more effective way of getting people to talk about what it is that you're doing? because it's an ineffective tactic, Alex. Because the fact of the matter is, is that you can't take on a violent system

such as the one that we live in utilising the same terrain that they're very comfortable in quashing, right? They've got nuclear weapons. Like, we're not going to win in a violent fight, you know? And so basically we're engaged in a kind of moral and ethical sort of jiu-jitsu in a way. And civil resistance is about sort of

playing the the sort of power of your opponent against itself. So what you may see is a crackdown on, say, people taking action. You know, thousands of people get put in prison. As a result of that, you'll tend to see some sort of backlash. And that's where you start to see sort of political pressure emanating from various different quadrants. It can come internationally and things like that. So, yeah, I mean, if it wasn't just purely an ethical position, which I think, you know, I mean, especially for me personally, I think for a lot of people, you know, would echo this. My personal judgment is, is if this can't be won in a nonviolent way, then I don't think, then, you know, maybe that's just the way it has to be. What's the way it has to be, you mean? as in maybe we just maybe we don't win because as far as I can see it um many of the problems

that we face as a culture is like we're essentially out of alignment with the natural world and we need to start viewing this planet as one holistic system and us and us as part of it right and if we if we don't sort of engage in that realignment and sort of see that we're part of one holistic hole, then, you know, we're basically screwed as a species, right? So it's a cognitive shift that's required. Now, nonviolence is not a passive position. It is, it doesn't necessarily mean you're going against conflict. It's just, it's a different kind of conflict. And we don't undertake the kind of tactics that we do based on just a whim. You know, we do it on, on the basis of decades of social science. And I can, you know, if, if, if you're

viewers want a reading list, I'll happily provide one. I asked you a moment ago why Justop Oil don't engage in intentionally violent protest. And your response is to say that it's an ineffective tactic. If it were an effective tactic, then would you rule out the possibility of using violence in pursuit of your goals? I think I've just, I think I've just underlined that I, as far as I'm concerned, and everyone else in Justop Oil is concerned, violence is a complete no-go. not just from a purely tactical point of view, but an ethical one as well. Sure. I just want to make sure that's clear.

Yeah. And in doing so, I also want to ask why it is that that's the case in that if it truly were the case that you were left with no other option in that, and I mean, you said a moment ago, look, you know, the government has nukes. I don't think they're going to drop a nuclear bomb on their own city because you've taken a hostage in a room somewhere in London. by doing so this you can be sure will be on the headlines and this you can be sure we'll get people talking if this really were the last resort then why is it the case that you would be

unwilling to do so if it's a choice between that and as you see it you know imminent uh world ending catastrophe surely that would still be a legitimate enterprise if that were the only option you had left? I don't agree. I think that, I mean, you know, the, I mean, my area is nonviolence. I mean, I've, I've, you know, I've, I think that, and the one thing to understand about nonviolence is that it's, it's a matter of, I guess it's a matter of perspective. People have different classifications of what constitutes nonviolence.

But I feel that, I've never seen any particular. persuasive arguments to suggest that violence is ever a good option. And it's certainly not something I would ever want to be a part of. Now, we spoke about the fact that the reason you'll participate in these kinds of protests is because it gets things on the agenda. I think the most common criticism that I hear of just up oil is, look, we agree with the message. That is, we agree that this is an important issue and that we need to do something. But we don't agree with your methods and in fact a single glance at essentially any video on YouTube of your protests of your news interviews of anything it is that you do it's difficult for me to find a single comment

in support of your organization what do you make of this criticism that what you're actually doing is making people really annoyed and see see an organization like justop oil and the movement that it's, the broader movement that it's a part of, as essentially a sort of a nuisance. Many people describe you as almost cult-like in your activities. These may be illegitimate criticisms, but this is the perception that's being engendered around you. Is this not potentially going to backfire? Well, the same has been said about every social movement in history, I would say. The same was said about the suffragettes, the same was said about the civil rights movement. And I'm not comparing us to any of these groups, incidentally, just purely in

terms of they've engaged in similar sort of tactics. Same has been said about LGBTQ plus activists in the 90s, disabled people chain themselves to buses in the 90s. You know, like, we aren't the first to block roads, right? Understand that. And like, I think that we sort of have a rose-tinted vision of what history is like. Like, as uncomfortable as it is, this is what social change looks like, right? Now, I can show you, um, uh, uh, like studies from the 60s that will tell you that, um, that the civil rights movement had, you know, probably like less support than than we do now, actually. Um, so it isn't necessarily indicative of like how things are going to look in 30 years time. And I think that's where we need to be kind of looking,

looking at things from. You mean in terms of like a proportion, uh, that, That comparison to the civil rights movement sort of astounds me, given that I'm, obviously, you know, I wasn't alive at the time, so I don't know what the cultural feeling was like, but my intuition about Justop Oil, when I hear people talking about it, when I see it on social media, is an almost universal, you have this unique ability, which I almost want to commend you for, for inspiring this primal rage in people, like, including myself, I see this footage, and I feel myself, it's like my heart rate starts increasing, because I imagine myself being one of these motorists being blocked on the road. You have this real ability to do this with people,

but you just said that you think there's some evidence that the support for you currently is bigger than the support was for, say, the civil rights movement in the 60s? It's pretty similar, yeah. If you look at the, you know, it's around 30 or percent, yeah. I mean, what I'd say, Alex, is that the point in the matter is, I know we've pissed a lot of people off, I know we've pissed you off, but the point of the matter is, is that you've engaged with the thing that we wanted you to engage on, right? And now you're thinking about it. And now there's a conversation happening.

So within social movement theory, there's this phenomenon called the radical flank effect. So basically you have kind of a spikier edge, which I suppose just to boil is what you would regard as occupying. And everybody thinks it's unacceptable. It's absolutely outrageous. But by comparison, it makes sort of more, say, moderate flanks of the, in this case, the environmental movement,

seem more reasonable, right? And so you have this sort of widening of the public discourse, and generally that space will then get occupied by a more moderate force. In this case, you know, an example of this, like we've seen this in real time of like the Labour Party occupying that kind of space, as well as every, I will point this out, every major political party apart from the Tories. Now I was talking about no new oil and gas licenses,

as is the Scottish Parliament, as is the Welsh Assembly. this is a very mainstream demand, right? But the point of the matter is, is that millions of conversations have been elicited. And if even a small percentage of those people are talking about, you know, the fact that the government is licensing over 100 new projects against or better judgment and drawing attention to this most critical issue

that faces us as a species, then we have to regard it as a win. And we've talked about ruling out violence here, but I'm interested in how far things like destruction vandalism would go. I think possibly the first time I really started paying attention to Justop Oil was when I saw two protesters in the National Gallery in London throwing a can of soup over Van Gogh's sunflowers. I think that the initial horror with which people reacted to this was because it wasn't clear that sunflowers is as many paintings are in the National Gallery behind glass. And so it didn't damage the painting, minor damage to the frame, and that was all.

But I was interested the other day in the National Portrait Gallery, which just reopened in London, to find a portrait of Henry James, which reading the description, I found that, I wrote this down when it went on show in the Royal Academy exhibition of 1914, a suffragette named Mary Wood slashed to the canvas three times with a meat cleaver striking the area around James's right eye three times before she was apprehended. And so the suffragettes actually engaged in a similar form of protest, but they actually did damage the painting. Now the painting wasn't quite as iconic as something like Van Gogh, but it made me want to ask you, had there been no glass and had those protesters thrown soup directly onto the can. canvas of this historic and iconic painting, do you think that that would have been a good move for Justopoeil? Is that something that you would condone? Well, I appreciate that you brought up the suffragettes there, Alex, because yeah, you're right. It was them that inspired that action,

actually. Now, we put an awful lot of thought into the kind of actions that we take. And with that, you know, we knew that it was going to be shocking, and that was the intention. The aim was to give people that sense of loss of something that's really culturally significant for us, but, you know, as it happens, we knew that no damage was going to come to it, that the soup was just going to wipe off. And, you know, I wouldn't personally be particularly keen on destroying any art, But I do think that we, you know, we have to kind of look at the big picture here that, you know, in the context of where we're at, we are at risk of losing all of the things that we care about. And that includes our artworks. That includes all of our cultural heritage, you know. I mean, I don't think most people really realize just how bad the situation is. And the fact that, you know, we are fast approaching irreversible tipping points that if, if passed, threatened to spin, you know, our. a livable climate, out of control in a massively non-linear way, right?

You know, we're looking at permafrost melt in the Arctic. You know, if that dumps methane into the atmosphere, you know, methane's 86 times more trapping than carbon dioxide than, you know, over a 20-year period. And, you know, if that happens, we're up, we're up shit creek without a paddle, you know. You know, there's all the tipping points like the Amazon, you know, 17% of the Amazon's already been cut down. If that hits around 20 to 25%, the whole thing dies. You know, there's NASA scientists basically saying in private that they think that that tipping points already pass. You know, it's, it's, I really, like, I can't understate, like, how critical this

situation is, Alex. And honestly, I do, I employ you and all of your listeners. I mean, you've got a big following. You've got, like, what, half a million followers. Like, you've got, you know, a voice here. And that I do think that we all have. have to be looking at what we've done, you know, each day to avert this crisis. We have to ask ourselves, what have I done to avert this crisis? And if the answer is nothing, then we really, really do need to assess that, honestly. And that's one of the reasons why I wanted to speak to you, although I will, as I clarified before, I really am here to talk to you about protest ethics, but quite right, there's sort of two conversations happening simultaneously

around just for poyle. One is about the message itself, about the non-reliance in oil, whether that's possible, how it might be possible. The other is about the methodology here. And I suppose I think people will understand.

Certainly, I like to think the listenership of this podcast will be able to completely understand this quite straightforward argument that yes, like destroying a painting is an incredible feet of vandalism that can't really be measured in monetary terms. It's one of these

sort of incalculable losses. But when compared to the loss of every single painting in that gallery along with, you know, the rest of the planet, it kind of shrinks in comparison. But if it is the case that there would be a negative effect of certain forms of protests, then it's important to talk about them even for your own sake and your own interest to see what's actually going to work. Now, you said a moment ago that you, I don't think you quite said you wouldn't be in favour of it. You certainly said that you would be made greatly uncomfortable or something like that by the idea of throwing soup over the painting without the glass. But the reason I brought that up is because I was trying to get to the bottom of how far these protests go. We've already drawn

the line in the sand at physical violence against people. But when it comes to things like vandalism, when it comes to things like destroying works of art, when it comes to disrupting the private property of businesses or perhaps even individuals as Greenpeace recently did in scaling the private home of Rishi Sunak and dropping some big black tarp or curtains from the roof or something, I saw that earlier today. The question is like, how far does this go?

And that's why I'm asking you, had there been no glass on the Van Gogh, is that something that you would condemn, not necessarily even ethically, but just in terms of saying, look, this is going to get people so riled up that it's just not going to do what we want it to do.

Well, I mean, you know, the great thing about science, Alex, is like we can just, we just need to look at the data about what's effective. And, you know, the social science is very clear that though disruptive action might be, very unpopular, and it might elicit a lot of hostility and a lot of ire, the fact of the matter is,

is that society, at least in part, here's the message, despite the fact that they might shoot the messages in the process, right? We fully accept and acknowledge that we're going to be wildly and are wildly unpopular for some of the actions that we've undertaken. And, you know, that's not a fun thing. You know, I don't enjoy that experience. But, you know, if it's a small price to pay for pushing this issue to the forefront of the public consciousness. What would you make of the criticism that just stop oil have no right to call themselves principally non-violent protesters if there is sometimes unintentional violent consequences of their behaviours? Had somebody been hit by a car on the Grand Prix, had the baby in the back of the car

that couldn't get to the hospital because of the road blockages, died? Do you think that you would still have the right to call yourself a non-violent organisation? Well, I mean, just to address your point about the F1 there, Alex, one thing that won't have actually made the media was actually the level of planning went into that. The amount of safety considerations that were taken into that was quite extreme, which I will say is far more consideration into the harm than the British government have done in recent times. so I mean actually like the the racing lines were taken into consideration you might have noticed that where the activist was sat there's no way that a car would even go in that area they were they went on after a red light it was only as a matter of chance that there'd been an accident prior to the actual action in which case you saw two cars going past it you know they're I think they're equivalent their stopping distance they would be

going about 20 miles an hour they weren't going 20 miles an hour incidentally It's just, that's how, what the equivalent would have been for a normal car, right? So, you know, I accept your point that there is, there is a sort of, you know, an ethical gray area here. But it's sort of, it does go to this point that, you know, we have to just look at the, the, at the, how serious this situation is, Alex. I mean, you know, I'm open to suggestions. Like, what would you have us do instead? like what you know i honestly we're you know if you've got ideas ideas on a postcard great let's have them but honestly we put an awful lot of thought into the into this and we we put as much

consideration into uh you know not harming anyone uh you know as much as possible um but i mean it seems to me for example that if you're blocking the road and somebody says to you i'm on my way to the hospital there's a baby in my car that you move out of the way for them and then resume your protest afterwards. Well, I will just clarify, Alex, that we have a blue light policy, so we always get out the way of, out the way for emergency vehicles with their blue lights showing. Yes. And yet, I mean, you know, as I said to you before, I mean, you sort of keep coming back to this one incident. I wasn't on the road, so I don't know what, you know, what considerations were made. I don't have full access to what considerations were made there.

But I am fairly certain that it was a very short-term delay and that there was not a serious situation with regards to the health of anyone. Yeah, the reason I'm coming back to it is because in the context, if you're saying, well, look, what would you recommend here? What I'm saying is that I think that the response to that particular incident is telling because, of course, there are people who are just annoyed you in the road generally. but there's a sort of larger number of people, including those who are okay with you being in the road, including those who say that form of protest is okay, but when the mother says, I need to get three my babies in the car, that you should have moved out of the way. And I know you have a blue light policy, but of course, not all emergencies take place in an emergency vehicle. This mother was driving to the hospital in her private car, and so a blue light policy does nothing. And even if

there is a blue light policy, if there is an emergency vehicle on the road, it can still delay the progress of that emergency vehicle. Now, the reason that I'm bringing this up again is to say to you that one recommendation is that when a mother says, I've got a baby in the back, I need to get through. Your protesters move out of the way. They let her through. They then resume their position, demonstrating to the world on camera that although you're willing to engage in disruptive protests that's going to make the headlines, you're also willing to make exceptions in cases of genuine emergency like this. That would be one suggestion that I could give to you, for example. I mean, Alex, we don't actually know whether there was a genuine

emergency there. And you've got me talking about an issue that I, you know, as I said, I wasn't there. And ultimately, you know, you've got to, you've got to understand that the context that we're in. We, you know, we just did 14 weeks of slow marching across London. In the face of that, you know, you get all of these sorts of little clips that will be taken entirely out of context by the right wing media who have a vested interest in trying to discredit us and make us look as loony as possible, right? Because they ultimately work for the same fossil fuel interests that the government does, right? And so you get this, you get this sort of these sort of entirely fabricated stories that just make a huge deal over absolutely nothing. And what I would implore you and the rest of the media to do, do is look at why. Why are these people out on the road? What is it that's forced these people onto the road? What can we do? Because the fact is, Alex, like, you know, if we don't deal with this problem, like, do you think that there's going to be more people going on the road or less? Because as far as I can see, it's going to result in more and more and more. So that, you know,

that that begs the question, what do we, what do we do to pressure this government to make the right decisions? Because at the moment, they are engaged in genocidal behavior. And I don't use that term lightly, but to knowingly engage in a course of action that is going to kill hundreds of millions of people, what is that if it's not genocide? Well, I think that I don't know what the definition of genocide that you're using is that, I know that you've landed yourself in some, some hot water before for using the word genocide well the legal definition Alex would be that they have a bleak intent right they have full awareness they've been briefed they have they have the best scientific advisors in the world they have full awareness that licensing new fossil fuels in

2023 is not only moral and economic madness according to the secretary secretary general of the united nations but it is going to kill hundreds of millions of people it is going to kill our children, right? We've got to connect with that. And I know it sounds hyperbolic, but that's the truth. I don't, I wouldn't want to accuse you of hyperbole so much as potential confusion with the definition here or intent to confuse in that I understand the point that you're making when you use a word like genocidal, you're trying to get across the importance and the significance of what you believe the government is doing to us

when I heard you use that term on, I think it was Good Morning Britain, one of these TV shows and somebody was having a go at you for it. Yeah. It might have been Ed Bulls and... It was Ed Balls. I remember looking up the definition

and I've looked up the definition again and of course it depends on which definition that you look at but from the UN the definition contained in Article 2 of the convention I'm quoting here from an excerpt of their website is that genocide describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part. Of course, you know, we're talking here about the large scale destruction of life, but we're not talking about the intentional bringing about of the ends of lives, and we're not talking about the targeting of racial or religious or ethnic groups. I think we are, though.

I mean, you know, we're looking at the low-lying island states that are going to be underwater. You know, we're looking at predominantly people in the global south who are, you know, dealing with the worst effects of this climate crisis. It's predominantly, you know, black and brown people that are at the sharp end of this, right? And so there is particular groups of people who are at risk of losing their lives. And, you know, the mechanism might be novel, but this is where the, this is where the, oblique intent comes in, right? Because, like, of course, I'm not saying that the government think that they're engaged in genocide.

I'm not, you know, I, you know, I'm not saying that they're sitting around going, plotting how they're going to eradicate, you know, ex-demographic of people. But isn't that what genocide is? Isn't that what genocide is? Is the intentional bringing about of the end of life, particularly targeting racial or ethnic groups? That doesn't seem to be what the government's doing here to me. this is this is what oblique intent means i'm that they know that they're you know that they're

engaging in harmful activity but alex like we're we're sort of getting getting involved in semantics here when i you know i i you know i you know i think it's really important that like i'm just you know let's like sort of uh transcend the the boundaries of like interviewer interviewee for a second right and i'm just going to speak to you as a fellow ape on a rock in infinite space right Sure. Like our home is dying, right? It's really, really serious, okay? You know, we've filled this atmosphere with carbon that is causing climatological disasters, left, right and center.

We're looking at serious crop failure. If we have sustained crop failure, that means food shortages, it means famine, it means societal collapse. In our lifetime, yours and mine lifetime, and probably the lifetime and most of the people, watching this. Like, what are we to do in this situation? Like, it's like, do I have a perfect answer? No, do I think that everything that we've engaged in is, is the right answer? How we made mistakes? You bet you. It's never going to be perfect. But we're like, this is, like, we're fighting for our lives here. Like, and I have to, you know, we have to emotionally connect with what's going on, like, you know, millions of people's lives are at stake. It's that serious. Yeah, I get the

impression from members of your organisation of a feeling of sort of the hands being tied, you know, a sort of, we're in the situation, and of course, we're not going to get everything right. And you shouldn't expect a protest movement to get everything right. It's going to make mistakes. It's going to be controversial, but the issue is so important that it's worth all of that. I understand that. And I also understand why it would seem a bit sort of don't look up to be worrying about semantics in this kind of discussion. I suppose the reason I'm doing that is because for my listeners, for my listeners, they're going to hear a word like that and it's going to, you know, pique the eyebrows and it would be a bit

like, I don't know, if it is an illegitimate use of that term, if you said that, you know, the government is pumping fossil fuels into the environment and therefore is Islamophobic, I would probably say I don't understand what you mean I don't think you know what that term means I think we're using it incorrectly and you might say well look I mean it's going to cause eco-catrophy across a

great deal of the Muslim world I would say I don't know if that quite constitutes calling the government's agenda islamophobic in the same way saying you know the government is genocidal if this is the kind of semantic discussion that can derail

the focus from the issue at hand into talking about the definitions of words, then isn't that a good reason not to be using language like genocidal because you end up having this kind of conversation rather than talking about the actual important part of the issue? Perhaps, but, you know, to knowingly engage in a course of action that's going to kill hundreds of millions of people isn't genocidal. I don't know what is, honestly. You know, it's like, listen, I think...

Perhaps the intentional targeting. the intentional targeting of racial and ethnic groups, rather than the knowing infliction of mass death and suffering that may just so happen to disproportionately affect different groups across the world. I think people will want to say that genocide involves an sort of intentional targeting in a manner that isn't being done here, you know? As I said, you know, it's oblique intent. I mean, this is what the legal definition would be.

Listen, I think where people have a lot of difficulty in understanding kind of what's at play here is that the, like, the actual mechanisms of what we're engaged in are sort of like one step removed from that initial conflict that might be occurring like on the street or in an art gallery, right? Because like what it does is it forces a debate and a discussion. Now you may remember in like 2021 there was the Insulate Britain campaign and that involved, you know, people going out and blocking the M25. You know, it was caused a massive amount of uproar. You know, people were absolutely outraged, like rightfully so, potentially. We could certainly have that discussion. But I would say in the aftermath of that, the mentions about housing insulation, which is what the campaign was about, the mentions of housing insulation in the British media

more than doubled, right? That's the power. And now we have a cross-parliamentary committee calling for a wartime effort on housing insulation and an end date to fossil fuels. So, you know, it's, it's messy. It's not perfect. It's, it's a horrible thing to be involved in it. I mean, trust me, like, you know, I'm on the end of, like, countless death threats and stuff. It's, you know, it's not a pleasant thing to be, to be having to be engaged in. But the fact is, Alex, is that, like, our children and grandchildren will most likely wish we'd done more.

do you think that justop oil what is just up oil's relationship to democracy in a few interviews with representatives of your organization i've heard the word democracy mentioned in various concepts and i wanted to to know if you consider yourself an anti-democratic institution that is in essence paternalistic in the sense of saying that even if the majority disagree with us because you said, you know, 30%, I would be interested in seeing the sources, by the way, and I'll try to link them into the description if you do send them over after this interview when we were talking about the civil rights. But that still leaves a majority of people not supporting you, possibly...

Actually, Alex, can I stop you there? Because actually, they may not support us, but they support the demand. The vast majority of people support the demand, and the vast majority of people in this country are wanting this crisis dealt with. And that includes like this, that's cross-parliamentary support, you know, cross-parties, sorry. Like, huge majority of Tory voters are wanting action to get us to net zero.

Yeah, that is, that was a valid, that is an important distinction. For those who disagree with you and disagree with your methods, I suppose what I'm asking is, are you censors? to public opinion in the way that democracy requires? Or is it the case that if everybody sort of didn't really get it, didn't understand the problem at hand, you would sort of be trying to push through your message anyway in a paternalistic effort to say, you don't know what's best for you, but we do? Well, I mean, democracy is fundamental. What I would say, though, is that we don't live in a democracy, do we? Our politicians have been bought. Rishi Sunak, I mean, his

his family signed a $1.5 billion deal with BP InfoSys. His father-in-law signed that deal like a couple of months ago. And then he greenlights a whole raft of new fossil fuel licenses. The Tories took $3.5 million in basically legalized bribes from the fossil fuel lobby in 2022. Now we've got the policy exchange, basically writing the laws that are now being used to take away our right to peaceful protest in this country. The policy exchange is funded by ExxonMobil, right? So corporations have effectively overthrown democracy. We don't live in a democracy, right?

And all of us should be damn concerned about that, right? because democracy is the only thing that's going to, you know, potentially get us out of this shit show, for one of a better term. Yeah, so you had some other threads to that that I can't quite remember, but I went on a democracy run instead. I suppose I was interested in your views generally of democracy, and I suppose your optimism about the process of democracy and solving these problems.

But I suppose the question, that I want to end with because I appreciate your time here and I hope that I've done a sufficient job of challenging your position without coming across as too hostile. I hope you feel in other words that this has been fair. It's been great Alex. I really appreciate, you know, you're giving us the opportunity to have this chat because you're right. You know, generally like we're in a generally hostile interview situation. We've got like three to five minutes to convey, you know, the urgency of the crisis justify our tactics like explain social movement theory uh like shoot down whatever bollocks peers morgan screaming at you you know what i mean so it's like we don't actually

i do know what you mean in the in the last of those examples i do um i can i can relate to that you did a great job with them as well i i appreciate you saying so i must say that uh yeah as i said at the beginning it's interesting i don't know you i don't know anything about you i haven't read your your book, your, you know, your philosophical worldview. I haven't gone through the usual preparation, in other words, for a podcast. And I think this might be the first time that I've essentially been speaking to a proxy for an organization. But maybe American listeners won't realize just how much of a sort of hot button issue this is here in the UK. I mean, your organization in particular. But I think people will understand why it was that I wanted to, to speak with you,

despite not knowing very much about you. And I must say that my own views, I am troubled by the examples that I mentioned earlier. And I kept going back to the baby in the car, for example. And at one point, you referred to people sort of getting upset over nothing. And I forgot to, I didn't want to interrupt you at the time. But like, there was a, I suppose the biggest criticism or the biggest concern that I have or have had throughout this conversation is,

I don't know. I don't want to describe it as like a nonchalance about it because obviously you care and you adhere as a tragedy if such a horrible outcome as a medical emergency was brought about as a result of your actions, but the lack of a firm policy on such a thing and the lack of a clear idea

of exactly how to handle situations like that given that one has actually arisen and luckily seems not to have led to anything more serious otherwise I'm sure we would have heard about it in the news. I suppose that's my biggest concern for what it's worth in everything that we've spoken about. But I did want to ask one final question to you, which is what do you think it is that people mostly or most commonly get wrong about just op oil? Hmm. Well, I can't recall saying anything about people getting upset about nothing, Alex. I certainly wouldn't ever say anything like that. I have a feeling that's not the way I've just represented that is not what you meant when you said that phrase, but it crossed my mind that at some point you said the word nothing in the context of saying getting upset over nothing. And I think you were referring to something else, but I think the context made it possible that people could have interpreted it that you were talking about, you know, this medical emergency. And I wanted to

that that's the reason I wanted to bring that up afterwards. And I forgot to do it after you finish your sentence to clarify that presumably that wasn't that wasn't the case. At any rate. Absolutely not. I mean, I think, you know, like people, people, as I said, as I said before, you know, I completely understand people's frustration. I'd be frustrated too. Honestly. Yeah, I completely get it. It's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, It's outrageous. I am not disagreeing with you that it's outrageous behavior. And potentially dangerous behavior.

And potentially dangerous. But I will say, you know, nobody has actually been hurt, crucially. And we do have policies in place in terms of ensuring that no harm comes about. But, you know, the government's not, the government's just licensed 100 new fossil fuel projects and is going to, you know, is engaging us in a pretty dynamic. direction. Now, you mentioned your listeners in America. We do have a sister group in America called Declare Emergency. So I would employ your listeners in the States to go check them out and, yeah, obviously get involved. And obviously, if people, you know, have found this conversation engaging, I would employ you to do a bit more reading into social movement theory and civil

resistance. Come join us for a talk. Go to justopold.org, sign up for action and get on the streets because like we're we are at you know this is this is I I would hate to use religious uh kind of uh language around you Alex but you know we are sort of a reckoning you know like our culture is a sort of a crunch point really and we we have to we have to sort of we have to we have to change things you know because we're we're completely out of alignment with, with the natural worlds and with, um, you know, with, with the natural laws of things. Um, so on, on that final question, what is it you think most people, or people most commonly get wrong about just up oil? Um, well, I think that there's a, there tends to be

an awful lot of, um, mischaracterization of the type of people who are involved in just up oil. Um, In my experience, basically, you know, everyone involved in these sorts of movements is you've got people from all walks of life in completely different demographics, ethnicities, sexualities, gender identities, et cetera, et cetera, and different socioeconomic backgrounds as well. Like, what I would say is that just don't believe everything that you read in the papers, you know, where as important, perfect as any group of people, you know, there's arguments, there's, um, there's disagreements, there's discussions about the right way forward. Um, and we don't always get it right. But, you know, it's a constant learning process. Um, and, and ultimately, I think it's just a case of like, just, I would just implore people to, to engage with this topic and, and actually, you know, come, come chats with us, we're all nice people, um, and try and try and understand why. And that's

a fundamental question is like, why are people taking that the action? Why do people feel so terrified at the state of the future that they're willing to go on a Formula One track and then go to prison for seven months? You know, are they completely mental? I mean, they might be a bit mental, but like, you know, or have they engaged with the science in such a way to, that they're, like, screaming from the rooftops for us to get a handle on this? Yes. It's a bit like the question people ask of Jesus's divinity, sort of madman, malice or God, I suppose, sounds the God part when it comes to the members of your organization. Those are the two options that you're left with. Unless, of course, these people are, as you characterize them, are they crazy? Are they malicious or are they onto something? I am genuinely fascinated.

to see what people in the comment section of this podcast think of that. Of course, if you're listening on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, remember that these are filmed and put on YouTube, and you can leave us a comment there. And like I say, I have absolutely no idea how people will receive this conversation and these ideas. But I hope that they've found it worthwhile. And indeed, I hope that you have to James Skeet. Thank you for coming on the podcast. Thank you so much, Alex.