Activism

You probably have been hearing phrases like “climate crisis,” “climate emergency” or “climate justice” more often lately as people try to get across the urgent risks and consequences of climate change. The danger is real, but is using this language actually persuasive? It turns out that Americans are more familiar with – and more concerned about – climate change and global warming than they are about climate crisis, climate emergency or climate justice, according to a recent survey we conducted with a nationally representative sample of 5,137 Americans. Moreover, we found no evidence that the alternative terms increased people’s sense of urgency, willingness to support climate-friendly policies or willingness to act. The familiar terms – climate change and global warming – did at least as well, and sometimes better, than climate crisis and climate emergency in eliciting concern, perceived urgency and willingness...

Earth Day is April 22, and climate activists around the world are planning rallies and other events to draw attention to the growing threats posed by climate change. Many of these demonstrations will focus on what humanity can do to stop fueling the damage. But while activists are amplifying the dire findings from scientists, you’ll likely see fossil fuel supporters attacking them on social media and TV. It’s easy to get caught up in the myths about climate activism, particularly in today’s polarized political environment. So, let’s take a moment to explore the truth about three of the big myths being told about climate activism and the climate movement today. Myth 1: Climate activists are just young people The media tends to focus most of its attention on young people in the climate movement, including those inspired by Greta Thunberg’s school strikes for climate, the international Fridays for Future, or the Sunrise Movement, which focuses on U....

In a catchy YouTube video, British comedian Jo Brand translates a scientist’s long-winded description of the fossil fuel industry’s role in the climate crisis this way: “We are paying a bunch of rich dudes 1 trillion dollars a year to f--- up our future,” she says. “Even the dinosaurs didn’t subsidize their own extinction. Who’s the stupid species now?” Although there is nothing funny about the subject, the way she says it is funny. She speaks truth to power. She relieves the heaviness of the rhetoric. And she’s dropping f- and s-bombs with a British accent. At the start of the video, Brand comments, “If people like me have to get involved, you know we’re in deep s---”. We all need some refreshing levity nowadays – especially this year. Around the world, voters will be choosing national leaders in countries representing nearly half the human population. In many cities, states and counties, those deci...

Climate activism has been on a wild ride lately, from the shock tactics of young activists throwing soup on famous paintings to a surge in climate lawsuits by savvy plaintiffs. While some people consider disruptive “antics” like attacking museum artwork with food to be confusing and alienating for the public, research into social movements shows there is a method to the seeming madness. By strategically using both radical forms of civil disobedience and more mainstream public actions, such as lobbying and state-sanctioned demonstrations, activists can grab the public’s attention while making less aggressive tactics seem much more acceptable. Two activists were arrested after throwing tomato soup on Vincent Van Gogh’s glass-covered ‘Sunflowers’ at the National Gallery in London in 2023 in a bid to draw media attention so they could talk about oil’s role in climate change. Just Stop O...

Your child could go to gym class on Monday morning and play soccer on a field that was sprayed over the weekend with 2,4-D, a toxic weedkiller that has been investigated as possibly causing cancer. Alternatively, the school grounds may have been treated with a lower-toxicity weedkiller. Or maybe the grounds were managed with safe, nontoxic products and techniques. Which of these scenarios applies depends in large part on your state’s laws and regulations today – more so than federal regulations. For example, Texas requires all school districts to adopt an integrated pest management program for school buildings; IPM prioritizes nonchemical pest control methods and includes some protections regarding spraying of grounds. Massachusetts also restricts pesticide use on school grounds. Illinois requires IPM for school buildings only if economically feasible. States also vary greatly in the education and technical assistance they provide to implement these practices....