How to Blow Up A Pipeline

How to Blow Up A Pipeline is a book written by Andreas Malm that asks the question: given the gravity of the climate crisis, why have we not seen violent protest against those who perpetuate it? Malm does not spend much time attempting to answer this question but rather makes a moral and tactical case for the value of violence (in particular property destruction) in fighting climate change. It's an occasionally frustrating book with many brilliant moments and more than a few important insights. Its moral arguments, while solid, are disorganized across its 3 sections. Ultimately, the books fails to deal with the most interesting ramifications of the questions it poses. Among the areas I would have liked Malm to address in more detail are: - The dearth of social imagination in the Global North, the sources of this imaginative deficit, and how to restore our collective imaginative capacity. - An in depth tactical analysis of how property violence and the potential consequences of its use. He is clear that violence, even property violence, has the potential to backfire and fuel opposition to a movement. How this might happen, and under what conditions, is primarily left as an exercise for the reader. This is irresponsible as the book openly advocates for the tactical destruction of property as a means to ending the climate crisis.

The book is split into 3 sections: 1. Learning From Past Struggles 2. Breaking the spell 3. Fighting Despair.

1. Learning From Past Struggles

In the first section Malm sets the stage by emphasising the what is at stake in the climate crisis (death at an unimaginable scale, and potentially the survival of the species). Given this gravity, why has the mainstream movement (XR, 350.org, ect...) maintained an exclusively non-violent strategy?

Lancaster paradox

The commitment to exclusively non-violent tactics and a refutation of arguments commonly made by those who subscribe to exclusively non-violent tactics.

A short historical summary of successful "non-violent" social movements. (spoiler: they all used violence at some point often to great effect)

2. Breaking the spell

More historical uses of violence. Destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure by social movements in the Global South. Malm notes that none of the social moments mentioned here destroyed fossil fuel infrastructure due to the infrastructure role in the climate crises. These movements rather targeted this infrastructure due to its strategic importance to their opponents. Malm briefly wonders aloud why there have not yet been climate movements in the Global South that make use of infrastructure sabotage as a tactic.

Arguments for combining class conciousness into climate protest and using property violence against the wealthy as a means of climate protest.

Anecdotes about sabotage the author has used. (This section also contains the oddity of Malm noting that his activist group referred to themselves as the "Indians of the Concrete Jungle" and that they had been contacted by "a Native American" who told them that this name was culturally appropriative. Malm falls short of really reacting to this criticism and uses the name Indians to refer to activists for the next several pages.)

A section distinguishing violence from terrorism and property violence from general violence as separate moral categories that should be treated differently. He makes a case against using terrorism or physical violence against human beings. He also constrains the targets of useful property violence to the luxury toys of the wealthy and fossil fuel infrastructure. This is the crux of his moral argument.

A short section on the lack of imagination about social possibilities in the global North and how this makes creating compelling social movements more difficult.

A brief moment where Malm wonders aloud about the potential retaliatory action that the State make take in response to effective sabotage. An anecdote about 2 US climate activists who ended up in jail with a 110 year sentence for poking holes in the Dakota Access Pipeline. Malm fails to address all the potential consequences of the State response. He pretty much leaves it at "well you weren't expecting this to be easy were you?".

3. Fighting Despair

Taking Jonathan Franzen and Roy Scranton to task for advocating for despair and resignation in the face of the crisis. He argues that their views are unscientific and lack imagination.

A short section on environmental property violence in the 90's by groups such as EF!, ALF, and ELF. He criticises the ideological roots of these movements, which like Scranton emphasize despair but draw different conclusions. The ideology of these movements assume that it is not possible to change society in a way compatible with surviving the crisis and espouse solutions that range from primitivist (return human beings to a pre-industrial state of hunter gatherers) to eco-facist (limit the earth's human population to 600,000 people). Malm dismisses this ideology as being unscientific, facist, and trapped in despair. He then focuses on the violent tactics these groups employed. He comes to the conclusion that these groups did not accomplish much with their activism. Their violent acts were alienated (by their own elitism) from the context of a larger movement that would have potentially given them meaning.

A section refuting despair as inappropriate and counter-productive. Malm argues that, no matter how far the crises progresses, action that makes future survival more probable is always worthwhile.