Short change? Activists are divided over the value of direct action

Disruptive tactics have gained huge global coverage but are they alienating the people that they most need to reach?

- Mark Townsend

Not for the first time, a protest by climate activists descended into acrimony and the threat of violence last weekend. At midday, a dozen or so Just Stop Oil activists brought weekend traffic to a halt in south London.

Irate motorists dragged protesters aggressively off the road. Yet, their anger also feeds into a broader, increasingly vigorous, debate over how many other people have been alienated by the strategy of Just Stop Oil in recent weeks.

As the campaign group concluded a month of direct action, organisers were able to reflect on huge global media coverage at the same time as tensions rise among environmentalists over how extreme their tactics should become in order to grab the public's attention.

In one camp are those who argue that direct action cannot be radical enough, given the extent and pace of the unfolding climate emergency, exemplified last week with key UN reports warning urgent and collective action is desperately needed to avert catastrophe.

In the other are proponents of a more moderate approach to attract more people to the cause. As disquiet deepens among some activists over the merits of hardline tactics, some members of Extinction Rebellion (XR) have started to gravitate towards some splinter, more moderate outfits.

One of these is MP Watch, a new network of citizens monitoring politicians' words and actions on the climate. The group is among those worried that the disruptive tactics of Just Stop Oil have made it too easy to demonise environmental activism.