Activism has a long history in the United States and depending on who you're speaking to the meaning changes drastically. I think all of us here can agree that our planet is dying, continuing at our current rates or ramping up those rates of carbon emissions or other greenhouse gases are going to inevitably cause one of the greatest catastrophes in human history, possibly making the planet unlivable. but if we've known this from the 1960s and onward. Why have we done absolutely nothing about it besides minor reforms that no institutions hold countries truly accountable for? And only when it is beneficial for the nation state to curtail carbon emissions in the short-term do they take action? For example France, which is widely regarded as one of the most  clean energy producing Nations in Europe, exports a lot of its energy to other nations within the European Union. due to the nuclear power plants that are in France they are able to “cleanly produce energy”(I will talk about why I quoted that later) They are able to sustain themselves with said energy while only using minor amounts of  fossil fuels.  France is taking initiative with EU policy to limit the ability to consume fossil fuel products and energy. Which is a good thing but you have to understand the reason why France is really doing it. If  France has a monopoly or leading at least in different energy sectors after fossil fuels would be banned or Limited they would have control not only in the energy Market, but also geopolitical influence Within the EU. France would be such an indisposable player that without it the EU would lose much of its ability to power itself and we already saw with the War in Ukraine how that would play out if major energy sectors got shut down. so with this example we can see nation states will only take action if it is in there best interests to do so, just as Noam Chomsky said “The duty of the nation state is to protect itself no matter the cost”

Now a very important piece to cover is the term “clean energy” or “green energy”  because in reality most green energy or clean energy is not either of those things. In the context of what France does for its nuclear power plants there is very little natural uranium or the elements used to create the necessary processes that nuclear power plants rely on. North Africa and Canada are those major natural resource Traders that possess large quantities of uranium used to power French nuclear power plants. In Canada and North Africa there are huge labor rights violations especially putting an emphasis on North Africa due to the authoritarian structures placed within how business is conducted and the massive inequality.  Mining natural resources is incredibly detrimental to the environment as well which to be fair does not come close to burning fossil fuels but has completely different consequences that are not as directly Linked like burning fossil fuels are. Nuclear power plants are a great alternative but let us not fool ourselves that we are also destroying the planet around us when we use it. not only is France just trying to get  ahead of the market by making trade deals and monopolizing the energy sector in the EU but they're doing it in the name of creating a Greener world. This is a Completely dishonest attempt at just trying to Corner the market and have greater political influence.  This isn't about climate change, this is the same system that has been enabling people and institutions to Perpetuate the problems.

So how do we fix the system when the protectors of the system will only work in the preservation of the state and the wellbeing of it? How do we work to build a world Where  the moral thing to do and ethical thing to do is priority over the interest of the nation state. Even if the nation states interests have positive outcomes there is still the problem of how do we have the preservation of humanity over the preservation of the system.  radical action that includes a variety of strategies from destruction of private property to  arresting individuals that are not only largely benefiting immorally but also the individuals complicit within the action. Violence should not be the first measure but when you run out of options and your world is burning what other alternative is there? Another example to explain to How crucial Political violence is when trying to create Broad Social and economic change is the Civil Rights movement. it's often narrativeized that  Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were different sides of the debate of whether violence is justifiable but they were simply two sides of the same coin. both of them recognized that if they took a only non-violent approach it wouldn't be as effective a movement and possibly we wouldn't have seen civil rights be passed for several more years or possible decades. They also realized a  completely violent movement would just be labeled as terrorists and the substance of their words would fall short compared to the narrativization. We have a strong non-violent branch of individuals in the world advocating for climate change reform but we do not have a strong enough violent sector of individuals. The world is burning and we're going to turn to a crisp if we continue to let this fire Rage. Start a fire to end a fire.

So my central question is what can we do without having some kind of Civil disobedience to show how serious this issue is?

(This does not advocate for violence in any way shape or form, I deserve any action taken by individuals to break any state or federal laws in the name of climate change or any other  civil disobedience for legal reasons)