Blowing up a pipeline would be a bit counter productive wouldn’t it? Don’t think there is something like a clean pipeline explosion.

I think a more effective way of steering the wheel would be to associate the position of the decision maker and the outcome of that decision with fear.

I’m not sure if I agree that they haven’t worked. The severity of climate change has been significantly reduced by currently enacted policies, even as the situation continues to look fairly dire.

Like any mass movement, the effectiveness of these actions depends on the number of people engaged in them. To date, this movement has been fairly small compared to other movements that succeeded in bringing about similarly large changes. Furthermore, while blowing up a pipeline might have a more tangible and direct impact, that impact is still very small, and the political implications are complicated. The idea that fossil fuels can be stopped completely through sabotage seems at least as far-fetched as the idea that it can be stopped through letter-writing.

Given that situation, the main question becomes: how does this movement grow large enough that its demands must be answered fully? I think a clear and coherent message and political strategy is essential. Framing the issue as one of ordinary people fighting for children and the common good against the interests of a corrupt elite is usually beneficial. I worry that property destruction undermines this framing by defining the movement in public consciousness as violent extremists instead of a movement that is fighting to protect ordinary people. I think this was a major failing of the George Floyd protests which had widespread public support until they were successfully smeared as lawless rebels who engaged in looting and arson. Even though very few people engaged in this behavior, the right’s media dominance allowed them to convince many people that this was the whole movement and it lost support for its demands.