The climate movement used to be militant. School strikes shut down cities. Extinction Rebellion blocked roads. Activists sabotaged coal infrastructure. Now? Climate activism has been reduced to letter-writing and lobbying — appeals to power rather than direct challenges to it. How did we go from mass mobilisation to this kind of passive, almost ritualistic protest?
Like so many in my generation, I cut my teeth as an organiser with School Strike 4 Climate (SS4C), at a time when the movement felt like it had real political weight. There was a sense of urgency, a demand for systemic change, and a willingness to disrupt business as usual. But without a cohesive escalation strategy or clear political grounding, the movement burned out. People lost motivation or turned to electoral politics, reinforcing the illusion that market-driven policies — like carbon capture or emissions trading — could solve the crisis.
The reality is starker: Australia’s net zero targets are objectively utopian without a complete upheaval of Australian capitalism. Yet the mainstream climate movement remains confined to demands for an end to new coal and gas, unable to organise beyond reactive campaigns.
A major part of the problem is that Australia ostensibly imported its climate protest movement from Europe without reckoning with its own political and economic conditions. Unlike Europe — where climate activism emerged from labour militancy and economic crisis — Australia’s movement grew in a nation shielded by the resources boom. Even amid wage stagnation and rising debt, relative economic stability softened the conditions for radical climate politics, making it easier for governments to downplay the urgency of climate action.
In Germany, Ende Gelände has physically blocked coal mines, linking climate activism to anti-capitalist struggle. In France, the Yellow Vests forced the government to retreat on carbon taxes that disproportionately affected workers. These movements didn’t rely on appeals to power; they forced change through disruption. By contrast, Australian climate activists have been pushed toward polite, symbolic action that poses no real threat to power.
This process of pacification isn’t new. Social movements throughout history have been neutralised through co-option and suppression.
Governments and corporations selectively engage with activists willing to play by the rules, while sidelining those who demand real systemic change. We’ve seen the mainstream climate movement fall into this trap. By accepting the terms of engagement set by the state and the amorphous market, it has sacrificed its ability to force change.
The climate movement wasn’t necessarily defeated — it was defanged. Climate stunts and school strikes have been so easily ignored and repressed, and legislative reform efforts are co-opted by politicians to greenwash the status quo.
Yet, the infrastructure for mass mobilisation still exists. It has only been disoriented by an unfocused escalation strategy and political retreat. If the mainstream climate movement is to regain its power, it has to revive the tactics that made it a serious political force in the first place.
Firstly, activists must reject the idea that politically mainstream solutions alone will solve the crisis. The issue isn’t a lack of policy proposals but the unwillingness of those in power to act against fossil fuel interests. The movement must shift from appealing to politicians to making inaction politically untenable through escalation — stronger student and union strikes, blockades, and disruption.
Secondly, the movement must rebuild collective structures for sustained resistance. Its retreat into smaller, localised mobilisations has weakened its effectiveness. Without a shared strategy, the climate movement remains fragmented and easy to ignore. To confront global capital, activists must mobilise and coordinate with unions, workers, students, and communities directly affected by climate disaster.
Lastly, the movement must embrace radicalism without apology. Our media establishment will never endorse genuine systemic change. Waiting for mainstream approval is a dead end. Activists should learn from past movements that succeeded through escalation — not just symbolic protest, but disruption that forces power to respond.
Climate action will not succeed through politeness. The past five years have proven that appealing to the system does not work. If the climate movement is to have a future, it must become dangerous again.
