How to Blow up a Pipeline

There's a bunch of other criticism of this book and I don't think I can do any better, but a few notes:

1) This book is way too writerly and the author is way too in love with their flourishes of speech. I almost noped out several times because the author wrote pages and pages of totally frustrating bullshit just to counter it later. 2) The author's clear struggles with the notion that violence might be able to accomplish a goal are understandable but exhausting. I'm honestly not sure that they agree with the premise of their own book. There's so much moralizing and prevaricating about it that I'm not convinced they do. 3) There's an undertone of casual racism throughout the book. I was pretty creeped out by the description of activists sneaking through a dark neighborhood while they deflated tires as a bunch of Indian warriors, There's also a lot of casual comparisons between environmental activists and enslaved people that I don't think hold up to criticism, and there's plenty of Islamophobia scattered throughout the book, especially regarding the notion that terrorism should be a a total non-starter for the environmental movement. 4) This book is basically two really long chapters about how great XR is and how some mild property destruction might help save the planet, and then a third one that purports to offer a little bit of hope at the end of a pretty depressing book but is mostly a chance to slag on a couple of the edgier environmental movements of the last few decades. Malm (rightfully) attacks a few movements that advocated for the need to drop the human population of the globe, but gloms in some movements that didn't advocate for that sort of thing too, and what's worse, a quick web search for "extinction rebellion population control" or something like that will reveal a bunch of XR chapters advocating for the same exact things. 5) A bunch of the actions in the book end with the police showing up and maybe swinging some batons around. I don't think the author has really considered what would happen in the US or China if activists started employing these tactics -- a bunch of people are going to get shot by the police state and their supporters, and they're going to get away with it. It makes the book seem fundamentally unserious.

Anyway, the author could probably get more done by posting a list of all of joe manchin's known addresses and advice on decent sights for a long gun, but I don't think he's ready to admit that.

This book is not a how-to guide for eco-terrorism. It is a theoretical analysis of the tactics that have been utilized by the climate movement thus far. The author chose a catchy title to suggest that violence against property is something that he thinks is necessary.

Also, I have zero intention of ever becoming an 'eco-terrorist' just because I found parts of this book inspiring. I have no intention of committing acts of criminal violence against property or risking my freedom by doing anything similar. I have a 6-month old kiddo who needs his dad to not be in jail or on the lam.

Having said that, this book is one that I think everyone involved in the climate movement ought to read, even/especially if you don't agree with the central premise of this book: that non-violent pacifism in not, by itself, enough to move the needle on meaningful action to reduce fossil fuel consumption / GHG emissions.

I'm certainly not planning to blow up a pipeline after reading this book, and it was discouraging to read of the racist history of climate activists in the near past (and the continued racist use of the words "Indians" and "tribes" to refer to groups of stealthy vandals throughout the book). Essentially, people went around deflating tires and used indigenous labels as calling cards. The author acknowledges that might have been insensitive, but then continues using the language extensively.

As painful as it might be, I do think this is a book I'd recommend for climate-concerned folks, if only for its unique perspective, its case for radical agency in the face of crippling despair, and its insistent disavowal of doomerism.