The last decade has seen unprecedented growth in the speed, access, and consumption of all types of information. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter/X, Instagram, and TikTok have become de facto town squares where those across the globe argue, agree, and share opinions. While the explosion of information has facilitated greater learning, it has also resulted in reactive echo chambers as algorithms push content confirming users’ existing beliefs while prioritizing clicks and views over reality or critical thinking.
There is perhaps no greater example of this than the spread of high-profile “climate activists” – desperate for validation – who vandalize works of art, historical monuments, and critical infrastructure, all while renouncing the energy sources that make their lives possible.
In the West, younger generations have grown up in a world where basic needs have been taken for granted. Electricity, heating, transportation, food, clothing—all made relatively cheap, efficient, and available because of fossil fuels. Now, however, these vital tools for modern life are under attack. Across social media, you will find numerous videos of protestors disrupting ordinary people going about their daily routines. Just recently, eight protestors from the group ‘Just Stop Oil’ were arrested outside London after blocking Gatwick Airport’s departure gates. In June alone, twenty-seven ‘Just Stop Oil’ protestors were taken into custody for planning to disrupt airports across England this summer. What type of disruption these so-called activists were devising is unknown, but thankfully, law enforcement was able to put a stop to the plans before any were executed.
These types of incidents shine a startling light on the underlying sentiment guiding the movement. Left to its logical end, the ‘climate activist’ becomes an eco-terrorist. This is no more apparent than in the reverence the movie “How to Blow up a Pipeline” has received. Based on eco-Marxist Andreas Malm’s book of the same name, the film glorifies violence and attempts to rationalize ecoterrorism as a legitimate form of protest. In an interview with the New York Times, Malm lamented that we are “unfortunately” far from thousands of pipeline explosions a year—a scenario that – if ‘achieved’ – would inevitably lead to deaths. When asked not to use the word unfortunately by the interviewer, Malm replied, “Well, I want sabotage to happen on a much larger scale than it does now. I can’t guarantee that it won’t come with accidents.” While this unabashed rhetoric is just that—words—its natural progression leads to the death of innocent people, not just from the physical act, but the downstream effects associated with depriving people of the energy needed to heat or cool their homes and keep the lights on.
Colleges across the country have embraced both the film and the book’s message. Publicly funded universities, such as Ohio State and Arizona State universities, have included the book in required reading materials for some classes. Harvard University’s law school film society was slated to hold a screening of the movie and Q&A with the director. Are the future attorneys of this nation being taught that domestic terrorism is reasonable if for the ‘right’ cause?
The U.S. has already witnessed heated anti-pipeline demonstrations, notably the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in 2016. The protests gained significant notoriety due to social media, with videos amassing views in the tens of millions. Lucy Biggers, a former video producer for NowThis News, was one of the many people responsible for the protests’ online traction. Yet, in a recent opinion piece for The Free Press, Biggers reflected on regretting her role in helping the protests go viral, writing, “I called myself a journalist but really I was an early social media influencer, pushing a very specific point of view.”
Reflecting on the one-sided perspective she helped proliferate, Biggers recalled how, after the protests were over, she saw a video of the forty-eight million pounds of garbage left behind by the protesters. “Did I post a video of the cleanup? I did not. Why complicate the story of good vs. evil?” she writes in her article. Herein lies the issue with social media-based movements—the truth is often omitted on all sides. Biggers acknowledges what climate activists wont: fossil fuels have freed women from hours of labor, are singularly cost-effective and versatile, and make modern life possible. On the flip side, she notes, “the promised panacea of renewable energy…is nowhere near close,” and have their own “dark environmental footprint.”
Slogans, like Just Stop Oil, have morphed from reducing carbon emissions to ending down capitalism—much like Andreas Malm’s aforementioned goal. Is this the inevitable outcome of movements powered by social media? Did Lucy Biggers’ videos help get it all started? Our nation, and the West’s wellbeing, cannot rely on such youth maturation processes. Most people will not wake up and step out of the echo chamber their social media algorithms feed them. We must defend the lifeblood of our civilization—not with violence or ecoterrorism—but with civil discourse and logic. Our livelihoods depend on it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member