Whew. *takes deep breath*

I am going to respectfully disagree with @amywestervelt that armed revolution would be productive for reforming American society on climate change or anything else.

It'd be a reckless gamble in which terrible human cost is the only certainty.

THREAD

At a time of historic polarization, one shouldn't imagine for a moment that bypassing the the halls of government in pursuing revolution would be quick, easy, or peaceful.

In no way am I saying that large-scale civil protest would be bad btw - it should focus above all on...

...enacting *nonviolent* change *through* democratic institutions and policies, rather than overturning them.

As soon as one declares that the normal rules of a republic no longer apply, expect the militarized extreme right to accept the new status quo with enthusiasm.

Taking the Syrian Civil War as an example of possible outcomes:
- Rapid collapse of social services
- Those with means, especially wealthy, well-educated, flee the country asap after outbreak of violence.
- Women, minorities, and children massively vulnerable to atrocities

- Positive feedback for radicalization. Moderates do not last long in civil conflict.
- Lasting destruction of infrastructure
- Conflict can be prolonged (Syrian conflict now over 9 yrs old)
- Uncertain outcomes. (Syrian regime now appears likely to win war in the end).

And needless to say, colossal loss of life + human suffering among combatants + noncombatants.

So you have a pile of rubble + an ocean of blood, without any confidence your preferred flag will be flying over it in the end.

What solid foundation for decarbonization is that?

When the dust has settled years later, how much time will have been lost on building a clean energy society + leading global decarbonization?

I mean sure, wartime US emissions would plummet, but still not net zero nor in a way anyone would see as anything but an utter nightmare.

Note that by using the Syrian conflict as an example I am by no means asserting that the Syrian Revolution was wrong. The initial mvmt was peaceful, and only after thousands were killed and injured in violent government crackdowns did a general uprising begin.

Even as rhetorical flair, even as a means of "last resort", armed revolution is simply not an acceptable vehicle for climate policy, economic policy, or anything else.

Violence is only acceptable as self-defense of last resort in the face of violence.

That's violence of the guns-and-knives-in-your-face variety, not violence of the "oil extraction kind of counts as violence to me" variety, mind you.

I get it - our democratic institutions feel deadlocked, progress on so many key societal issues feels frozen.

But for every issue you or I care about - healthcare, climate change, corruption, housing, inequality, democracy, racism, sexism, education, hunger, infant mortality...

...armed conflict would degrade their status to an unspeakable level.

So when you say "we need a revolution" and someone asks "of the blood-in-the-streets variety?"

The answer should be immediate and emphatic.

"God no. That would be horrific. No, that kind of revolution is off the table, period."

Would hope that this would be common sense.

END