Leslie Cannold has had enough of being even-handed and presenting Both Sides Now. Now she’s cutting to the chase: what’s the right way to go? In Everyday Dilemmas, Dr Cannold brings her ethical training to your problems. Send your questions to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. She might even reply…

Dear Leslie,

I am beside myself with worry about the planet. Climate change is here but still no one is acting like the world is on fire, which it is — literally. I can’t keep going to protests and shouting slogans and waving signs when no one who has the power to do something is listening, when we are the ones who will be left here to swelter and starve. I don’t even feel confident enough about the future to have a child. It’s got to be time for more radical action.

Desperate in Fitzroy

Dear Desperate,

My poor child, I soooooo get why you are despairing and angry. My whole generation, and the baby boomers older than me, need a good hard shake for letting you and your peers down. Our response to the greatest moral and ecological challenge of our time has been impossibly slow and entirely insufficient. I’d plead for your forgiveness on behalf of us all but apologising suggests we’ve seen the error of our ways and intend to change to the degree and at the pace required, and so far — with our illustrious PM refusing to commit to even attending the 26th United Nation’s Climate Change Conference in Glasgow — there seems little risk of that happening.

So what should you do? What are you morally justified in doing, given the abject failure of more sedate and civilised approaches and the tiny window of time left for humanity to conquer the age-old and admittedly thorny problem of collective action to sort this out?

Radical action is warranted in my view — if it’s within strict limits. No violence. Not ever. Killing people can never be justified and arguably doesn’t even work.

So what do I mean by radical action? Andreas Malm’s concept of “intelligent sabotage” of fossil-fuel infrastructure is in the ballpark. Malm, a climate activist and senior lecturer at Lund University in Sweden, contends that the climate movement’s uniform commitment to non-violence robs it of the radical flank history shows is required to move the dial on deeply divisive social and economic issues.

My experience as an activist suggests the core of Malm’s argument is correct. That an effective social movement needs a radical flank, the true idealists willing to go to jail or even sacrifice their lives to end apartheid, deliver safe abortions or save the climate by going beyond the law and accepting the consequences. That’s called civil disobedience and it is a radical, courageous and highly moral response.

And while most climate-friendly decision-makers and Australians won’t go that far and may even disapprove of the tactics of their radical fellows, there is no question that the visible existence of climate radicals “holds out the tent”. These folks demonstrate the passion and commitment of some supporters of the climate movement and warn of what future leadership looks like if more centrist and moderate leadership fails.

If you were my adult child, I’d tell you how fearful I was of seeing you caught up with the criminal justice system and how hard I wished you could find another path. But ultimately, if you understood the consequences of your choice and saw it as the only way to truly make a stand, I’d give you my blessing and all the support I could.

Yours in spirit,

Leslie

Dear Leslie,

The company I work for did well during the pandemic but none of its super-profits have been shared with the workforce in any way that makes our lives better. I mean, thanks for the water bottle and one-off small-time bonus but I’d prefer the 20% permanent salary rise enjoyed by the head honchos. To get even, a mate and I have been helping ourselves to masks and stationery, and dialling back the mileage on the company car. I know it’s wrong, but why does it feel so right?

Bad Boy in the ’burbs

Dear Bad Boy,

Of course it feels good. Your employer has violated the basic ethical requirements of reciprocity, and you’re evening up the moral score.

The problem is that this way of doing it is both ineffective and wrong. It’s stealing and could get you fired or even caught up with the law. And when it does, you’ll have no good answer. Not to management or the cops, because two wrongs don’t make a right. And not to your similarly dudded and resentful colleagues. Because instead of using this moment of corporate immorality as an opportunity for meaningful communication with management as a gateway to change, you’ve squandered it on petty revenge, allowing corporate to dismiss you as a thief and ensuring that your legitimate beef goes out the door with you.

My advice? Pull back now, if you can and it’s not too late. And then, in the spirit of Fagin, I think you’d better think it out again.

Best,

Leslie

Send your dilemmas to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line and you could get a reply from Dr Cannold in this column. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity.