A far-left climate activist is calling for green agenda terrorists to take extreme action to “save the planet” by blowing up gas and oil pipelines.
Author and radical climate activist Andreas Malm laments that “unfortunately” there are not “a thousand pipeline explosions per year” currently.
However, the “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” writer argues that we could soon reach this “extreme level” of terrorism and insists that deaths are “inevitable” in the fight against the so-called “climate crisis.”
Malm made the shocking comments during an interview with the New York Times about his upcoming book, “Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown.”
At the top of the exchange, Malm was questioned on how “it’s hard to think that deaths don’t become inevitable if there is more sabotage” like blowing up pipelines.
“Sure, if you have a thousand pipeline explosions per year, if it takes on that extreme scale,” Malm answered.
“But we are some distance from that, unfortunately.”
When pressed on that response, Malm argued, “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.
“But what do I know? I haven’t personally blown up a pipeline, and I can’t foretell the future.”
Malm admitted that he has recently taken part in actions that have been “illegal” and “militant.”
David Marchese, the interviewer, then pushed back against his condoning of political violence in a democracy.
“We live in representative democracies where certain liberties are respected,” Marchese said.
“We vote for the policies and the people we want to represent us.
“And if we don’t get the things we want, it doesn’t give us license to then say, ‘We’re now engaging in destructive behavior.’ Right?
“Either we’re against political violence or not. We can’t say we’re for it when it’s something we care about and against it when it’s something we think is wrong.”
“Of course we can. Why not?” Malm pressed.
“That is moral hypocrisy,” the interviewer responded.
“I disagree,” Malm said.
He went on to suggest that violence could be used as a proper response when overthrowing a violent system such as slavery.
“The idea that if you object to your enemy’s use of a method, you therefore also have to reject your own use of this method would lead to absurd conclusions,” Malm said.
“The far right is very good at running electoral campaigns.
“Should we thereby conclude that we shouldn’t run electoral campaigns?”
He also revealed that he has shown his four-year-old child the film adaptation of his book.
“There were a couple of scenes that stayed with them, particularly when people were wounded,” Malm said.
“They found this fascinating.
“They know that their father is a little politically crazy if I can put it that way.”
The Times wrote in a note on the interview that Malm believes specifically in property violence, not in violence against people.
“Just to be explicit about this: Malm does not endorse or advocate any political violence that targets people,” the newspaper said.
His aim is violence against property.”
At one point, Malm said it would be “disastrous” if someone in the movement killed another person with a gun to advance the cause.
“Political history is replete with movements that have conducted sabotage without taking the next step,” he said.
“But the risk is there. One driver of that risk is that the climate crisis itself is exacerbating all the time.
“It’s hard-wired to get worse. So people might well get more desperate…
“We might smash things, which people are doing here and there, but no one is seriously considering that you should get a gun and shoot people…
“The point that’s important to make is that the reason that people contemplate escalation is that there are no risk-free options left.”
Malm, who wrote a book titled “How to Blow Up A Pipeline” in 2021, admitted that he does not live a “zero-carbon lifestyle.”
“No one who lives in a capitalist society can do so,” he claimed.
Malm added the climate movement would be in a very difficult position should President Donald Trump win the 2024 election.
“What should the climate movement do then?” he asked of the reaction to a Trump victory.
“Should it accept this as the outcome of a democratic election and protest in the mildest of forms?
“Or should it radicalize and consider something like property destruction?
“I admit that this is a difficult question, but I imagine that a measured response to it would need to take into account how democracy works in a country like the United States and whether allowing fossil-fuel companies to wreck the planet because they profit from it can count as a form of democracy and should therefore be respected.”
The New York Times previously published a guest essay by Malm in 2022 where he supported the disruptive tactics of the Just Stop Oil organization and promoted property destruction.