September 26, 2025 • 50 mins
Despite escalating climate disasters across the Global North - from deadly floods in Germany to devastating hurricanes in the United States - we're witnessing alarming rightward shifts instead of rational policy responses.
Countries experiencing climate catastrophes also often elect their most conservative governments shortly afterward, which suggests our traditional assumption that climate impacts drive climate action has fundamentally failed.
Tadzio Mueller, a prominent global climate activist, sees collapse as inevitable but also sees a future worth organizing for.
On this episode of Breaking Green, Mueller describes what he calls the Just Collapse Movement.
Text GIVE to 17162574187 to support Breaking Green's work lifting up the voices of those protecting forests, defending human rights and exposing false solutions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by Global
Justice Ecology Project.
On Breaking Green, we will talkwith activists and experts to
examine the intertwined issuesof social, ecological, and
economic injustice.
We will also explore some of themore outrageous proposals to
address climate andenvironmental crises that are
(00:22):
falsely being sold as green.
I am your host, Steve Taylor.
Dutch filmmaker Joris Postemarecently released his new film,
The System.
Joris believes that climatechange exists and that it is
man-made, and if the world is toremain livable, radical change
must happen.
The film, The System, asks thequestion if real change will
(00:45):
ever come.
It does so by following threenotable climate activists.
On this episode of BreakingGreen, we will talk with one of
those activists, Tadsio Mueller.
Tadsio Mueller is a lifelongclimate activist who now
believes that a loss ofrationality, along with a
worldwide right-wing shift,makes climate collapse
(01:07):
unavoidable.
He argues that we must now makea shift to strategies that
accept that inevitability whilepreserving our humanity.
Tadsio Mueller organizedcollapse camp, which occurred
this past August.
It brought approximately 1,000activists with various
backgrounds andintergenerational experience to
(01:27):
a collective in NortheastGermany to chart a new way
forward.
Those who convened believe thatcollapse is inevitable, but that
a future worth organizing for ispossible.
Todzierow Mueller, welcome toBreaking Green.
SPEAKER_01 (01:43):
Hi, it's really I'm really glad to be back.
SPEAKER_00 (01:45):
So the last time we spoke was in November of uh
2023, and we addressed yourclaim that there's an
inevitability of climatecollapse and and the rise of
fascism uh in with within thathorizon and the need to envision
(02:06):
a rational response.
So could we just sort of visitthat general concept because you
know it's been a while.
SPEAKER_01 (02:16):
I mean okay.
So here's here's the startingpitch.
I think we're all recognizing,either with sensing it without
really acknowledging it, or justreading it straight up in the
press, that the world is eitherburning or drowning.
I'm just gonna go with climatecollapse now and then its impact
on fascism.
There are other collapses,biodiversity, et cetera.
(02:37):
But I'm gonna just go withclimate collapse.
The world is burning ordrowning, or kind of trying to
recover from one before inbetween the other, before the
other happens.
Now, traditionally, we wouldhave assumed that the climate
crisis really hitting everydaylives in the global north would
lead to a more rational policyresponse.
(02:57):
Like I've been doing climatejustice work since 2007, 8.
I mean, other folks have beendoing it much longer.
But basically, even moderateclimate types, everybody
assumed, okay, we knew that oneof the reasons why there was no
popular support for climateaction in the global north was
that we weren't the ones soaffected by it.
The classic idea, what affectsyou is stuff you take care of.
What's happening to somebodyelse, you don't give a fuck
(03:18):
about.
So that was the initialassumption.
Like we had had Katrina, but youknow, it was still mostly in the
South.
Let's when I say it was still,I'm taking say, let's say Paris,
right?
2015.
The world says, yeah, super,super important issue.
And we realize nothing ishappening in the next few years,
2016, 17.
I mean, the the the it'simportant to also remember that
(03:39):
the the Obama and Bidenadministrations did not produce
any less fossil fuels than theTrump administrations.
Like sometimes we think, oh, andthen the fascists came and made
it all like no.
They basically whether whetherliberal, centrist, leftist,
conservative, hard right, hardleft, in capitalism, governments
tend to strive towards growth.
(04:00):
Growth means taxes, it meansjobs, it means every good shit,
it means surplus that you canuse to grease the wheels of
social compromise, in particularthe compromise between the rich
and poor in the global north.
Okay.
That was the situation.
And then we figured once theclimate crisis really hits in
the north, then we'll startwaking up.
Now, this is backed up by a lotof historic, like history of
(04:23):
social movements.
The people who are affected,like that's how, for example,
anti-nuclear struggles, right?
You could always get the peoplewho were directly affected
negatively by nuclear power,either by the extraction of
uranium or by the presence of apower plant or the presence of a
nuclear waste site.
It was always the ones who wereaffected.
In German, the word isbetroffenheit.
Those who were affected by aproblem could be mobilized.
(04:45):
Also, all of Solinsky communityorganizing.
The whole rationality of a lotof left and environmentalist
practice assumes precisely that.
Once people are affected by aproblem, they will deal with it.
If they're not personallyaffected by it, they won't deal
with it.
Okay.
But then 2018 and beyond, theclimate crisis really arrives in
the global north.
I mean, in Europe, 2018 was oneof those insanely hot summers
(05:07):
where thousands of people died.
2021, we had another one ofthose crazy summers.
And in Germany, we had floodsthat killed 120 people.
Now, like for Germany, that's acrazy shit high number.
Like, um, you know, forcountries with decent
infrastructure and so on, it'sto have like a public disaster
where 120 people die is totallyunheard of.
(05:29):
We had literally a week ofwall-to-wall coverage.
I remember there were like a fewdays when the news, 15 minutes,
were only that and then theweather.
So the climate catastrophearrives.
But what happens at the sametime?
This crazy green back,anti-green backlash.
So, whereas we traditionallyassumed that more climate crisis
(05:50):
would mean more climaterationality, what happened was
that there was actually anempirical connection that the
more climate crisis peopleexperienced, the more they
tended to turn rightwards.
In fact, countries that haveexperienced massive floods in
the past year, 2024, and hadelections shortly afterwards,
had the hardest right electionsever.
(06:11):
The US had the double whammyMilton and LN.
I mean, that should, I mean, notthat Kamala Harris was a good
climate candidate, but you know,that should have put some
pressure on Trump.
No, I think it actuallystrengthened him.
Austria, devastating floods,then delivered a parliament with
the strongest fascist partysince the last time the fascists
were in power.
No.
(06:31):
So rather than becoming morerational when all this climate
catastrophe happens, we seem tobecome more irrational.
We want to look away and findscapegoats.
And this is at the basis of myown kind of path from being a
climate activist to maybe now ajust collapse activist.
(06:51):
Because I've been doing thesetypes of actions since 2008.
I was part of organizing thefirst German climate camp, we
had learned from the Brits.
Then I was part of organizingthe Copenhagen COP15 protests,
the German um, you know,endigelende, those um coal pit
occupations with the whitehazmat suits that produced this
amazing aesthetic that maybepeople saw.
(07:12):
We had the super power, like wehad a super powerful Fridays for
Future movement.
Um so for like 12 years from2008 to 2020, I kept asking
society, hey, could youremember?
Could you remember that?
Because basically, although I'ma lefty radical, then we always
say, hey, when we do directaction, it gets the goods.
But a symbolic blockade of acoal pit isn't direct action
(07:34):
that gets the goods.
It is mediated politicalpractice.
Like, how would 10,000 climateradicals change German fossil
capitalism, which is a molecularsystem that exists fucking
everywhere, in our kitchen, inthe on the street.
Okay.
So the mechanism, thetransmission mechanism was
always we change public opinion,we do cool actions, we do big
demos, we change public opinion.
(07:56):
So whether it's a demo or anaction, the point is actually to
change public opinion, to remindsociety of this issue, to in a
way remind it of its promises.
Say the promises of the RioSummit, or the promises of the
Kyoto Protocol, or the promisesof Paris.
First, society likes to listento us.
Because in a way, still, yeah,you're right, kids.
Thanks for the reminder.
(08:17):
We we it it had dropped off ourto-do list.
Now that you are 100,000 peopleon the street, we'll we'll put
it um, you know, justessentially our demos were our
demonstrations were like, oh,uh, you know, just bumping this
up in your inbox.
That's like basically, I analyzeclimate activism as a
communicative relationshipbetween society and the climate
movement and or climate science,right?
(08:38):
So in this communicative fact,we're saying, all right, could
you please bump this up in yourinbox?
Society says, yes, absolutely,you're right.
And then we realize that theclimate crisis is hitting, that
it's not like in 20 years, andwe start realizing that doing
something about it wouldactually be kind of complicated.
I believe that we understoodthis during the first corona
lockdown.
(08:58):
And in Germany, this temporalitygoes different for like the
temporality of the climatediscourse is really different in
every country.
But Germany, until 2019, 2020,told itself that, hey, if we
protect the climate, we'd stillbe really rich.
And our lives would still go onas before.
Which is also something that theEnviros told society, because
they knew that the actual storywas too hard.
Which is like, guys, if we don'tchange everything about our
(09:20):
motor production and living,everything's gonna be fucked,
and you know, we're gonna be themost unjust assholes history has
ever seen, and history has seena whole bunch of unjust
assholes.
Okay.
So the the corona lockdownhappens, and I think society
understands at a like a gutterallevel that this is what the
future would look like if weactually protected the climate.
(09:41):
No fucking airplanes, verylittle transport on the street.
A lot less work, a lot lessconsumption, a lot less of
almost everything.
Now, the degrowth types, and I'ma degrowth type myself, we can
tell ourselves that, yeah, lessis more, but in capitalism, less
isn't more.
Consumption is the waycapitalism gets us to agree with
it.
It is also the way that thecapital circuit is closed.
(10:06):
It is basically having more wasgiving us more cheap stuff was
the way neoliberalism made usgave away our political rights.
Like consuming more cheap stuffwithout that, contemporary
capitalism cannot be imaginedwithout the gift of super cheap
consumption for the laboraristocracies in the north and
(10:28):
in the emerging powerfuleconomies.
That's the story, right?
And I think that after years andyears of self-deception during
the corona lockdown, on somelevel we just understood that.
Also, we were in general sooverwhelmed with all the
changes, the corona and theclimate and the migration and
then the war in Ukraine, blah,blah, blah, that we just went
like, you know what?
And back to the communicativerelationship.
Society was like, hey, climatemovement, shut the fuck up.
(10:51):
Social movements, progressivesocial movements, remind
societies largely of, hey, keepyour bloody promises.
And then we try and put ourpower on certain pressure points
to make sure that this actuallyhappens.
But that can't happen if all ofsociety responds to us with, no,
we don't want to hear about it.
We don't want to hear about thething, about us having destroyed
(11:11):
the world.
Like if you're parents of achild, you don't want to hear
about your child.
Like I think parents are in areal difficult situation right
now.
If you acknowledge reality, youhave a very hard conversation
with your kids ahead.
And I say this really not withany, this isn't, I'm not
gloating as a sort of, hey, Idon't have kids and it's your
problem.
I mean this from like a reallydeep, I I feel so much for
(11:35):
parents who have to decide howto have this conversation about
the future with kids who arefive, ten, twelve right now.
SPEAKER_00 (11:43):
Let's talk about collapse.
Uh you you you I I think you'vespoken of it as a physical and
social process.
SPEAKER_01 (11:51):
So traditionally the word collapse evokes visions of
total breakdown, of totalimmediate breakdown.
So more like um cultural symbolsthan physical realities.
If I say collapse, people thinkSt.
John's revelation and the beastwill and the seals will open if
you've seen some one movie oranother, where like that's
(12:13):
mentioned.
Or a hieronymous Bosch paintingor the day after tomorrow.
Now, what collapse, but that'snot the reality of collapse,
first of all, collapse is just asystems term.
A collapse in a system means adrastic reduction in the
functioning and complexity ofthat system such that it cannot
longer, can no longer functionand reproduce itself.
That can be temporary or can bepermanent.
(12:35):
So there's the big, there's onthe one hand, there's the
climate collapse, which is along process, which can take
decades, centuries, millennia,where the global climate leaves
a stable state and enters anunstable state, right?
Like the last 12,000 years ofhuman civilization, agriculture,
cities, internet, the gay scene,Netflix, everything has emerged
(12:56):
in that period of climaticstability, and we are leaving
that right now.
That's one collapse.
We're hearing about collapse ofecosystems, we're hearing about
collapse of Atlanticcirculations.
We're hearing about collapse onthe Iberian Peninsula, the huge
uh blackout, right?
That's the collapse of anelectricity system.
Um, transport systems are like,as far as I understand, the US
(13:17):
air transport, air travel systemis super close to collapse due
to uh underinvestment and laborproblems, et cetera, and so
forth.
So because our as individuals,our lives happen at the
intersection of so many systems,when I say collapse from the
subjective perspective, Iactually mean the progressive
disappearance of normality, theprogressive disappearance of
(13:39):
certainties.
Basically, collapse as a processmeans that the things that make
your life normal and predictablewill tend to disappear more and
more.
You at one point, at some pointyou won't know if there's food
in the supermarket, at somepoint you won't know if they'll
if water will come out of thetap.
(13:59):
At some point you won't know ifthe money system still works, if
if money still works, or if youcan still get money out of the
bank, or if the credit cards, orwhatever.
So collapse from us from theperspective of us living in this
world is just more and morestuff becoming weird, becoming
totally abnormal, becomingextraordinary.
(14:20):
And in this is also already theperspective of the new politics.
Right?
If I say the future is collapseand catastrophe, people first
say, well, okay, then we're justdone, right?
It's just over.
It's like, no, it's not, this isnot a Hollywood movie.
This is like a years,decades-long struggle in which
so much different shit is gonnahappen.
(14:40):
And and basically, so when Irealized that our climate
activism sort of had failed, Ientered a deep, deep depression.
And that I think I've talkedabout that.
And basically, um I'm not gonnadeal it.
It was I came close to my, I wasI came close to breaking because
I had literally lost the meaningof life.
I did not know what to do andwhy.
Because I just thought, okay,climate collapse, the fascists
are gonna win now.
(15:02):
And then I began to understandthat catastrophe or collapse is
actually if it's if it's aprocess that lasts longer than
just a minute, if it takes ifit's a day, or basically as soon
as collapse has a timeline, atemporality, a a space, a
temporal extension.
So that's what I'm trying tosay.
It becomes a space.
And if it's a space, thenthere's agency in that space.
(15:25):
There's I can do something inthat space.
The future will be harsh andbrutal.
But the question is how harshand brutal, and that's where the
agency lies.
If catastrophe is a space thathas a temporal and spatial
extension, then I can act inthat space.
I can intervene into that space.
Now, what has to happen in thatspace?
If the collapse is the certaindisappearance of certain things
(15:47):
that we need, food, water,da-da-da, then structures will
arise that will try to providethese needs, that will try to
fulfill these needs.
Every collapse that we know, ifwe look at the recent economic
collapses, uh Argentina in theearly zeros, uh, Greece in the
early teens, those are two thatI'm most aware of, but you could
come up with many examples.
(16:09):
In all of them, social networksarise to fill the gaps left by
collapsing systems.
If no water comes out of thetaps, then people will interact
with each other to try and bringwater together.
This, by the way, is asociological constant.
There aren't many of those.
The fascists always, the rightwing always tells us that in
catastrophe will rip eachother's heads off.
Funny enough, that's just nottrue.
(16:30):
I mean, in Rebecca Solnett, Ithink quite well known in the
US, wrote this beautiful book.
Um, I actually even have here aParadise Built in Hell.
And it really is an important.
She wrote this 15 years ago, andshe says, guys, when
catastrophes happen, peopleactually help each other.
Now, the job, and this isempirically true, now the job of
(16:50):
leftist organizing is then toextend that surplus of
solidarity that arises incatastrophe.
So here is where I find hope,even.
Because like the neoliberalshave created a world in which
there is no, like, especially inthe US, it's so so clear how
fascism arises in a societywhere nobody can take care of
(17:10):
each other anymore becauseeverybody is harry scared to
work 18 jobs and like doesn'thave that whole healthcare
thing, you know how that fucksus Europeans in the head, right?
I mean, right, it fucks yourlives, but it fucks us in
exactly.
Okay, so the the world thatwe've lived in for years and
decades is one where there'sless and less experience of
solidarity.
(17:31):
And what people like RebeccaSolnit and our new just collapse
movement are saying is that,hey, when there is more
catastrophe, there is also moresolidarity.
So our job is to organize that.
And what does that look like?
Well, I don't know if where youlive is going to be threatened
by floods, prepare to organizein such a way, organize in such
a way that when the flood comes,you can help other people.
(17:52):
That you're somebody and I knowpeople say we shouldn't use our
activism to replace disappearingstate structures.
That's a nice thing to saytheoretically, but like when
nobody is there to help, I wantto be there to help.
And something that I read inthis in the government pamphlet
once is unfortunately true.
The more we organize ourselvesto take care of ourselves, I
(18:15):
collectively, not individually,but collectively, the more
security and emergency services,emergency services can take care
of those who really need help.
Like, so if they don't have tolift me out of the apartment,
and I'm 49 years old and I canrun up and down the stairs, they
can lift an old lady in awheelchair out of the apartment.
So, and I know this is just thebeginning, but once I realized
that catastrophe is an is apolitical space in which we can
(18:37):
do stuff and for which the righthas been organizing and
preparing for for decades,that's when my depression ended.
SPEAKER_00 (18:45):
So let's talk a little bit about collapse camp.
What is collapse camp or whatwas collapse camp?
When did it happen?
How many people were there?
What expertise was broughtthere?
What happened?
SPEAKER_01 (18:57):
The main thing that we did was to start learning
practical skills that give usagency in catastrophic
situations.
There were workshops on umproducing medication ourselves.
Like I'm HIV positive and I'mvery worried that my medications
won't be delivered anymore.
Uh insulin is already a hugeproblem that maybe people can
relate better to.
(19:18):
It's you know, diabetes morewidespread than HIV.
But the problem is the thing,you know, breakdown in
production chains, you don'thave the stuff.
And I mean, without insulin,that's that's you you can die
pretty quickly.
Without my HIV meds, it can takebetween a year and several
years.
But you know, we had stuff thatI really was sad to miss.
Um workshops about radiocommunication.
(19:40):
Like what you and I arecommunicators.
What do we do when the internetis out?
Like, you know, one of part ofour political practice is
talking to people about stuff.
What do we do if ifcommunication breaks down?
There were global top standards,there was a two-day scenario,
sort of, I don't know whatthey're calling like a two-day
scenario organized by people whohad occupied organized occupy
(20:02):
sandy.
And and this is, allow me thatparenthesis.
When we talk about this type ofsolid, the German term right now
is solidarisches prepping, likeprepping together, not
right-wing prepping, butinter-literary prepping, but
prepping together.
Um people often think that I'mtalking about small-scale
solutions.
I'm talking about like a streetor maybe a neighborhood.
(20:25):
But when Hurricane Sandy hit NewYork and New Jersey in 2012, the
comrades from Occupy Wall Streettalked to folks who had
organized the common groundclinic after Hurricane Katrina
in New Orleans.
And those were Seattleorganizing anarchists.
And the Occupy Wall Streetpeople created Occupy Sandy,
(20:46):
which was a relief, a disasterrelief network that, in a report
by the American Department forHomeland Security, was said to
be more effective and largerscale than both the FEMA and the
American Red Cross efforts.
This is the scale of what we'retalking about, right?
This is not necessarily smallfry.
So we had a two-day scenario runby folks with direct organizing
(21:09):
experience in with Occupy Sandy.
We had an organization calledKADOS that provides a medical
relief work on the front line atin the Ukraine and in the get
genocide in Gaza.
They were teaching a two-dayclimate emergency responder
course that would allow thepeople who took that course to
interact formally with, likebasically when a catastrophe
(21:30):
happens, you can then go to thelocal FEMA office and be like,
hey, I took this course.
I'm actually a trained disasterhelper.
Let me help you out.
So certainly we can connect aclimate movement that is hated
by society back to society andbecome as a collapse movement.
We say, you know what, okay, youfucked up that climate thing.
Not water under the bridge, butnow there's another problem.
(21:51):
And we're not punishing, we'renot, yeah, water under, I'm
sorry, I just got the waterunder the bridge thing.
Um okay, we're not punishingyou, but we are now here to help
you because for us it was alwaysabout justice.
The the like the mitigationthing wasn't about pissing you
off, it was about justice.
And now trying to help eachother out in catastrophe is
about justice.
So this that basically we gottogether to enable people to
(22:15):
have agency in catastrophe.
We didn't just organize a newprotest camp, we charted a new
path.
Now, all the things that we aredoing there, other movements
have done before us.
This is not like queerself-defense isn't new.
Fonsion spacing isn't new.
We are standing on the shouldersof all the movements that have
come before us, and especiallymovements in the South.
(22:35):
Like there's another criticismthat we are a very northern
discourse.
Because, of course, collapse, Imean, in the Americas, collapse
has been enforced on the FirstNations for over 500 years.
So collapse like as a transitiveverb, I collapse you, so to
speak.
Um, but so these are exactly themovements we're learning.
Like basically, folks that havelived in catastrophe and
(22:58):
collapse.
I mean, what do you do in amajor city when a heat wave
comes and there's noelectricity?
I am sure that the movements inJakarta and Bombay and Mumbai
have have have an answer forthis, or have have multiple
answers for this, have havepractices for this.
And this is, I think what we didat the collapse camp, what was
new was that we basically wetook this whole idea of
(23:19):
preparing for disaster andcatastrophe.
We took it out of the right'shand and said, hey, this is
quite cool, and it's important,and it's kind of funky and fun,
and it gives hope.
And that's we gave, I think wewe gave that we charted the a
path, a path for progressivemovements forward.
SPEAKER_00 (23:39):
I don't know if you you you wrote this yourself, but
on Fleedlick Sabotage, yourwebsite, uh there on on the
article concerning CollapseCamp, you wrote, or someone
wrote, what remains is not justa precious memory, but a humming
hope that we've built something,a new beginning, a soft
structure, a way to face theunraveling reality, not alone
(24:04):
together.
So it sounds like a success.
SPEAKER_01 (24:11):
So this I was I was critical because that that was
that was one of the sentences wewordsmithed together.
We that was actually acollective text, and this is one
of the sentences that meant alot to us, and and I'm glad that
you picked it up.
Um yes, it was a success.
I mean, this there were we wemade some mistakes, which uh in
the sense of like as aproductive self-criticism, I'd
like to talk about one or two ofthose.
(24:33):
But fundamentally, I would sayit was a huge success.
For the people who were a partof it, it really I mean the the
the raw movement joy in thefaces of like of of the people
organizing the camp wheneverybody arrived and everything
worked out, is amazing tobehold, and that kind of stuff
(24:54):
drives me for years.
And to know that so many peopleare like, okay, what can we do?
Can we do next to the pointwhere we are overwhelmed, like
by all the what can we do next?
We're like, uh we don't know.
Can you maybe figure that out alittle bit yourselves?
So, yes, we think it was asuccess.
We opened a new path.
The and and if if you allow methat, I'm incredibly proud of
(25:18):
the work I did and my closefriend, like us in the
leadership team.
That we said we're gonna dothis, we had a certain vision,
and we said we're gonnaimplement that vision.
For example, it would have beenpossible for the camp to tilt
too far into a sort ofmilitaristic, let's prepare,
like basically a kind of justlike let's build fighting
(25:39):
brigades type camp.
Now, I have nothing per seagainst that, but we can imagine
the atmosphere of such a campbecoming too militaristic,
becoming too aggressive, andleaving out the whole
relationship building, the wholeemotional labor thing.
There was also a possibility forthe camp to tilt too much into
the what we from the kind ofmilitant wing in the organizing
process called uh dying happytogether, uh, which we were so
(26:02):
that was our uh our kind ofbitchy.
Well, that so like you know,there were these the skill and
the charactus of this thesethese two sides of tilting, and
we pushed it through in a waythat, and we, for example, we
didn't organize the camp as itis traditional in a big plenary
that then create where a bigplenary creates, empowers
working groups, and they reportback.
(26:22):
We had um we had like aleadership council of seven
people and and all therepresentative of the working
groups being represented.
So we had in that sense, wewent, we took steps away from
the horizontalism which uhdominated the movement where I
create where I came up.
Like I come from theglobalization movement, and it
was all right, remember uh earlyzeros, um Barbara, like uh there
(26:45):
was a piece in New Left Reviewtalking about anarchist
sensibilities being dominant inthe movement.
And we were all kind ofanarchists at the time.
So we were a lot lesshorizontalist than other
movement projects.
And I think, and so this is oneof the debates I want to open
about about leadership.
So I say that I'm really, reallyproud because I mean I was I
told my personal story a bit,and I basically dragged myself
(27:06):
from the bottom of a depressionwhere I was telling my random
lovers, just let's take drugsevery day until the end, because
that'll still be more fun thanfleeing from the fascists in 10
years.
Um, like from the absolutedepth, I sort of pulled myself
up.
I I did the emotional labor.
I developed a kind of likethrough learning from people, I
pulled together a strategy and astory and a narrative.
(27:30):
And then we pulled off thiscollapse camp.
So I'm not saying collapse campis I'm not saying I organize
collapse camp, I co-organize it.
But the story in which that madesense, I spent two years
telling.
And that was a story that like Itold, I did something like I
told my own story in a very in away that makes me very, very
vulnerable.
I talk about drugs anddepression, and I connected with
(27:52):
people and I gave people hope.
And that for a storyteller is II feel incredibly proud of what
I've done.
Now there are also people whoare telling me that the two
things.
One, we are being criticized forthe way we are communicating
with the climate movement, andthis is a criticism that falls
particularly at my feet.
(28:14):
My fellow sort of speaker, therewere two spokespeople for the
camp.
Cindy Peter was the other.
And um my argument has been thatwe have to organize this just
collapsed movement because theold climate movement cannot
deliver moments of empowermentanymore.
However, these organizationsstill exist and they still
organize.
(28:34):
Now, my the question I'm beingasked, and I'm I uh at lunch, uh
just half an hour before uh anhour before our conversation, by
a friend who doesn't want tomeet me for lunch tomorrow
because she said, You're toostressed right now, and I want
to criticize you.
So, from people very close tome, question they're asking,
Tadri, are you activelydemobilizing people by saying
(28:56):
that the transmission mechanismthat the climate movement uses
or relied on is broken?
And I'm actually really torn.
And I wanted to share this withyou because it's it's you know,
you're you're an experiencedcomrade, and in a way, this is
not my German residence chamber,but an international one.
So I'm really struggling withthis right now.
I am convinced that my analysisis correct.
The climate movement cannotfunction anymore and must
(29:18):
deliver moments ofdisempowerment and will thus be
counterproductive.
But is that an okay way tocommunicate between movements?
I I and I'm really I'm I I don'tI don't know at this point
because I'm convinced of thetruth of my analysis that there
are political actors right nowout there who are frustrated by
(29:41):
me telling a story thatundermines them.
And this is a really an So theway I've set this up for you
right now, how do you it's areally an honest.
I'd love to hear your thoughtson this.
SPEAKER_00 (29:53):
You're really putting me on the spot, Dodzio.
I am you are putting me on thespot.
I mean I it seems quite likelythat our modern systems at some
point there's going to bemassive failures.
And you said it's going to beover a period of time.
I I have a hard time envisioningthe current human the way we've
(30:16):
organized ourselves in the Northand in large economic powers is
sustainable.
And and I also accept that whenthis process, if it does occur,
and it and it seems somewhatinevitable, that that it is
going to be over a period oftime.
(30:38):
And I think it's fascinatingyour observation and or
assertion that during collapsethere is a surplus of um I can't
remember how you um solidarity.
SPEAKER_01 (30:52):
Of solidarity.
SPEAKER_00 (30:54):
And that maybe collapse is too important to to
surrender to fascism, thefascist vision.
Exactly.
But I can I I you know arethere's several several things.
I I come from a tradition in theUnited States I uh where I I I I
(31:16):
um was raised in um a Christiantradition that was very focused
on apocalypse.
And I think you referred to theuh prophecy.
St.
John's Yeah, St.
John's prophecy.
(31:36):
I I I feel like this discussionof of what do we do with the
children, do we tell them it isover?
And would would that beself-fulfilling prophecy?
So I have a concern.
I'm not sure.
You know, so so going into thisinterview, I was like, I really
don't want to personallyperpetuate what happened to me
(32:01):
because it's for for as a as ayoung person I had a hard time
seeing the future, you know, andit was because of that story
that was there.
SPEAKER_01 (32:10):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (32:11):
Yeah, very demotivating.
Like I mean, it was very in inwhat I was exposed to was very
real.
It wasn't speculative, it wasn'ttheological.
It's it's going to happenOctober 13th of next year, type
of thing.
SPEAKER_01 (32:22):
Okay, that right.
That's what I'm talking about.
That wing of Christianity.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (32:26):
So the rapture and the rapture and all that.
So I see a tension here.
I I I mean, there's a tensionhere.
So is there is there a way tocommunicate it as this is a
likely scenario, a possibleworlds, you know?
But I mean so I don't know.
Do do so I I can I can see howit is a bit inimical to you know
(32:52):
people trying to prevent climatedisaster and and still are
working under that.
I don't know how you square thatcircle.
SPEAKER_01 (33:01):
First of all, thank you for that great response.
Because the first thing it showsme is that what we said in our
closing text, we didn't giveenough space to this debate.
I've I now recognize that therewas a certain jealousy in
guarding our intellectual spacebecause we had fought so hard to
create this space where wedidn't constantly have to talk
(33:22):
to people about our what weconsider pretty certain uh
assumptions, like pretty certainassumptions.
And but your response really andduring the process of the camp,
as you know, sometimes one getsinto a bit of a group think and
just kind of like that inretrospect, that was not the
right decision.
We should have given more spaceto debating the fundamental
(33:43):
assumptions to give those whoare less comfortable with saying
this will certainly happen morespace and to recognize their
uncertainties as a legitimatepart of that collapse space.
Because there is, of course, onetiny problem, which is that if
you say collapse is the mostlikely scenario, let's just say
(34:03):
hypothetical numbers.
Let's say collapse is thelikeliest scenario at 90% and
non-collapse is at 10%.
A mind that wants to ignorecollapse will latch on the 10%
and ignore the 90%.
It's a little bit like I'm goingback to boyfriend examples.
If I tell you, okay, like thelast 15 dates, you were like,
okay, there was one date whereyou were a nice guy, but the
(34:24):
rest of the 14 dates, you wereshit to me.
You know what the boyfriendwould say, yeah, but honey,
look, uh you said I was the niceguy, so why are we having this
debate?
Like, did you not hear thesentence?
And the brain will literallysay, no, it didn't.
It heard it, but it deleted it.
Like, knowledge that you want toignore, it appears to your brain
when it searches that knowledgethat it says file not found.
So there is also a concretereason why we didn't open that
(34:47):
space for debate.
Because for us, it's also been avery stressful space, because in
that we've had to face.
I mean, you know, some some leftwe leftists can also be pretty
good at magical thinking.
I mean, I had a podcast debatewith Jan Goss, a very smart
young leftist here, and thatruns a great podcast, Future
Histories, and we got into areal fight.
Because he was challenging myassumptions, which was
(35:10):
legitimate, and I respect and Ire- overreacted.
But at some point he essentiallysaid, Well, if your theory
doesn't deliver my communisthope, then it must be wrong.
And he didn't, I'm and if helistens to this now, he'll be
fucking furious and probablyjustified me.
So but okay, no, that's whatI've heard.
That's not what he said, but Iheard at some point, hey, Taja,
your theory may be right, but itmakes me hopeless.
(35:32):
So I'm just gonna attack it.
Not because it's it's wrong, butbecause it makes me hopeless.
So there is a dynamic in thesedebates that sometimes makes
them incredibly unproductive,because maybe it's not the fact
that it's actually stillhypothesis, it's not the actual
uncertainty that makes peopleuncertain in deciding whether
(35:52):
collapse will come or not, butit's their desire to make, to
believe that it's not certain.
So so basically, if you don'twant to accept that collapse is
likely, there will not be asingle analytical argument I can
make that convinces you of that.
Because I have learned onething, and my feminist comrades
are laughing at me now, and Ithink that it took me 48 years
(36:15):
to understand that.
Traditionally, we think thatrational cognition comes before
and is superior to emotionalawareness or whatever.
But I've come to be certain thatwhat we cannot accept
emotionally as true, we cannotunderstand analytically.
So this is where it becomesdifficult.
But anyway, I totally yes, I uhI appreciate that you confirmed
(36:36):
our our sense here that it wasit was not a good idea in terms
of building a new movement thatis open to people to exclude the
possibility of uncertainty soradically from the program.
I mean, that wasn't that was notwhat we did, but yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (36:50):
Maybe it it it also makes sense, just from a sense
of mutual aid societies, torespond to increasing
catastrophes, that that thateven for those who don't believe
collapse is absolutely necessaryor are inevitable, that it does
make sense to work incommunities to respond to
(37:10):
increasing um crises.
If you call it crises and notcollapse, maybe there's a
broader tent.
SPEAKER_01 (37:19):
And this is the problem.
And this is really the problem,and this is not a rhetorical,
this really is the problem.
If I say, okay, while I'mcertain and it's totally
legitimate that you're notcertain, we can totally work
together on mutual aid.
In terms of the allocation ofscarce movement resources, and
one of the things that definesmovement social movements in the
literature is their relativeresource poverty.
(37:41):
If you look at how even thesocial movement is defined,
you're defined as aresource-poor actor compared to
other bigger institutions likelobbies, etc.
That means that we have limitedtime and money and et cetera,
and resources to allocate to alimited number of projects.
And I do believe that there areone or two things to learn from
capitalism.
And when I understood theprinciple of opportunity cost
(38:04):
calculation, I was blown away,which is, for people who haven't
heard it, is basically the costof something isn't the amount of
money you invest in it, but thedifference between the outcome
of the project you're investingin and the next best project you
didn't invest in, or the cost orthe value of something.
So that means that if we investour limited and scarce resources
(38:28):
into things where I know whereI'm certain, where I'm
convinced, or I have convincedmyself, that they cannot have a
positive effect, then thosewould be wasting resources from
a pool of scarce resources in asituation of significant time
pressure.
If I look at the changes in USsociety from 9-1124 to 9-11-25,
(38:53):
that's a year.
And holy mother of God, I don'tneed to German explain the US to
you.
Um so uh I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_00 (39:03):
I could use a little bit of that, you know.
SPEAKER_01 (39:06):
No, but look, it's just it's just you know, we're
just in shock.
Like we see the we see thevideos of ice, you know, of ice
thugs um behaving like the SA inthe streets, and we we're just
battled like we there's no it'sjust we are shocked, we are
saddened, all our hearts go outto you, and we wonder how the
fuck do they respond now?
They basically there's a lot ofshock seeing, especially folks
(39:28):
like me who've lived in the US,of seeing masked state terrorist
thugs in community.
Like I I can I'm sorry, there isno analysis if there's just pure
shock.
But what I'm saying is thingscan happen so fast.
So back to the point.
Do we I on some level, yes, bigtent.
Everybody do like in a way, theold globalization movement
(39:50):
approach, right?
The movement of movementapproach.
Oh my god, I just understoodsomething.
One of the reasons why I'mcritical of the big tent
approach is that's where I comefrom, the alter-globalization
movement was a big tent,everybody, the enviros, the the
the the healthcare people, thethe the the the the docker, the
dock workers, everybody wasthere, right?
The turtles and the themes andthe turtles.
(40:12):
Um and in the end, the variouspractices of these movements
didn't end up being particularlysynergetic.
The synergy came at those atthose at those um summit
protests because we had a commonenemy.
But here, if a whole bunch ofpeople go and protest in the
(40:32):
street saying, hey, protect theclimate more, I do think that
wastes resources and leadspeople down an emotionally
dangerous path towardsdepression because that would
involve claims that I am certainwill not be true, and now I'd
recognize something else.
I really am it's too much my ownstory because when I hear the
(40:56):
stories that these folks tellme, I hear myself from 10 years
ago.
Like in the movie, the systemthat you mentioned, um there is
a scene where I'm shown at a atan action nine years ago.
We're occupying a coal pit inthis phase class.
2016, we are at the height ofour power as Endegelende, and
(41:18):
I'm at the height of my arrogantcockiness.
So I'm like, I'm the I'm like,I'm shouting into the cameras,
this is the capitulation, likebecause there was no cops and we
were occupying all the tickets.
This is the capitulation of thefossil fuel industry.
And if they retreat, we'llfollow them from the pits to the
streets.
If they retreat to theboardrooms, we will.
(41:38):
I look at that guy and I hatehim.
I hate him because he toldhimself lies.
Now, I know that they weren'tnecessarily lies then, but in
retrospect, we like thestrategies that the anti that
the anti-coal and climatemovement used, they couldn't
have worked.
And they led me into adepression.
And right now I'm worried thatwe are leading other people into
(42:00):
a depression.
Now, I have found a path onwhich I know there to be hope.
So I tend to be a little bitlike, no, no, no, don't go that
path.
There is no hope there.
And then people feel attacked byme.
Basically, the some of some ofmy old climate comrades feel
just as attacked by the newcollapse movement as maybe the
emissions trading types feltwhen uh the climate justice
(42:23):
folks, you know, who brought ustogether, uh, uh Anne and Oren
and these people, like in theearly zeros, um, the climate
justice movement emergedactually as a criticism of
emissions trading and all thatclimate injustice.
And and in the late zeros, theemissions trading folks were
saying the exact same things tous radical climate justice types
that the climate types are nowtelling, telling me.
(42:45):
They're saying, hey, you'rebreaking the momentum of our
mobilization.
You're you're diffusing ourunity, you're you're weakening
us.
There is no unity, there is nomobilization, and we are already
totally weakened.
We are at a point of totaldefeat.
The institutions and strategiesthat we put our that we the the
the institutions and processesand policies that we focused our
(43:07):
strategic energies on have nochance of delivering what we
need them to deliver.
That doesn't mean that you can'tprevent, you can, for example,
that you can of course winvictories against highways,
against this plant, that pit.
That's absolutely possible.
And communities should defendthemselves.
We just shouldn't believe thatthat will change in any way the
development of global emissions.
And that takes us back, and andtherefore the climate collapse,
(43:30):
and that takes us back toresource investment.
I believe that it is wrong toinvest in strategies that have
failed.
But and this is Volanda BecauseI've invested so much of myself
in this strategy, I'm probablynot clear-headed enough right
now to make that judgment call.
(43:51):
I really I really mean that.
I'm not, I'm not pulling out ofthe debate, but I'm realizing
that I cannot uh distinguishright now clearly between my own
experience and what ispolitically right.
Does that make makes that makesense here?
SPEAKER_00 (44:05):
I think I think it it it it it suggests that you
you you value objectivity andyou understand that you're very
close to it right now.
But what's interesting to me,and I think one of the things
that's that that that that'sbeen very unique and valuable
and and and and and who knows, Imean, uh where where Claps Camp
(44:26):
leads is the space you'vecreated for people who have come
to believe like I said, I have ahard time believing that the
system's going to continue.
It's just you've created a spaceuh for people who look at this
(44:46):
and say, I I don't see systemicchange on the horizon.
I don't see I don't see that.
I don't see a happy ending.
I mean, w where do you go withthat?
You know, as you said earlier,you know, well, some people
choose to stay home.
(45:06):
You know?
Um so I I would have to confessthat, you know, sometimes
looking at the arc of of of thehistory of these climate
movements and and environmentald degradation during my
lifetime, it's it's not it's nota a trajectory where I say, hey,
we're on the right side ofhistory.
So and and and and if youbroaden out, I mean it's hard to
(45:29):
understand our to know whetherthere's really going to be
anything we can call history inthe future.
With AI, with with the waypolitical discourse is going,
how how how we're ripping apartacademic institutions in the
United States, uh, you know, andhow that could be a blueprint
for the future.
I mean, is there even going tobe history?
(45:50):
I mean, we've had this notion ofbeing on the right side of
history, the arc of history,this, that, and the other.
It doesn't it's not looking it'snot looking good.
SPEAKER_01 (45:59):
In the MLK said, or Dr.
King, as I think uh he's he's uhin the US more frequently
referred to what is it, themoral arc of history is long,
but it bends towards justice.
And in if the collapsehypothesis is correct, then the
moral arc of history is shortand bends towards fascism.
(46:20):
And um in a way that's the Ithink that's what since I've
engaged with climate change in2007, and I read Jared Diamond's
book Collapse, which hepublished in the mid-Zeros, and
which read about societalcollapse.
I that societies can collapse,that they can really break down,
(46:43):
and then maybe then there's ahistorical record of them, but
that they actually end.
You know, some people willsurvive somehow, but the
societies break down and end.
And I am at this point certainthat that will happen.
And you're right, in that sense,the space that we've created is
for those who have a near whowho think it is likely or nearly
certain that this will happenand who want to find ways to not
(47:07):
break under that truth or underthe weight of that.
Let's call it for now, from myperspective, realization, or a
hypothesis would be a little toobloodless at this point.
But that realization againnearly broke me.
And then I found that pathtowards hope.
And then together with others,we said, hey, check this out.
And a thousand people came.
Like, we didn't even do anyadvertising for this.
(47:30):
Like it was just a bunch ofsocial media accounts, my blog,
and a few people telling storiesat events and me reading my
book.
And like basically there was noand and and the spaces were like
oversubscribed.
We could have probably organizeda camp for 1,500 people if we'd
had the capacity or 2,000.
The interest is there becausepeople want to have a story that
(47:50):
doesn't tell them, that doesn'tfocus on low probability
positive outcomes, like anenergy transition, climate
justice, uh, a quick defeat ofthe fascist wave, but that
actually takes the darkscenarios as likely, says, okay,
if catastrophe is the newnormality, then let's understand
(48:13):
that space of catastrophe.
One of my research projects,should I ever have time again to
read books and stuff and think,is um to understand catastrophes
as spaces.
There's a book calledDisasterology, which I think is
one of the coolest titles ever.
And I want to understand howcatastrophes like traditionally
we've seen like there'snormality, then there's a
catastrophe that creates a spaceof emergency, a state of
(48:35):
exception where normal rulesdon't apply.
And then we go back tonormality.
But if now catastrophe becomesnormality, then that's the new
space, then that's no longer thestate of exception, but that's
the new normality.
How to find how to and I'll I'llquote: I have a I have a
political yoda by the name ofPer Pluske in Sweden.
And the question he asked me,and he taught me all this this
(48:58):
this from this strategy comesfrom him.
And the question he said, askyourself who you want to be when
catastrophe strikes.
Do you want to be the guy whoruns away, saves only himself,
takes his big car, and letseverybody else burn in the
house?
Or do you want to be the guy whoyou know creates rope ladders,
who makes sure that the baby onthe third floor is actually out,
(49:19):
who, when shit is done, tries,you know, and and and works with
the people from the house andbuilds a community and says,
hey, how do we take care of eachother's needs?
Which of those people do youwant to be?
And and for me, for me, it'slike that that is where where
where the hope lies.
Who do you want to be?
What do you need to be thatperson and then go and build it?
(49:40):
Whether the city you live in isgoing to be affected by floods
or heat waves, or if you're adiabetic or at the positive or
whatever it is, or you're youyou're or you know, you have
children whose whose future youwant to assure, or that whose
for whom you want to assure afuture where there are people,
(50:01):
good people, where there iscommunity and solidarity.
Like build the relations now.
It's not about supplies in yourcloset, it's about building
relations with people.
And that, which takes us back tothe strategic question of the
big tent.
Now, abstracting from thecollapse term for a moment.
I think that's what we all seeright now.
That the communities arecommunities that have links and
(50:23):
structures can resist all sortsof catastrophe.
Or, if not resist, you know,survive and come out, still a
community, still human, stilltogether.
SPEAKER_00 (50:34):
Tadseo Mueller, thank you for joining us on
Breaking Green.
It's been a pleasure to be back.
You have been listening toBreaking Green, a Global Justice
Ecology Project podcast.
To learn more about GlobalJustice Ecology Project, visit
Global JusticeEcology.org.
Breaking Green is made possibleby tax-deductible donations by
(50:58):
people like you.
Please help us lift up thevoices of those working to
protect forests, defend humanrights, and expose both
solutions.
Simply text GIV.
GIVE2 1716 257 4187.
That's 1716 257 4187.
Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by Global
Justice Ecology Project.
On Breaking Green, we will talkwith activists and experts to
examine the intertwined issuesof social, ecological, and
economic injustice.
We will also explore some of themore outrageous proposals to
address climate andenvironmental crises that are
(00:22):
falsely being sold as green.
I am your host, Steve Taylor.
Dutch filmmaker Joris Postemarecently released his new film,
The System.
Joris believes that climatechange exists and that it is
man-made, and if the world is toremain livable, radical change
must happen.
The film, The System, asks thequestion if real change will
(00:45):
ever come.
It does so by following threenotable climate activists.
On this episode of BreakingGreen, we will talk with one of
those activists, Tadsio Mueller.
Tadsio Mueller is a lifelongclimate activist who now
believes that a loss ofrationality, along with a
worldwide right-wing shift,makes climate collapse
(01:07):
unavoidable.
He argues that we must now makea shift to strategies that
accept that inevitability whilepreserving our humanity.
Tadsio Mueller organizedcollapse camp, which occurred
this past August.
It brought approximately 1,000activists with various
backgrounds andintergenerational experience to
(01:27):
a collective in NortheastGermany to chart a new way
forward.
Those who convened believe thatcollapse is inevitable, but that
a future worth organizing for ispossible.
Todzierow Mueller, welcome toBreaking Green.
SPEAKER_01 (01:43):
Hi, it's really I'm really glad to be back.
SPEAKER_00 (01:45):
So the last time we spoke was in November of uh
2023, and we addressed yourclaim that there's an
inevitability of climatecollapse and and the rise of
fascism uh in with within thathorizon and the need to envision
(02:06):
a rational response.
So could we just sort of visitthat general concept because you
know it's been a while.
SPEAKER_01 (02:16):
I mean okay.
So here's here's the startingpitch.
I think we're all recognizing,either with sensing it without
really acknowledging it, or justreading it straight up in the
press, that the world is eitherburning or drowning.
I'm just gonna go with climatecollapse now and then its impact
on fascism.
There are other collapses,biodiversity, et cetera.
(02:37):
But I'm gonna just go withclimate collapse.
The world is burning ordrowning, or kind of trying to
recover from one before inbetween the other, before the
other happens.
Now, traditionally, we wouldhave assumed that the climate
crisis really hitting everydaylives in the global north would
lead to a more rational policyresponse.
(02:57):
Like I've been doing climatejustice work since 2007, 8.
I mean, other folks have beendoing it much longer.
But basically, even moderateclimate types, everybody
assumed, okay, we knew that oneof the reasons why there was no
popular support for climateaction in the global north was
that we weren't the ones soaffected by it.
The classic idea, what affectsyou is stuff you take care of.
What's happening to somebodyelse, you don't give a fuck
(03:18):
about.
So that was the initialassumption.
Like we had had Katrina, but youknow, it was still mostly in the
South.
Let's when I say it was still,I'm taking say, let's say Paris,
right?
2015.
The world says, yeah, super,super important issue.
And we realize nothing ishappening in the next few years,
2016, 17.
I mean, the the the it'simportant to also remember that
(03:39):
the the Obama and Bidenadministrations did not produce
any less fossil fuels than theTrump administrations.
Like sometimes we think, oh, andthen the fascists came and made
it all like no.
They basically whether whetherliberal, centrist, leftist,
conservative, hard right, hardleft, in capitalism, governments
tend to strive towards growth.
(04:00):
Growth means taxes, it meansjobs, it means every good shit,
it means surplus that you canuse to grease the wheels of
social compromise, in particularthe compromise between the rich
and poor in the global north.
Okay.
That was the situation.
And then we figured once theclimate crisis really hits in
the north, then we'll startwaking up.
Now, this is backed up by a lotof historic, like history of
(04:23):
social movements.
The people who are affected,like that's how, for example,
anti-nuclear struggles, right?
You could always get the peoplewho were directly affected
negatively by nuclear power,either by the extraction of
uranium or by the presence of apower plant or the presence of a
nuclear waste site.
It was always the ones who wereaffected.
In German, the word isbetroffenheit.
Those who were affected by aproblem could be mobilized.
(04:45):
Also, all of Solinsky communityorganizing.
The whole rationality of a lotof left and environmentalist
practice assumes precisely that.
Once people are affected by aproblem, they will deal with it.
If they're not personallyaffected by it, they won't deal
with it.
Okay.
But then 2018 and beyond, theclimate crisis really arrives in
the global north.
I mean, in Europe, 2018 was oneof those insanely hot summers
(05:07):
where thousands of people died.
2021, we had another one ofthose crazy summers.
And in Germany, we had floodsthat killed 120 people.
Now, like for Germany, that's acrazy shit high number.
Like, um, you know, forcountries with decent
infrastructure and so on, it'sto have like a public disaster
where 120 people die is totallyunheard of.
(05:29):
We had literally a week ofwall-to-wall coverage.
I remember there were like a fewdays when the news, 15 minutes,
were only that and then theweather.
So the climate catastrophearrives.
But what happens at the sametime?
This crazy green back,anti-green backlash.
So, whereas we traditionallyassumed that more climate crisis
(05:50):
would mean more climaterationality, what happened was
that there was actually anempirical connection that the
more climate crisis peopleexperienced, the more they
tended to turn rightwards.
In fact, countries that haveexperienced massive floods in
the past year, 2024, and hadelections shortly afterwards,
had the hardest right electionsever.
(06:11):
The US had the double whammyMilton and LN.
I mean, that should, I mean, notthat Kamala Harris was a good
climate candidate, but you know,that should have put some
pressure on Trump.
No, I think it actuallystrengthened him.
Austria, devastating floods,then delivered a parliament with
the strongest fascist partysince the last time the fascists
were in power.
No.
(06:31):
So rather than becoming morerational when all this climate
catastrophe happens, we seem tobecome more irrational.
We want to look away and findscapegoats.
And this is at the basis of myown kind of path from being a
climate activist to maybe now ajust collapse activist.
(06:51):
Because I've been doing thesetypes of actions since 2008.
I was part of organizing thefirst German climate camp, we
had learned from the Brits.
Then I was part of organizingthe Copenhagen COP15 protests,
the German um, you know,endigelende, those um coal pit
occupations with the whitehazmat suits that produced this
amazing aesthetic that maybepeople saw.
(07:12):
We had the super power, like wehad a super powerful Fridays for
Future movement.
Um so for like 12 years from2008 to 2020, I kept asking
society, hey, could youremember?
Could you remember that?
Because basically, although I'ma lefty radical, then we always
say, hey, when we do directaction, it gets the goods.
But a symbolic blockade of acoal pit isn't direct action
(07:34):
that gets the goods.
It is mediated politicalpractice.
Like, how would 10,000 climateradicals change German fossil
capitalism, which is a molecularsystem that exists fucking
everywhere, in our kitchen, inthe on the street.
Okay.
So the mechanism, thetransmission mechanism was
always we change public opinion,we do cool actions, we do big
demos, we change public opinion.
(07:56):
So whether it's a demo or anaction, the point is actually to
change public opinion, to remindsociety of this issue, to in a
way remind it of its promises.
Say the promises of the RioSummit, or the promises of the
Kyoto Protocol, or the promisesof Paris.
First, society likes to listento us.
Because in a way, still, yeah,you're right, kids.
Thanks for the reminder.
(08:17):
We we it it had dropped off ourto-do list.
Now that you are 100,000 peopleon the street, we'll we'll put
it um, you know, justessentially our demos were our
demonstrations were like, oh,uh, you know, just bumping this
up in your inbox.
That's like basically, I analyzeclimate activism as a
communicative relationshipbetween society and the climate
movement and or climate science,right?
(08:38):
So in this communicative fact,we're saying, all right, could
you please bump this up in yourinbox?
Society says, yes, absolutely,you're right.
And then we realize that theclimate crisis is hitting, that
it's not like in 20 years, andwe start realizing that doing
something about it wouldactually be kind of complicated.
I believe that we understoodthis during the first corona
lockdown.
(08:58):
And in Germany, this temporalitygoes different for like the
temporality of the climatediscourse is really different in
every country.
But Germany, until 2019, 2020,told itself that, hey, if we
protect the climate, we'd stillbe really rich.
And our lives would still go onas before.
Which is also something that theEnviros told society, because
they knew that the actual storywas too hard.
Which is like, guys, if we don'tchange everything about our
(09:20):
motor production and living,everything's gonna be fucked,
and you know, we're gonna be themost unjust assholes history has
ever seen, and history has seena whole bunch of unjust
assholes.
Okay.
So the the corona lockdownhappens, and I think society
understands at a like a gutterallevel that this is what the
future would look like if weactually protected the climate.
(09:41):
No fucking airplanes, verylittle transport on the street.
A lot less work, a lot lessconsumption, a lot less of
almost everything.
Now, the degrowth types, and I'ma degrowth type myself, we can
tell ourselves that, yeah, lessis more, but in capitalism, less
isn't more.
Consumption is the waycapitalism gets us to agree with
it.
It is also the way that thecapital circuit is closed.
(10:06):
It is basically having more wasgiving us more cheap stuff was
the way neoliberalism made usgave away our political rights.
Like consuming more cheap stuffwithout that, contemporary
capitalism cannot be imaginedwithout the gift of super cheap
consumption for the laboraristocracies in the north and
(10:28):
in the emerging powerfuleconomies.
That's the story, right?
And I think that after years andyears of self-deception during
the corona lockdown, on somelevel we just understood that.
Also, we were in general sooverwhelmed with all the
changes, the corona and theclimate and the migration and
then the war in Ukraine, blah,blah, blah, that we just went
like, you know what?
And back to the communicativerelationship.
Society was like, hey, climatemovement, shut the fuck up.
(10:51):
Social movements, progressivesocial movements, remind
societies largely of, hey, keepyour bloody promises.
And then we try and put ourpower on certain pressure points
to make sure that this actuallyhappens.
But that can't happen if all ofsociety responds to us with, no,
we don't want to hear about it.
We don't want to hear about thething, about us having destroyed
(11:11):
the world.
Like if you're parents of achild, you don't want to hear
about your child.
Like I think parents are in areal difficult situation right
now.
If you acknowledge reality, youhave a very hard conversation
with your kids ahead.
And I say this really not withany, this isn't, I'm not
gloating as a sort of, hey, Idon't have kids and it's your
problem.
I mean this from like a reallydeep, I I feel so much for
(11:35):
parents who have to decide howto have this conversation about
the future with kids who arefive, ten, twelve right now.
SPEAKER_00 (11:43):
Let's talk about collapse.
Uh you you you I I think you'vespoken of it as a physical and
social process.
SPEAKER_01 (11:51):
So traditionally the word collapse evokes visions of
total breakdown, of totalimmediate breakdown.
So more like um cultural symbolsthan physical realities.
If I say collapse, people thinkSt.
John's revelation and the beastwill and the seals will open if
you've seen some one movie oranother, where like that's
(12:13):
mentioned.
Or a hieronymous Bosch paintingor the day after tomorrow.
Now, what collapse, but that'snot the reality of collapse,
first of all, collapse is just asystems term.
A collapse in a system means adrastic reduction in the
functioning and complexity ofthat system such that it cannot
longer, can no longer functionand reproduce itself.
That can be temporary or can bepermanent.
(12:35):
So there's the big, there's onthe one hand, there's the
climate collapse, which is along process, which can take
decades, centuries, millennia,where the global climate leaves
a stable state and enters anunstable state, right?
Like the last 12,000 years ofhuman civilization, agriculture,
cities, internet, the gay scene,Netflix, everything has emerged
(12:56):
in that period of climaticstability, and we are leaving
that right now.
That's one collapse.
We're hearing about collapse ofecosystems, we're hearing about
collapse of Atlanticcirculations.
We're hearing about collapse onthe Iberian Peninsula, the huge
uh blackout, right?
That's the collapse of anelectricity system.
Um, transport systems are like,as far as I understand, the US
(13:17):
air transport, air travel systemis super close to collapse due
to uh underinvestment and laborproblems, et cetera, and so
forth.
So because our as individuals,our lives happen at the
intersection of so many systems,when I say collapse from the
subjective perspective, Iactually mean the progressive
disappearance of normality, theprogressive disappearance of
(13:39):
certainties.
Basically, collapse as a processmeans that the things that make
your life normal and predictablewill tend to disappear more and
more.
You at one point, at some pointyou won't know if there's food
in the supermarket, at somepoint you won't know if they'll
if water will come out of thetap.
(13:59):
At some point you won't know ifthe money system still works, if
if money still works, or if youcan still get money out of the
bank, or if the credit cards, orwhatever.
So collapse from us from theperspective of us living in this
world is just more and morestuff becoming weird, becoming
totally abnormal, becomingextraordinary.
(14:20):
And in this is also already theperspective of the new politics.
Right?
If I say the future is collapseand catastrophe, people first
say, well, okay, then we're justdone, right?
It's just over.
It's like, no, it's not, this isnot a Hollywood movie.
This is like a years,decades-long struggle in which
so much different shit is gonnahappen.
(14:40):
And and basically, so when Irealized that our climate
activism sort of had failed, Ientered a deep, deep depression.
And that I think I've talkedabout that.
And basically, um I'm not gonnadeal it.
It was I came close to my, I wasI came close to breaking because
I had literally lost the meaningof life.
I did not know what to do andwhy.
Because I just thought, okay,climate collapse, the fascists
are gonna win now.
(15:02):
And then I began to understandthat catastrophe or collapse is
actually if it's if it's aprocess that lasts longer than
just a minute, if it takes ifit's a day, or basically as soon
as collapse has a timeline, atemporality, a a space, a
temporal extension.
So that's what I'm trying tosay.
It becomes a space.
And if it's a space, thenthere's agency in that space.
(15:25):
There's I can do something inthat space.
The future will be harsh andbrutal.
But the question is how harshand brutal, and that's where the
agency lies.
If catastrophe is a space thathas a temporal and spatial
extension, then I can act inthat space.
I can intervene into that space.
Now, what has to happen in thatspace?
If the collapse is the certaindisappearance of certain things
(15:47):
that we need, food, water,da-da-da, then structures will
arise that will try to providethese needs, that will try to
fulfill these needs.
Every collapse that we know, ifwe look at the recent economic
collapses, uh Argentina in theearly zeros, uh, Greece in the
early teens, those are two thatI'm most aware of, but you could
come up with many examples.
(16:09):
In all of them, social networksarise to fill the gaps left by
collapsing systems.
If no water comes out of thetaps, then people will interact
with each other to try and bringwater together.
This, by the way, is asociological constant.
There aren't many of those.
The fascists always, the rightwing always tells us that in
catastrophe will rip eachother's heads off.
Funny enough, that's just nottrue.
(16:30):
I mean, in Rebecca Solnett, Ithink quite well known in the
US, wrote this beautiful book.
Um, I actually even have here aParadise Built in Hell.
And it really is an important.
She wrote this 15 years ago, andshe says, guys, when
catastrophes happen, peopleactually help each other.
Now, the job, and this isempirically true, now the job of
(16:50):
leftist organizing is then toextend that surplus of
solidarity that arises incatastrophe.
So here is where I find hope,even.
Because like the neoliberalshave created a world in which
there is no, like, especially inthe US, it's so so clear how
fascism arises in a societywhere nobody can take care of
(17:10):
each other anymore becauseeverybody is harry scared to
work 18 jobs and like doesn'thave that whole healthcare
thing, you know how that fucksus Europeans in the head, right?
I mean, right, it fucks yourlives, but it fucks us in
exactly.
Okay, so the the world thatwe've lived in for years and
decades is one where there'sless and less experience of
solidarity.
(17:31):
And what people like RebeccaSolnit and our new just collapse
movement are saying is that,hey, when there is more
catastrophe, there is also moresolidarity.
So our job is to organize that.
And what does that look like?
Well, I don't know if where youlive is going to be threatened
by floods, prepare to organizein such a way, organize in such
a way that when the flood comes,you can help other people.
(17:52):
That you're somebody and I knowpeople say we shouldn't use our
activism to replace disappearingstate structures.
That's a nice thing to saytheoretically, but like when
nobody is there to help, I wantto be there to help.
And something that I read inthis in the government pamphlet
once is unfortunately true.
The more we organize ourselvesto take care of ourselves, I
(18:15):
collectively, not individually,but collectively, the more
security and emergency services,emergency services can take care
of those who really need help.
Like, so if they don't have tolift me out of the apartment,
and I'm 49 years old and I canrun up and down the stairs, they
can lift an old lady in awheelchair out of the apartment.
So, and I know this is just thebeginning, but once I realized
that catastrophe is an is apolitical space in which we can
(18:37):
do stuff and for which the righthas been organizing and
preparing for for decades,that's when my depression ended.
SPEAKER_00 (18:45):
So let's talk a little bit about collapse camp.
What is collapse camp or whatwas collapse camp?
When did it happen?
How many people were there?
What expertise was broughtthere?
What happened?
SPEAKER_01 (18:57):
The main thing that we did was to start learning
practical skills that give usagency in catastrophic
situations.
There were workshops on umproducing medication ourselves.
Like I'm HIV positive and I'mvery worried that my medications
won't be delivered anymore.
Uh insulin is already a hugeproblem that maybe people can
relate better to.
(19:18):
It's you know, diabetes morewidespread than HIV.
But the problem is the thing,you know, breakdown in
production chains, you don'thave the stuff.
And I mean, without insulin,that's that's you you can die
pretty quickly.
Without my HIV meds, it can takebetween a year and several
years.
But you know, we had stuff thatI really was sad to miss.
Um workshops about radiocommunication.
(19:40):
Like what you and I arecommunicators.
What do we do when the internetis out?
Like, you know, one of part ofour political practice is
talking to people about stuff.
What do we do if ifcommunication breaks down?
There were global top standards,there was a two-day scenario,
sort of, I don't know whatthey're calling like a two-day
scenario organized by people whohad occupied organized occupy
(20:02):
sandy.
And and this is, allow me thatparenthesis.
When we talk about this type ofsolid, the German term right now
is solidarisches prepping, likeprepping together, not
right-wing prepping, butinter-literary prepping, but
prepping together.
Um people often think that I'mtalking about small-scale
solutions.
I'm talking about like a streetor maybe a neighborhood.
(20:25):
But when Hurricane Sandy hit NewYork and New Jersey in 2012, the
comrades from Occupy Wall Streettalked to folks who had
organized the common groundclinic after Hurricane Katrina
in New Orleans.
And those were Seattleorganizing anarchists.
And the Occupy Wall Streetpeople created Occupy Sandy,
(20:46):
which was a relief, a disasterrelief network that, in a report
by the American Department forHomeland Security, was said to
be more effective and largerscale than both the FEMA and the
American Red Cross efforts.
This is the scale of what we'retalking about, right?
This is not necessarily smallfry.
So we had a two-day scenario runby folks with direct organizing
(21:09):
experience in with Occupy Sandy.
We had an organization calledKADOS that provides a medical
relief work on the front line atin the Ukraine and in the get
genocide in Gaza.
They were teaching a two-dayclimate emergency responder
course that would allow thepeople who took that course to
interact formally with, likebasically when a catastrophe
(21:30):
happens, you can then go to thelocal FEMA office and be like,
hey, I took this course.
I'm actually a trained disasterhelper.
Let me help you out.
So certainly we can connect aclimate movement that is hated
by society back to society andbecome as a collapse movement.
We say, you know what, okay, youfucked up that climate thing.
Not water under the bridge, butnow there's another problem.
(21:51):
And we're not punishing, we'renot, yeah, water under, I'm
sorry, I just got the waterunder the bridge thing.
Um okay, we're not punishingyou, but we are now here to help
you because for us it was alwaysabout justice.
The the like the mitigationthing wasn't about pissing you
off, it was about justice.
And now trying to help eachother out in catastrophe is
about justice.
So this that basically we gottogether to enable people to
(22:15):
have agency in catastrophe.
We didn't just organize a newprotest camp, we charted a new
path.
Now, all the things that we aredoing there, other movements
have done before us.
This is not like queerself-defense isn't new.
Fonsion spacing isn't new.
We are standing on the shouldersof all the movements that have
come before us, and especiallymovements in the South.
(22:35):
Like there's another criticismthat we are a very northern
discourse.
Because, of course, collapse, Imean, in the Americas, collapse
has been enforced on the FirstNations for over 500 years.
So collapse like as a transitiveverb, I collapse you, so to
speak.
Um, but so these are exactly themovements we're learning.
Like basically, folks that havelived in catastrophe and
(22:58):
collapse.
I mean, what do you do in amajor city when a heat wave
comes and there's noelectricity?
I am sure that the movements inJakarta and Bombay and Mumbai
have have have an answer forthis, or have have multiple
answers for this, have havepractices for this.
And this is, I think what we didat the collapse camp, what was
new was that we basically wetook this whole idea of
(23:19):
preparing for disaster andcatastrophe.
We took it out of the right'shand and said, hey, this is
quite cool, and it's important,and it's kind of funky and fun,
and it gives hope.
And that's we gave, I think wewe gave that we charted the a
path, a path for progressivemovements forward.
SPEAKER_00 (23:39):
I don't know if you you you wrote this yourself, but
on Fleedlick Sabotage, yourwebsite, uh there on on the
article concerning CollapseCamp, you wrote, or someone
wrote, what remains is not justa precious memory, but a humming
hope that we've built something,a new beginning, a soft
structure, a way to face theunraveling reality, not alone
(24:04):
together.
So it sounds like a success.
SPEAKER_01 (24:11):
So this I was I was critical because that that was
that was one of the sentences wewordsmithed together.
We that was actually acollective text, and this is one
of the sentences that meant alot to us, and and I'm glad that
you picked it up.
Um yes, it was a success.
I mean, this there were we wemade some mistakes, which uh in
the sense of like as aproductive self-criticism, I'd
like to talk about one or two ofthose.
(24:33):
But fundamentally, I would sayit was a huge success.
For the people who were a partof it, it really I mean the the
the raw movement joy in thefaces of like of of the people
organizing the camp wheneverybody arrived and everything
worked out, is amazing tobehold, and that kind of stuff
(24:54):
drives me for years.
And to know that so many peopleare like, okay, what can we do?
Can we do next to the pointwhere we are overwhelmed, like
by all the what can we do next?
We're like, uh we don't know.
Can you maybe figure that out alittle bit yourselves?
So, yes, we think it was asuccess.
We opened a new path.
The and and if if you allow methat, I'm incredibly proud of
(25:18):
the work I did and my closefriend, like us in the
leadership team.
That we said we're gonna dothis, we had a certain vision,
and we said we're gonnaimplement that vision.
For example, it would have beenpossible for the camp to tilt
too far into a sort ofmilitaristic, let's prepare,
like basically a kind of justlike let's build fighting
(25:39):
brigades type camp.
Now, I have nothing per seagainst that, but we can imagine
the atmosphere of such a campbecoming too militaristic,
becoming too aggressive, andleaving out the whole
relationship building, the wholeemotional labor thing.
There was also a possibility forthe camp to tilt too much into
the what we from the kind ofmilitant wing in the organizing
process called uh dying happytogether, uh, which we were so
(26:02):
that was our uh our kind ofbitchy.
Well, that so like you know,there were these the skill and
the charactus of this thesethese two sides of tilting, and
we pushed it through in a waythat, and we, for example, we
didn't organize the camp as itis traditional in a big plenary
that then create where a bigplenary creates, empowers
working groups, and they reportback.
(26:22):
We had um we had like aleadership council of seven
people and and all therepresentative of the working
groups being represented.
So we had in that sense, wewent, we took steps away from
the horizontalism which uhdominated the movement where I
create where I came up.
Like I come from theglobalization movement, and it
was all right, remember uh earlyzeros, um Barbara, like uh there
(26:45):
was a piece in New Left Reviewtalking about anarchist
sensibilities being dominant inthe movement.
And we were all kind ofanarchists at the time.
So we were a lot lesshorizontalist than other
movement projects.
And I think, and so this is oneof the debates I want to open
about about leadership.
So I say that I'm really, reallyproud because I mean I was I
told my personal story a bit,and I basically dragged myself
(27:06):
from the bottom of a depressionwhere I was telling my random
lovers, just let's take drugsevery day until the end, because
that'll still be more fun thanfleeing from the fascists in 10
years.
Um, like from the absolutedepth, I sort of pulled myself
up.
I I did the emotional labor.
I developed a kind of likethrough learning from people, I
pulled together a strategy and astory and a narrative.
(27:30):
And then we pulled off thiscollapse camp.
So I'm not saying collapse campis I'm not saying I organize
collapse camp, I co-organize it.
But the story in which that madesense, I spent two years
telling.
And that was a story that like Itold, I did something like I
told my own story in a very in away that makes me very, very
vulnerable.
I talk about drugs anddepression, and I connected with
(27:52):
people and I gave people hope.
And that for a storyteller is II feel incredibly proud of what
I've done.
Now there are also people whoare telling me that the two
things.
One, we are being criticized forthe way we are communicating
with the climate movement, andthis is a criticism that falls
particularly at my feet.
(28:14):
My fellow sort of speaker, therewere two spokespeople for the
camp.
Cindy Peter was the other.
And um my argument has been thatwe have to organize this just
collapsed movement because theold climate movement cannot
deliver moments of empowermentanymore.
However, these organizationsstill exist and they still
organize.
(28:34):
Now, my the question I'm beingasked, and I'm I uh at lunch, uh
just half an hour before uh anhour before our conversation, by
a friend who doesn't want tomeet me for lunch tomorrow
because she said, You're toostressed right now, and I want
to criticize you.
So, from people very close tome, question they're asking,
Tadri, are you activelydemobilizing people by saying
(28:56):
that the transmission mechanismthat the climate movement uses
or relied on is broken?
And I'm actually really torn.
And I wanted to share this withyou because it's it's you know,
you're you're an experiencedcomrade, and in a way, this is
not my German residence chamber,but an international one.
So I'm really struggling withthis right now.
I am convinced that my analysisis correct.
The climate movement cannotfunction anymore and must
(29:18):
deliver moments ofdisempowerment and will thus be
counterproductive.
But is that an okay way tocommunicate between movements?
I I and I'm really I'm I I don'tI don't know at this point
because I'm convinced of thetruth of my analysis that there
are political actors right nowout there who are frustrated by
(29:41):
me telling a story thatundermines them.
And this is a really an So theway I've set this up for you
right now, how do you it's areally an honest.
I'd love to hear your thoughtson this.
SPEAKER_00 (29:53):
You're really putting me on the spot, Dodzio.
I am you are putting me on thespot.
I mean I it seems quite likelythat our modern systems at some
point there's going to bemassive failures.
And you said it's going to beover a period of time.
I I have a hard time envisioningthe current human the way we've
(30:16):
organized ourselves in the Northand in large economic powers is
sustainable.
And and I also accept that whenthis process, if it does occur,
and it and it seems somewhatinevitable, that that it is
going to be over a period oftime.
(30:38):
And I think it's fascinatingyour observation and or
assertion that during collapsethere is a surplus of um I can't
remember how you um solidarity.
SPEAKER_01 (30:52):
Of solidarity.
SPEAKER_00 (30:54):
And that maybe collapse is too important to to
surrender to fascism, thefascist vision.
Exactly.
But I can I I you know arethere's several several things.
I I come from a tradition in theUnited States I uh where I I I I
(31:16):
um was raised in um a Christiantradition that was very focused
on apocalypse.
And I think you referred to theuh prophecy.
St.
John's Yeah, St.
John's prophecy.
(31:36):
I I I feel like this discussionof of what do we do with the
children, do we tell them it isover?
And would would that beself-fulfilling prophecy?
So I have a concern.
I'm not sure.
You know, so so going into thisinterview, I was like, I really
don't want to personallyperpetuate what happened to me
(32:01):
because it's for for as a as ayoung person I had a hard time
seeing the future, you know, andit was because of that story
that was there.
SPEAKER_01 (32:10):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (32:11):
Yeah, very demotivating.
Like I mean, it was very in inwhat I was exposed to was very
real.
It wasn't speculative, it wasn'ttheological.
It's it's going to happenOctober 13th of next year, type
of thing.
SPEAKER_01 (32:22):
Okay, that right.
That's what I'm talking about.
That wing of Christianity.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (32:26):
So the rapture and the rapture and all that.
So I see a tension here.
I I I mean, there's a tensionhere.
So is there is there a way tocommunicate it as this is a
likely scenario, a possibleworlds, you know?
But I mean so I don't know.
Do do so I I can I can see howit is a bit inimical to you know
(32:52):
people trying to prevent climatedisaster and and still are
working under that.
I don't know how you square thatcircle.
SPEAKER_01 (33:01):
First of all, thank you for that great response.
Because the first thing it showsme is that what we said in our
closing text, we didn't giveenough space to this debate.
I've I now recognize that therewas a certain jealousy in
guarding our intellectual spacebecause we had fought so hard to
create this space where wedidn't constantly have to talk
(33:22):
to people about our what weconsider pretty certain uh
assumptions, like pretty certainassumptions.
And but your response really andduring the process of the camp,
as you know, sometimes one getsinto a bit of a group think and
just kind of like that inretrospect, that was not the
right decision.
We should have given more spaceto debating the fundamental
(33:43):
assumptions to give those whoare less comfortable with saying
this will certainly happen morespace and to recognize their
uncertainties as a legitimatepart of that collapse space.
Because there is, of course, onetiny problem, which is that if
you say collapse is the mostlikely scenario, let's just say
(34:03):
hypothetical numbers.
Let's say collapse is thelikeliest scenario at 90% and
non-collapse is at 10%.
A mind that wants to ignorecollapse will latch on the 10%
and ignore the 90%.
It's a little bit like I'm goingback to boyfriend examples.
If I tell you, okay, like thelast 15 dates, you were like,
okay, there was one date whereyou were a nice guy, but the
(34:24):
rest of the 14 dates, you wereshit to me.
You know what the boyfriendwould say, yeah, but honey,
look, uh you said I was the niceguy, so why are we having this
debate?
Like, did you not hear thesentence?
And the brain will literallysay, no, it didn't.
It heard it, but it deleted it.
Like, knowledge that you want toignore, it appears to your brain
when it searches that knowledgethat it says file not found.
So there is also a concretereason why we didn't open that
(34:47):
space for debate.
Because for us, it's also been avery stressful space, because in
that we've had to face.
I mean, you know, some some leftwe leftists can also be pretty
good at magical thinking.
I mean, I had a podcast debatewith Jan Goss, a very smart
young leftist here, and thatruns a great podcast, Future
Histories, and we got into areal fight.
Because he was challenging myassumptions, which was
(35:10):
legitimate, and I respect and Ire- overreacted.
But at some point he essentiallysaid, Well, if your theory
doesn't deliver my communisthope, then it must be wrong.
And he didn't, I'm and if helistens to this now, he'll be
fucking furious and probablyjustified me.
So but okay, no, that's whatI've heard.
That's not what he said, but Iheard at some point, hey, Taja,
your theory may be right, but itmakes me hopeless.
(35:32):
So I'm just gonna attack it.
Not because it's it's wrong, butbecause it makes me hopeless.
So there is a dynamic in thesedebates that sometimes makes
them incredibly unproductive,because maybe it's not the fact
that it's actually stillhypothesis, it's not the actual
uncertainty that makes peopleuncertain in deciding whether
(35:52):
collapse will come or not, butit's their desire to make, to
believe that it's not certain.
So so basically, if you don'twant to accept that collapse is
likely, there will not be asingle analytical argument I can
make that convinces you of that.
Because I have learned onething, and my feminist comrades
are laughing at me now, and Ithink that it took me 48 years
(36:15):
to understand that.
Traditionally, we think thatrational cognition comes before
and is superior to emotionalawareness or whatever.
But I've come to be certain thatwhat we cannot accept
emotionally as true, we cannotunderstand analytically.
So this is where it becomesdifficult.
But anyway, I totally yes, I uhI appreciate that you confirmed
(36:36):
our our sense here that it wasit was not a good idea in terms
of building a new movement thatis open to people to exclude the
possibility of uncertainty soradically from the program.
I mean, that wasn't that was notwhat we did, but yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (36:50):
Maybe it it it also makes sense, just from a sense
of mutual aid societies, torespond to increasing
catastrophes, that that thateven for those who don't believe
collapse is absolutely necessaryor are inevitable, that it does
make sense to work incommunities to respond to
(37:10):
increasing um crises.
If you call it crises and notcollapse, maybe there's a
broader tent.
SPEAKER_01 (37:19):
And this is the problem.
And this is really the problem,and this is not a rhetorical,
this really is the problem.
If I say, okay, while I'mcertain and it's totally
legitimate that you're notcertain, we can totally work
together on mutual aid.
In terms of the allocation ofscarce movement resources, and
one of the things that definesmovement social movements in the
literature is their relativeresource poverty.
(37:41):
If you look at how even thesocial movement is defined,
you're defined as aresource-poor actor compared to
other bigger institutions likelobbies, etc.
That means that we have limitedtime and money and et cetera,
and resources to allocate to alimited number of projects.
And I do believe that there areone or two things to learn from
capitalism.
And when I understood theprinciple of opportunity cost
(38:04):
calculation, I was blown away,which is, for people who haven't
heard it, is basically the costof something isn't the amount of
money you invest in it, but thedifference between the outcome
of the project you're investingin and the next best project you
didn't invest in, or the cost orthe value of something.
So that means that if we investour limited and scarce resources
(38:28):
into things where I know whereI'm certain, where I'm
convinced, or I have convincedmyself, that they cannot have a
positive effect, then thosewould be wasting resources from
a pool of scarce resources in asituation of significant time
pressure.
If I look at the changes in USsociety from 9-1124 to 9-11-25,
(38:53):
that's a year.
And holy mother of God, I don'tneed to German explain the US to
you.
Um so uh I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_00 (39:03):
I could use a little bit of that, you know.
SPEAKER_01 (39:06):
No, but look, it's just it's just you know, we're
just in shock.
Like we see the we see thevideos of ice, you know, of ice
thugs um behaving like the SA inthe streets, and we we're just
battled like we there's no it'sjust we are shocked, we are
saddened, all our hearts go outto you, and we wonder how the
fuck do they respond now?
They basically there's a lot ofshock seeing, especially folks
(39:28):
like me who've lived in the US,of seeing masked state terrorist
thugs in community.
Like I I can I'm sorry, there isno analysis if there's just pure
shock.
But what I'm saying is thingscan happen so fast.
So back to the point.
Do we I on some level, yes, bigtent.
Everybody do like in a way, theold globalization movement
(39:50):
approach, right?
The movement of movementapproach.
Oh my god, I just understoodsomething.
One of the reasons why I'mcritical of the big tent
approach is that's where I comefrom, the alter-globalization
movement was a big tent,everybody, the enviros, the the
the the healthcare people, thethe the the the the docker, the
dock workers, everybody wasthere, right?
The turtles and the themes andthe turtles.
(40:12):
Um and in the end, the variouspractices of these movements
didn't end up being particularlysynergetic.
The synergy came at those atthose at those um summit
protests because we had a commonenemy.
But here, if a whole bunch ofpeople go and protest in the
(40:32):
street saying, hey, protect theclimate more, I do think that
wastes resources and leadspeople down an emotionally
dangerous path towardsdepression because that would
involve claims that I am certainwill not be true, and now I'd
recognize something else.
I really am it's too much my ownstory because when I hear the
(40:56):
stories that these folks tellme, I hear myself from 10 years
ago.
Like in the movie, the systemthat you mentioned, um there is
a scene where I'm shown at a atan action nine years ago.
We're occupying a coal pit inthis phase class.
2016, we are at the height ofour power as Endegelende, and
(41:18):
I'm at the height of my arrogantcockiness.
So I'm like, I'm the I'm like,I'm shouting into the cameras,
this is the capitulation, likebecause there was no cops and we
were occupying all the tickets.
This is the capitulation of thefossil fuel industry.
And if they retreat, we'llfollow them from the pits to the
streets.
If they retreat to theboardrooms, we will.
(41:38):
I look at that guy and I hatehim.
I hate him because he toldhimself lies.
Now, I know that they weren'tnecessarily lies then, but in
retrospect, we like thestrategies that the anti that
the anti-coal and climatemovement used, they couldn't
have worked.
And they led me into adepression.
And right now I'm worried thatwe are leading other people into
(42:00):
a depression.
Now, I have found a path onwhich I know there to be hope.
So I tend to be a little bitlike, no, no, no, don't go that
path.
There is no hope there.
And then people feel attacked byme.
Basically, the some of some ofmy old climate comrades feel
just as attacked by the newcollapse movement as maybe the
emissions trading types feltwhen uh the climate justice
(42:23):
folks, you know, who brought ustogether, uh, uh Anne and Oren
and these people, like in theearly zeros, um, the climate
justice movement emergedactually as a criticism of
emissions trading and all thatclimate injustice.
And and in the late zeros, theemissions trading folks were
saying the exact same things tous radical climate justice types
that the climate types are nowtelling, telling me.
(42:45):
They're saying, hey, you'rebreaking the momentum of our
mobilization.
You're you're diffusing ourunity, you're you're weakening
us.
There is no unity, there is nomobilization, and we are already
totally weakened.
We are at a point of totaldefeat.
The institutions and strategiesthat we put our that we the the
the institutions and processesand policies that we focused our
(43:07):
strategic energies on have nochance of delivering what we
need them to deliver.
That doesn't mean that you can'tprevent, you can, for example,
that you can of course winvictories against highways,
against this plant, that pit.
That's absolutely possible.
And communities should defendthemselves.
We just shouldn't believe thatthat will change in any way the
development of global emissions.
And that takes us back, and andtherefore the climate collapse,
(43:30):
and that takes us back toresource investment.
I believe that it is wrong toinvest in strategies that have
failed.
But and this is Volanda BecauseI've invested so much of myself
in this strategy, I'm probablynot clear-headed enough right
now to make that judgment call.
(43:51):
I really I really mean that.
I'm not, I'm not pulling out ofthe debate, but I'm realizing
that I cannot uh distinguishright now clearly between my own
experience and what ispolitically right.
Does that make makes that makesense here?
SPEAKER_00 (44:05):
I think I think it it it it it suggests that you
you you value objectivity andyou understand that you're very
close to it right now.
But what's interesting to me,and I think one of the things
that's that that that that'sbeen very unique and valuable
and and and and and who knows, Imean, uh where where Claps Camp
(44:26):
leads is the space you'vecreated for people who have come
to believe like I said, I have ahard time believing that the
system's going to continue.
It's just you've created a spaceuh for people who look at this
(44:46):
and say, I I don't see systemicchange on the horizon.
I don't see I don't see that.
I don't see a happy ending.
I mean, w where do you go withthat?
You know, as you said earlier,you know, well, some people
choose to stay home.
(45:06):
You know?
Um so I I would have to confessthat, you know, sometimes
looking at the arc of of of thehistory of these climate
movements and and environmentald degradation during my
lifetime, it's it's not it's nota a trajectory where I say, hey,
we're on the right side ofhistory.
So and and and and if youbroaden out, I mean it's hard to
(45:29):
understand our to know whetherthere's really going to be
anything we can call history inthe future.
With AI, with with the waypolitical discourse is going,
how how how we're ripping apartacademic institutions in the
United States, uh, you know, andhow that could be a blueprint
for the future.
I mean, is there even going tobe history?
(45:50):
I mean, we've had this notion ofbeing on the right side of
history, the arc of history,this, that, and the other.
It doesn't it's not looking it'snot looking good.
SPEAKER_01 (45:59):
In the MLK said, or Dr.
King, as I think uh he's he's uhin the US more frequently
referred to what is it, themoral arc of history is long,
but it bends towards justice.
And in if the collapsehypothesis is correct, then the
moral arc of history is shortand bends towards fascism.
(46:20):
And um in a way that's the Ithink that's what since I've
engaged with climate change in2007, and I read Jared Diamond's
book Collapse, which hepublished in the mid-Zeros, and
which read about societalcollapse.
I that societies can collapse,that they can really break down,
(46:43):
and then maybe then there's ahistorical record of them, but
that they actually end.
You know, some people willsurvive somehow, but the
societies break down and end.
And I am at this point certainthat that will happen.
And you're right, in that sense,the space that we've created is
for those who have a near whowho think it is likely or nearly
certain that this will happenand who want to find ways to not
(47:07):
break under that truth or underthe weight of that.
Let's call it for now, from myperspective, realization, or a
hypothesis would be a little toobloodless at this point.
But that realization againnearly broke me.
And then I found that pathtowards hope.
And then together with others,we said, hey, check this out.
And a thousand people came.
Like, we didn't even do anyadvertising for this.
(47:30):
Like it was just a bunch ofsocial media accounts, my blog,
and a few people telling storiesat events and me reading my
book.
And like basically there was noand and and the spaces were like
oversubscribed.
We could have probably organizeda camp for 1,500 people if we'd
had the capacity or 2,000.
The interest is there becausepeople want to have a story that
(47:50):
doesn't tell them, that doesn'tfocus on low probability
positive outcomes, like anenergy transition, climate
justice, uh, a quick defeat ofthe fascist wave, but that
actually takes the darkscenarios as likely, says, okay,
if catastrophe is the newnormality, then let's understand
(48:13):
that space of catastrophe.
One of my research projects,should I ever have time again to
read books and stuff and think,is um to understand catastrophes
as spaces.
There's a book calledDisasterology, which I think is
one of the coolest titles ever.
And I want to understand howcatastrophes like traditionally
we've seen like there'snormality, then there's a
catastrophe that creates a spaceof emergency, a state of
(48:35):
exception where normal rulesdon't apply.
And then we go back tonormality.
But if now catastrophe becomesnormality, then that's the new
space, then that's no longer thestate of exception, but that's
the new normality.
How to find how to and I'll I'llquote: I have a I have a
political yoda by the name ofPer Pluske in Sweden.
And the question he asked me,and he taught me all this this
(48:58):
this from this strategy comesfrom him.
And the question he said, askyourself who you want to be when
catastrophe strikes.
Do you want to be the guy whoruns away, saves only himself,
takes his big car, and letseverybody else burn in the
house?
Or do you want to be the guy whoyou know creates rope ladders,
who makes sure that the baby onthe third floor is actually out,
(49:19):
who, when shit is done, tries,you know, and and and works with
the people from the house andbuilds a community and says,
hey, how do we take care of eachother's needs?
Which of those people do youwant to be?
And and for me, for me, it'slike that that is where where
where the hope lies.
Who do you want to be?
What do you need to be thatperson and then go and build it?
(49:40):
Whether the city you live in isgoing to be affected by floods
or heat waves, or if you're adiabetic or at the positive or
whatever it is, or you're youyou're or you know, you have
children whose whose future youwant to assure, or that whose
for whom you want to assure afuture where there are people,
(50:01):
good people, where there iscommunity and solidarity.
Like build the relations now.
It's not about supplies in yourcloset, it's about building
relations with people.
And that, which takes us back tothe strategic question of the
big tent.
Now, abstracting from thecollapse term for a moment.
I think that's what we all seeright now.
That the communities arecommunities that have links and
(50:23):
structures can resist all sortsof catastrophe.
Or, if not resist, you know,survive and come out, still a
community, still human, stilltogether.
SPEAKER_00 (50:34):
Tadseo Mueller, thank you for joining us on
Breaking Green.
It's been a pleasure to be back.
You have been listening toBreaking Green, a Global Justice
Ecology Project podcast.
To learn more about GlobalJustice Ecology Project, visit
Global JusticeEcology.org.
Breaking Green is made possibleby tax-deductible donations by
(50:58):
people like you.
Please help us lift up thevoices of those working to
protect forests, defend humanrights, and expose both
solutions.
Simply text GIV.
GIVE2 1716 257 4187.
That's 1716 257 4187.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.