A Free-Market Energy Blog

Bloomberg Green Gives Voice to Climate Terrorist Andreas Malm

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- January 3, 2023

The climate alarmists are in a trap of their own making. Their cut-and-dried apocalyptic predictions have not come true–and the public is rightly skeptical.

But instead of checking their premises, the eco-nuts are inconveniencing and offending the public, damaging private property, and ending up in jail. And they are damaging their own cause by … being crazy.

To Bloomberg Green, it is business as usual to give voice to eco-terrorist Andreas Malm. Here is what Akshat Rathi and Oscar Boyd wrote on December 14th:

The past few months have seen a flurry of climate protests. In Marseilles, a cement factory was sabotaged by activists for its high emissions. In London, tomato soup was thrown at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers by members of the group Just Stop Oil. Other activists have taken to deflating SUV tires in cities across Europe and the US to discourage use of the gas-guzzling vehicles. 

This is only the beginning of what climate activists need to do in order to be effective, says Andreas Malm, associate professor of human ecology at Lund University and author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline. “The task for the climate movement is to make clear for people that building new pipelines, new gas terminals, opening new oil fields are acts of violence that need to be stopped — they kill people,” Malm says on Bloomberg Green’s Zero podcast.

Violence? Maybe 49 percent of the time. Rathi and Boyd continue:

Malm argues that while the majority of climate action should remain non-violent, no social sea change — from the suffragettes to the Civil Rights Movement — has succeeded through completely peaceful activism. “We shouldn’t engage in assassinations or terrorism, or use arms and things like that,” he says. “But until that line or boundary, we need virtually everything … all the way up to sabotage and property destruction.” 

Purposeful, premeditated destruction of legal property is “terrorism.” And is the next step using arms and carrying out “assassinations”? This is quite a slippery slope.

Rathi and Boyd end:

The stakes are high for protesters engaged in disruptive tactics, as governments around the world target them with increasingly punitive legislation…. Malm says this response is to be expected. “That’s what always happens when you escalate. As soon as you pose a danger to the system, this is what you’ll get in return,” he says. “And that’s a sign that you’re doing something good, that you are actually challenging some interests.”

You can listen to the full conversation with Malm below, and read a full transcript here. Check out more episodes of Zero, and subscribe on Apple, Spotify and Google to get new episodes each week.

Three days later, Green Bloomberg’s Olivia Rudgard gives another shout-out to the eco-terrorist’s radio interview:

Sabotaging a cement plant. Throwing soup at art. Deflating SUV tires. This type of property destruction is exactly what activists need to do more of to be effective, says academic and How to Blow Up a Pipeline author Andreas Malm on this week’s Zero. “The task for the climate movement is to make clear for people that building new pipelines, new gas terminals, opening new oil fields are acts of violence that need to be stopped,” Malm says. “They kill people.” Listen to the episode — and subscribe on Apple, Spotify and Google for new episodes each week.

Who is Andreas Malm?

Andreas Malm, eco-terrorist propagator, is in the eco-nut class with David Suzuki (“There are going to be pipelines blowing up“) and Les Knight (“I campaign for the extinction of the human race“). Here are some quotations from the blow-up-the-pipeline threat. Consider these quotations from Andreas Malm’s How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire (2021):

Damage and destroy new CO2 emitting devices. Put them out of commission, pick them apart, demolish them, burn them, blow them up…. Sabotage, after all, is not incompatible with social distancing.

And a quotation from How to Blow Up a Pipeline:

Do we conclude that the only thing left is learning to die – a position already propounded by some – and slide down the side of the crater into three, four, eight degrees of warming? Or is there another phase, beyond peaceful protest?

A book summary states:

The science on climate change has been clear for a very long time now. Yet despite decades of appeals, mass street protests, petition campaigns, and peaceful demonstrations, we are still facing a booming fossil fuel industry…

In this lyrical manifesto, noted climate scholar (and saboteur of SUV tires and coal mines) Andreas Malm makes an impassioned call for the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse. We need, he argues, to force fossil fuel extraction to stop–with our actions, with our bodies, and by defusing and destroying its tools. We need, in short, to start blowing up some oil pipelines.

Final Comment

The climate alarmists are at war with the world–the peaceful, let-me-improve-my-life world of normal people. They have picked a losing cause and cannot even consider a mid-course correction. The jails may fill up with eco-nuts, but there needs to be fines to individuals and organizations (Just Stop Oil–see tomorrow’s post) to cover the costs of incarceration.

And perhaps the legal system can encourage rehabilitation when the guilty are invited to read Steven Koonin’s Unsettled or Alex Epstein’s Fossil Future to awaken their minds to the ideal and joy of living in an improving world where politics is minimized and human freedom maximized.


  1. Wayne Drury  

    Good day.
    What a sad commentary and lacking anything close to consideration of truth and consequences.
    I am 100% in support of doing the world a world of good and solving climate change and global warming, but not with violence. Violence only kills people, and the same will happen if we do not solve the climate change issue.

    We have governments demanding the reduction in fertilizers, which will drive production onto new lands that are marginal at best. Does that make sense? Where is the action to substantially reduce food waste?

    As people blow up pipelines (or stop them from being built), in Canada we move to increase EV’s – a good thing if you can afford a $90,000 car – to reduce C02 by 80 MT, all the while we cannot supply China with cleaner natural gas (cleaner than coal) and they have to build 6 more coal-fired plants to supply their country with electricity. My argument is that we cannot stop the world and get off, but we do need the will for a plan to fix all of this – and I do not see that on any radar.

    My best wishes and kind regards.


  2. Sam Barro  

    Wayne, I’m glad to see that you realize there isn’t a plan to “fix all this,” because it’s true. Our government and corporate institutions are failing us. With no clear plan, there remains only the hope that “they” will eventually solve it.

    But there’s no time to solve it. We’ve been out of time for at least a decade. So all “they” are doing is jockeying their position at the Green Energy Feeding Trough, where every Tom Dick Harry company is pushing for its better battery and other gadgets, with piecemeal proposals that cannot “fix all this.” In the meantime, more lives, property, and ecosystems are destroyed. It’s not surprising that some people are choosing civil disobedience.

    All this is unfortunate because there is a solution, a technical solution that utilizes existing technologies that have a long history of successful operation.

    That solution can be called The Green Hydrogen Economy.

    Spread the word, a very non-violent and effective way to enlighten others.


    • rbradley  

      First, the climate alarm is exaggerated.

      Second, green hydrogen as a silver bullet and ‘fix’ is uneconomic and hardly scalable.

      Third, do you really want all the industrial wind turbines and solar arrays and batteries to make hydrogen ‘green’? Just skip the hydrogen altogether as an unnecessary production process. Why added expense and added infrastructure at the expense of the green living space?


Leave a Reply