Justifying climate rebellion

Many within the climate-activist movement have cast their interventions as "rebellion." This is most obviously attested to by the names various disobedient groups have given themselves, like Extinction Rebellion and Scientist Rebellion. In this paper, I will argue that these are not just superficial monikers -- at least in some cases. Evidence of this are the statements several such groups have published, which suggest a deeper, principled identification with the idea of rebellion as a form of climate protest. For instance, The Climate Disobedience Center, defends their "right to resistance" by appeal to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ stipulation that "people ‘have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression’," which they identify with "the extreme and existential threat of climate change to all human and non-human life." Similarly, Extinction Rebellion’s "Declaration of Rebellion" asserts that, owing to "Government and the law fail[ing] to provide any assurance of adequate protection" against the climate crisis, "the bonds of the social contract" are "null and void," and thus mass resistance is justified. The aim of this paper is to critically examine these and other ways in which climate-activist groups have sought to to justify a "climate rebellion," and to understand what justified rebellion in the climate movement might entail, particularly as nonviolent and civil means of protest come up short.