argument top image

What are the positions on Global Warming?
Back to question

Climate Change is so dangerous as to justify violence and sabotage to fight it

Global warming is a threat so big that violent acts and sabotage are necessary to stop it.

The Argument

Many movements, such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), are frustrated and outraged with climate change and government response to it. These organizations, along with others, support the use of violence or criminal activity to spur policymakers to action. We are destroying the environment with our modern society, and the steps being taken to negate this are either too slow or not enough. Direct and often violent action is the only way to force the world to solve environmental issues. [1] Ecoterrorists use actions such as burning, bombing, and vandalism of environment-harming businesses or enterprises in order to get the message across that climate change needs desperate attention. This can include the destruction of car dealerships, housing developments, oil or logging stations, whaling boats, and more. Direct and destructive action is the only way to ensure that environmental problems will be listened to and dealt with.

Counter arguments

Although environmental issues are pressing, violence is not the answer. Legal policy and behavior alterations will be more effective than single acts of destruction in the name of the environment.



Those who support this stance believe that climate change is a pressing issue worthy of violent action, and that violent action will aid in solving the problem.


[P1] Climate change is an urgent issue. [P2] Violent acts can instigate action. [P3} Violent acts will initiate solutions to climate change.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Violence will not cause a peaceful solution.

Further Reading


This page was last edited on Friday, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:16 UTC

Explore related arguments