(2020). Towards an Inclusive, Radical Energy

TOWARDS AN INCLUSIVE, RADICAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION:

Social movements and leaving fossil fuels underground

Isabelle Hillson

International Development Masters | 12735175 | [email protected]

International Development Studies

Prof. Dr. J. Gupta | Dhr. Dr. J. de Vries

17th August 2020

Abstract

In response to the failure of global climate governance and the environmental movement, there has been a growth of social movements focused on limiting fossil fuel supply, transportation, and consumption. To achieve the first objective of the Paris Agreement - limiting global warming to 1.5°C - 80% of known fossil fuel reserves must remain untouched. This research seeks to understand how successful social movements have implemented policies to leave fossil fuels underground (LFFU), and contributed to inclusive development; it examines the factors that contribute to these movements’ success to understand 1) when they emerge; 2) how they operate; and 3) how they promote inclusive development outcomes. Literature on environmental social movements tends to focus on individual case studies; this research is therefore a meta-analysis of movements that have successfully implemented policy change to LFFU in the Global North and Global South. It consists of quantitative analysis to understand the characteristics of fossil fuel related movements since 1970, followed by a case study of 10 social movements that stopped fossil fuel projects and implemented new legislation. Analysis is guided by literature reviews on LFFU, social movement theory, environmental movements, movements to LFFU, and inclusive development. The case study analysis consists of 22 semi-structured interviews with key activists, triangulated with analysis of 153 documents from the social movement sample. A rating system is introduced quantifying to what extent the ecological, social, and relational aspects of inclusive development have been satisfied by the policies implemented. Over one fifth of all climate justice movements have been energy related since 1970; a fifth of those successfully stopped a fossil fuel project, yet only 9% advocated for renewables. This is reflected in the case study sample with only one movement promoting alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. All movements emerged in politically open states, in line with political process theory’s central hypothesis. Seven movements mobilised broad coalitions of participants using place-based issues such as pollution, health, the local economy, or Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) arguments through education programmes. Contrary to literature, climate change discourse was rarely used to mobilise activists or persuade policy-makers. The use of economic arguments was a strategic choice for four movements to persuade policy-makers; even when it was not a mobilising grievance for participants. To help LFFU and achieve a radical, inclusive energy transformation, these framing techniques can both mobilise people to advocate for renewables and redefine what is politically possible. In fossil fuel producing countries, where policy elite perceptions are less favourable to movement demands, non-institutional tactics are effective. In the Global South, where there is an established discourse on alternatives to fossil fuel driven development, non-institutional tactics are not necessary. Where indigenous communities were involved in the conflict, legal tactics were advantageous. Exogenous factors of the fossil fuel projects’ economic viability and political context were also instrumental in all movement outcomes. Despite all ten movements leaving fossil fuels underground and implementing policy, with the exception of Costa Rica’s oil moratorium, none did so in a particularly inclusive way. Key words: climate change, leaving fossil fuels underground, social movements, frame analysis, inclusive development, global north, global south,

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my parents, for helping make the dream of living and studying in Amsterdam possible. All the new friends I have made in this wonderful city for showing me a fantastic time. In particular, my flatmate Clara, who welcomed me into her Dutch world and intellectually took me under her wing in the study of social movements. Arthur Rempel for his detailed feedback and words of encouragement. My boyfriend TJ, for not only enduring nearly a year apart but being a constant source of moral support, a critical sounding board, and an impromptu Spanish translator. His family, for providing me with delicious food, shelter, and a fantastic office while I completed my thesis during a global pandemic. Finally, Joyeeta Gupta for her critical eye, direct manner, and sense of humour; who continues to inspire me with her work ethic and tenacity.

Word count: 24,727

Contents

1 Introduction ______9 1.1 Climate change, Leaving Fossil Fuels Underground and social movements ______9 1.2 Leave fossil fuels underground: problem definition ______9 1.3 Policy context ______10 1.4 Why global and national climate policy is not aligned with LFFU ______11 1.5 Social movements as agents of change ______12 1.6 Research purpose, societal relevance, assumptions, conceptual scheme, and knowledge gap ______13 1.7 Focus and limitations ______14 1.8 Research Questions and thesis structure ______15 2 Literature review and theoretical framework ______16 2.1 Introduction ______16 2.2 Social movements ______16 2.3 New Social Movements ______17 2.4 Movement emergence ______18 2.5 Framing ______20 2.6 Strategy, tactics and targets ______20 2.7 Impacts of social movements ______22 2.8 Social movements and inclusive development ______23 2.9 Conclusion ______23 3 Ontology and Epistemology, Research design, Methodology, Quality criteria, and Ethics ______24 3.1 Introduction ______24 3.2 Ontology and Epistemology ______24 3.3 Research Design ______24 3.4 Methodology ______25 3.5 Methodological reflection ______29 3.6 Ethical reflection ______30 4 Case study context and movement emergence ______32 4.1 Introduction ______32 4.2 The EJM ______32

4.3 Characteristics of case study sample: successful movements to LFFU ______34 4.4 Context of successful social movements to LFFU in the Global South ______36 4.5 Context of successful social movements to LFFU in the Global North ______41 4.6 Who mobilised? ______49 4.7 Conclusions ______50 5 How do social movements to LFFU operate and what are their implications for inclusive development? ______51 5.1 Introduction ______51 5.2 Dominant frames______51 5.3 Local place-based issues framing ______52 5.4 Indigenous rights ______54 5.5 Economic frames ______54 5.6 Effective strategies and tactics ______56 5.7 Impacts of social movements and contributions to inclusive development ______61 5.8 Conclusion ______63 6 Discussion and conclusions ______65 6.1 Introduction ______65 6.2 When do successful social movements to LFFU emerge? ______66 6.3 How do successful social movements to LFFU operate? ______67 6.4 Movement impacts______68 6.5 Extrapolation ______70 6.6 Reflections, recommendations, and further research______70 6.7 Recommendations and conclusion ______71 Appendix ______72 Interviews ______79 Interview questions ______80 Bibliography ______81

List of Figures Figure 1: Initial conceptual scheme ...... 14 Figure 2: Policy change stages ...... 22 Figure 3: Research design and methods used to answer RQ and sub-questions...... 25 Figure 4: Screenshot of EJAtlas map of fossil fuel and climate justice conflicts...... 27 Figure 5: Revised conceptual scheme ...... 28 Figure 6: Plot of environmental justice conflicts ...... 32 Figure 7: Graph depicting the increasing frequency of ‘blockadia’ fossil fuel conflicts since 1970 ...... 33 Figure 8: Pie chart showing the change in domestic fossil fuel extraction after LFFU movements ...... 34 Figure 9: Dominant frames of case study ...... 51 Figure 10: Dominant frames of each movement within the case study ...... 52 Figure 11: Conceptual scheme ...... 69

List of Tables Table 1: Case study context ...... 35 Table 2: Who mobilised ...... 49 Table 3: Inclusive Development rating ...... 62 Table 4: Summary of findings ...... 66 Table 5: Matrix of potential policies to restrict fossil fuel supply and demand ...... 72 Table 6: Filters used on EJAtlas for case study selection...... 72 Table 7: Case study sample ...... 73 Table 8: Environmental Justice conflicts since 1970 success rate ...... 74 Table 9: Operationalisation...... 75 Table 10: Inclusive development rating ...... 78

List of Maps Map 1: Costa Rica...... 36 Map 2: Belize ...... 38 Map 3: Colombia...... 39 Map 4: Mexico ...... 40 Map 5: Spain ...... 41 Map 6: Australia ...... 43 Map 7: Australia, Y2R...... 44 Map 8: Canada, Enbridge ...... 45 Map 9: Canada, Petronas Gitwilgyoots...... 47 Map 10: Chicago ...... 48 Map 11: Gas free municipalities, Spain...... 74

Acronyms and abbreviations: order of appearance LFFU Leave / Leaving Fossil Fuels Underground PA Paris Agreement EJAtlas Environmental Justice Atlas IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change GHGs Green-house Gases CO2 Carbon Dioxide ID Inclusive Development SD Sustainable Development SDGs Sustainable Development Goals RtD Right to Develop RtSD Right to Sustainably Develop UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change CBDRRC Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities ICs Industrial Countries DCs Developing Countries BAU Business As Usual RQ Research Question SMT Social Movement Theory SMO Social Movement Organisations RM Resource Mobilisation PPT Political Process Theory NSMs New Social Movements NGO Non-Governmental Organisation EJM Environmental Justice Movement EJ Environmental Justice EJOLT Environmental Justice Organisations, Liabilities and Trade UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organisation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ADELA Acción De Lucha Anti-petrolera NRDC Natural Resource Defence Council COLA Citizens Organised for Liberty through Action CODACOP Corporation for the Support of Popular Communities ONIC Colombia’s National Authority of Indigenous Governments ASEA Mexico’s National Agency for Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection for the Oil and Gas Industry PEMEX Petróleos Mexicanos

FoE Friends of the Earth CSG Coal Seam Gas Y2R Yes 2 Renewables VRET Victorian Renewable Energy Target UCG Unconventional Gas UNDRIP UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent YDA Yinka Dene Alliance WCEL West Coast Environmental Law BC British Columbia LNG Liquid Natural Gas EA Environmental Assessment LVEJO Little Village Environmental Justice Organization PERRO Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform ALAMC American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago NIMBY Not In My Back Yard POC People of Colour

1 Introduction 1.1 Climate change, Leaving Fossil Fuels Underground and social movements Social movements have emerged in response to the relatively low level of global climate policy. A growing body of evidence suggests that limiting warming to 1.5°C implies reaching net-zero CO2 emissions globally by around 2050 and that up to 80% of known fossil fuel reserves must be left underground to do so; this concept is known as Leave Fossil Fuels Underground (LFFU) (McGlade & Ekins, 2015; Piggot, 2018). Yet while country leaders have committed to ambitious emissions reduction targets – the Paris Agreement (PA) aims to keep temperatures below 1.5°C - they continue to pursue fossil fuel extraction (UNFCCC, 2015). Since 1970 there have been 588 energy-related conflicts involving social movements, and ~20% of these successfully stopped the fossil fuel project (EJAtlas, 2020; Table 6). Only ten of these social movements forced the cessation of a fossil fuel project and resulted in new legislation to LFFU. This research examines these ten movements to understand what lessons can be learnt and used by other social movements to bring about structural changes to LFFU. The movements were based both in the Global North and the Global South and respectively challenged the fossil fuel industry at each stage of the fossil fuel life cycle: exploration and extraction, transportation, and consumption. Some resulted in regional policy changes, while others managed to bring about new national legislation. This research critically examines the factors that contribute to their success to understand how social movements can achieve structural changes to LFFU. This chapter defines the problem of LFFU and the key concepts associated with it (1.2), situating it within the global climate policy context (1.3). I outline the few existing policies that LFFU, and use the concept of hegemonic neoliberalism to explain the lack of policies and how social movements can address this (1.4). This research posits that to LFFU, radical changes to the way we produce and consume must occur; I elaborate on what these structural changes look like, and why social movements are the actors to bring these changes about (1.5). I then set out the research purpose, societal relevance, assumptions, and current gap in academic literature (1.6), illustrating a simple conceptual scheme (Figure 1) and the research questions that arise from it (1.8). 1.2 Leave fossil fuels underground: problem definition We are in the era of the Anthropocene, whereby humans have had lasting impacts on the earth, bypassing planetary boundaries and causing climate change (Crutzen, 2006; Rockström et al., 2009). Human activities have caused approximately 1°C of global warming since the industrial revolution (IPCC, 2018). Climate change is caused by the build-up of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) - predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2) - in the atmosphere causing temperature increases (McGlade & Ekins, 2015: 187). These gases are caused by the way we produce and consume (see 2.4.1); fossil fuels and cement production accounts for ~90% of human-related CO2 emissions, with deforestation accounting for the remaining 10% (Gupta, 2014: 5; Jackson et al., 2018). The impacts of climate change include increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, fires, tropical storms; alongside slower onset impacts of ocean acidification, changes in ocean currents, and soil erosion. Consensus exists on climate science but not on the values or solutions. LFFU is a semi-structured, wicked problem at the global-local (glocal) level, at the ‘intersection of ecosystems and human social systems’ (Dryzek, 2013).1 The people who bear the costs define the problem differently to those who benefit. It has differing implications for the Global North and the Global South, demonstrated by the concepts of stranded

1 Wicked problems are defined as ‘complex and systemic problems [which] typically provoke divergent views about the very nature of the issues, their relative importance and appropriate responses’ (Head, 2019: 182). Environmental issues are often ‘wicked’ due to their ‘technical complexity, but also from the multiple arenas where they are contested and debated’ (Selman, 1999: 168-9).

assets and stranded resources. 2,3,4 Resource-rich developing countries (DCs) in the Global South will be left with undeveloped stranded resources; similarly, investors and shareholders of fossil fuel companies – mostly situated in the Global North - will be left with stranded assets (Bos & Gupta, 2018). The skewed distribution of stranded assets and resources is due to the nature of capitalism’s uneven and combined development (2.4.1). The Global South will not only bear the costs of climate change, to which they have not contributed, but cannot follow the same path to ‘development’ paved by the Global North if climate change is to be mitigated. Despite widespread disagreement on the solutions to LFFU, this research rests on the assumption that policies to mitigate climate change should fall into the inclusive development (ID) category, entailing structural change, and that social movements are the actors to promote such policies.56 1.3 Policy context To understand the role of social movements in LFFU, it is necessary to outline the global climate policy landscape (1.3.2).

1.3.1 History of global climate change governance The World Climate Conference in 1979 hosted the first global climate change discussions (Gupta, 2010). Sustainable development (SD) emerged in the 1980s as an approach to development which included environmental issues and continues to inform climate governance (Gupta & Chu, 2018: 90; World Commission On Environment And Development, 1987). The concept of SD consists of economic, social, and environmental aspects; which, in implementation result in social and environmental trade-offs for economic growth (Gupta et al., 2015). SD emphasises the need to tackle poverty in developing countries before tackling environmental issues; its most explicit manifestation with global impact being the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This approach is exemplified in the Right to Sustainably Develop (RtSD) discourses employed by many countries in the Global South. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), established in 1992, serves as the foundation for global climate change policy. It commits all nations to take steps to mitigate Green House Gas (GHG) emissions; establishing the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ (CBDRRC). Formalised at the 1992 Rio Climate Agreement, the CBDRRC principle addresses the fact that ecological issues have universal impacts that domestic jurisdiction is not sufficient to tackle them. The principle balances the responsibility to address climate change with the recognition of different states’ varying capabilities. It commits ICs to assist DCs in mitigating and adapting to climate change; while allowing DCs to develop and increase their emissions according to the Right to Sustainable Development (RtSD) (Bos & Gupta, 2016: 482).

2 The term Global South, coined by Gramsci, is rooted in post-colonial theory; it refers to the ‘periphery’ of ‘developing’ countries outside of Europe and North America without prescribing those regions with the path of uni-linear development experienced by the Global North. 3 A stranded asset is ‘an asset which loses economic value well ahead of its anticipated useful life, whether that is a result of changes in legislation, regulation, market forces, disruptive innovation, societal norms, or environmental shocks’ (Generation Foundation, 2013: 21). 4 Stranded resources ‘are resources which are considered uneconomical or cannot be developed or extracted as a result of technological, geographical, regulatory, political or market limitations, or changes in social and environmental norms’ (Bos & Gupta, 2018: 436). 5 Inclusive development has emerged as a term in International Development studies literature to define ‘development that includes marginalized people, sectors and countries in social, political and economic processes for increased human wellbeing, social and environmental sustainability, and empowerment’ (Gupta et al., 2015 in Pouw & Gupta, 2015). 6 Structural change refers to changes to production and consumption towards ‘ecologically better adapted forms’ (Jänicke et al., 1993)

1.3.2 Current policy framework The most recent and comprehensive global governance instrument – the 2015 PA – seeks to address ‘climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so’ by pursuing efforts to keep temperature rises below 1.5°C (United Nations, 2015). Signatories have committed to ‘[hold] the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change’ and to make ‘finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development’ (UN, 2015: 3, Article 2.1a,c).7 The implication of A2.1a is LFFU. A combination of policies restricting fossil fuel supply and demand, and supporting alternatives are necessary to LFFU (see Table 5 in Appendix). Currently, environmental policy is following a ‘remedial ‘end- of-pipe’ strategy that does not revise existing problematic technologies’; characterised by demand-side, consumer-focussed, technocratic solutions to LFFU (Jänicke et al., 1993: 159). Current policies and investments, particularly in fossil fuel infrastructure, are locking the world into a high carbon economy, creating path dependency. The pathway to a just and equitable carbon-free future requires a societal commitment to divert from business as usual (BAU). BAU refers to various scenarios in which no climate policies are enacted; achieving the PA targets requires diversion from BAU.8 Alternatives to BAU fall into two broad categories: SD approaches and ‘more fundamental changes, challenging the predominance of growth-orientated development and of the neo-liberal economy and related forms of ‘representative democracy’’ (Kothari et al., 2014: 362).

1.3.3 Examples of policies to LFFU There are some examples of countries attempting to move away from the logic of extraction by limiting or stopping supply. Examples include the Yasuni ITT proposal in Ecuador, Costa Rica’s moratorium on oil exploration and extraction (4.4.1), and Belize’s moratorium on offshore oil exploration and extraction (4.4.2) in the Global South; and France’s fracking ban, the banning of fossil fuel exploration licences in Ireland, and New Zealand’s ban of offshore oil and gas exploration in the Global North (Rowell, 2011). However, these isolated policies are not enough to put us on a pathway to a 2°C world. A ‘transformation of wide-scale socio-technical systems, such as the development of sustainable energy systems’ and ‘co- evolutionary changes’ between technologies, markets, state institutions, and citizens are required (Smith et al., 2010 in Verbong & Loorbach, 2012: 160). This research is concerned with the role of citizens, driving structural changes towards an inclusive energy transformation, through social movements. 1.4 Why global and national climate policy is not aligned with LFFU Global climate governance is ‘fractured along national interests, and is fragmented, pluralist, incoherent, and often counter-productive’ (Gupta, 2014: 3). The PA is non-binding, with no incentive, or accountability mechanism, for countries to stick to their pledges; has insufficient temperature reduction aims; has no liability mechanism to account for historical emissions; allows speculative practices through the gamification of state-sponsored carbon trading regimes; and does not account for military emissions, or those emitted outside of nation-state boundaries (Bond, 2018). The failure of global climate policy is not

7 The PA has been ratified by 187 of the 197 Parties; the US is due to withdraw from it in November 2020. 8 There are a range of outcomes for BAU pathways, detailed by the IPCC’s Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, based on different levels of population growth, international cooperation, economic growth, education, inequality levels. Estimations of emissions resulting from these pathways following BAU with no future climate policies range between 3.1-5.1C by 2100 (IPCC, Hausfather, 2018).

only manifested in the PA itself, but then further demonstrated by the reluctance of ICs to decrease their emissions, and the flouting the CBDRRC principle (Bos & Gupta, 2016). Similarly, ‘local governance cannot cope with global externalities’ (Gupta, 2014a: 3). The democratic election cycle causes myopic decision making by Governments who want to retain power. Policy research has found that governments pursue policies that benefit those who pay for lobbying (Presthus, 1974). The prevalence of policies restricting fossil fuel demand rather than supply demonstrates the influence of the oil and gas lobby on governments. The five largest fossil fuel companies spend $200 million annually on lobbying governments while advertising their support for climate change action (Laville, 2019). The extractive imperative is followed in both the Global North and the Global South and the political decisions made lead to long-term lock-in for technology and infrastructure (Barbier et al., 2011: 238). This is demonstrated by the many countries in the Global South employing the ‘Right to Develop’ (RtD) rhetoric, pursuing fossil fuel exploitation despite evidence of the resource curse (OHCR, 1986).9 The theory of hegemony, a power theory, elucidates why policies are not aligned with LFFU. Gramsci explains how power operates, pointing to social movements as actors to counter it. Hegemony is comprised of two components: structure and the story that underpins it (Adams, 2019; Bates, 1975; Gramsci & Hoare, 1971; Thomas, 2013). The structure is the neoliberal capitalist mode of production, its institutions, and the alliances of interests that benefit from it. The story is the ‘range of acceptable ideas within which all mainstream discourse is conducted’ (ibid). Hegemonic neoliberalism is the ‘intensification of the influence and dominance of capital; it is the elevation of capitalism, as a mode of production, into an ethic, a set of political imperatives, and a cultural logic’ (Babb, 2006: 22). In the post-colonial era, the Global North has achieved and maintained hegemony through the expansion of neoliberal policies and projects both globally and locally. In relation to climate change governance, neoliberal hegemony is perpetuated through the prevalence of SD policies. The primacy given to economic development over ecological, social, or relational aspects (see 2.8) is demonstrated through the history of climate change negotiations, which have been characterised by disappointment and non-binding emissions targets (1.3.1), governed instead by geopolitics (Gupta, 2010). Elite logic assumed that ‘marginal, market-driven changes augmented by a slight degree of state regulatory assistance will decarbonize the world’s energy, land-transport, and production systems as well as protect forests’ (Bond, 2018: 155). SD, green economy, green growth, smart growth, and various other neoliberal approaches fail due to their continued emphasis on ‘development’ via economic growth, faith in the markets, and tendency to value economic well-being over ecological, social, and relational aspects (Kothari et al., 2014: 363). Yet ‘markets cannot deal with social or public goods problems’ due to the neoclassical economic concept of value not accounting for them (Brand et al., 2017: 36). Instead, both ‘ecological and social sustainability require structural changes as well as a decolonization of economics and minds’ (ibid). 1.5 Social movements as agents of change The counter-hegemonic actors who can address the systemic, structural, and cultural roots of our reliance on fossil fuels are social movements; ‘while the elites are paralyzed, there is movement below’ - albeit fragmented (Bond, 2015: 266). Groups that do not benefit from hegemony are known as the ‘subaltern’ groups; are marginalised, excluded from institutions, and often on the receiving end of state violence.10 These groups can make radical demands on institutions because they do not benefit from the status quo.

9 The resource curse is the association of natural resource exploitation with ‘low rates of economic growth and a series of adverse effects on governance, including authoritarianism, militarisation, regional secessionism, and socioeconomic inequality’; particularly in countries with weak political institutions (Arellano-Yanguas, 2011). 10 Subaltern is a post-colonial term referring to the marginalised ‘periphery’ used by Gramsci and Spivak (Spivak, 2003).

A growing social movement exists demanding structural changes, calling for the restriction of fossil fuel extraction and consumption (Piggot, 2018). The relevance and importance of studying social movements lies in their counter-hegemonic role, transnational nature, and ability to affect cultural and structural outcomes (Giugni, 1999). The strategies employed by social movements to LFFU fall into two broad categories: direct action and divestment campaigns, this research focuses on the latter (Bond, 2018). Heterogenous radical alternatives called for by social movements include Buen Vivir and post-extractivism in Latin America; Ubuntu and eco- feminism in Africa; and the de-growth movement in the Global North. Yet they share a goal to ‘reconstruct the humanity-nature relation along truly sustainable lines that place human flourishing and grassroots democratic control at the centre’ (Carroll & Ratner, 2010: 20). These alternatives to BAU consist of both ‘ancient worldviews with current relevance, or new frameworks and visions that present systemic alternatives for human and planetary well-being’; alongside forcing the ‘decolonisation of knowledge systems and epistemologies’ (Demaria & Kothari, 2017: 2589). 1.6 Research purpose, societal relevance, assumptions, conceptual scheme, and knowledge gap LFFU is an under-researched topic with wider academic and societal relevance to catalyse political actions to halt climate change; which requires structural changes to the way we produce and consume. Situated within the International Development Studies (IDS) discipline, this research perceives ecological problems as inextricably linked to social problems, acknowledging the political implications of the structural changes required to LFFU (2.8). It posits that policies to implement structural changes to LFFU should use an ID approach. The vacuum in global climate governance of policies to LFFU (1.4) creates an imperative for civil society to influence policy-making. Conflict is defined as a productive process that can produce radical social transformation (Conway, 2016; Escobar, 1996; Petras & Veltmeyer, 2011 in Gupta et al., 2015). Social movements recognise, accept, and act on these assumptions (1.5). These assumptions are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Initial conceptual scheme

Source: Own analysis, LFFU literature review There is a corresponding gap in academic knowledge on the role of social movements in affecting transformational, structural change to LFFU (3.4.1). Also, ‘literature on transitions as well as transformations remain primarily depoliticised, technocratic and managerial’ (Olsson et al. 2014; Rotmans et al. 2001 in Temper et al., 2018). Despite being ‘rooted’ in social movements, ID literature has not specifically looked at their role in implementing it (see 2.8). There is also a lack of theoretical and empirical research in social movements ‘outside the industrial North’; which this research seeks to fill through a global meta-analysis of successful social movements to LFFU (see 3.3) (Boudreau, 1996: 175; Fox & Starn, 1997 in Edelman, 2001). Furthermore, the wider LFFU project of which this research is part of aims to analyse, develop, and share successful strategies and arguments on LFFU (Hogenboom et al., 2017). The aims of this segment are twofold: to give social movements the tools to implement structural change and spur policy-makers into action to LFFU. 1.7 Focus and limitations ● Social movements to LFFU have numerous impacts other than implementing policies that are outside of the scope of this research. ● The narrow definition of success means that movements with impacts that are not new legislation, such as legislative amendments, stopping fossil fuel projects, court wins, etc. are not examined.

1.8 Research Questions and thesis structure Given the societal relevance, absence of policies to LFFU, and the gap in the literature. This research aspires to answer the following research question (RQ), guided by three sub-questions:

How have successful social movements implemented policies to leave fossil fuels underground, contributing to structural changes and inclusive development? Sub - 1) When do successful social movements to LFFU emerge? a) What are the characteristics of social movements to LFFU? questions: b) What is the context in which successful social movements to LFFU emerge? c) Who mobilises to LFFU?

2) How do social movements to LFFU operate? a) What are the dominant frames used to: i) mobilise participants? ii) persuade policy-makers? b) What strategies and tactics are effective?

3) How have successful social movements to LFFU contributed to inclusive development? a) How did they satisfy: i) Ecological aspect ii) Social aspect iii) Relational aspect

Chapter 2 sets out the theoretical framework; chapter 3 details the ontology, epistemology, positionality, and methodology; chapter 4 sets out the case study context, answering sub-questions 1a, b, and c; chapter 5 answers sub-questions 1, 2, and 3 and their respective sub-questions, chapter 6 synthesises the conclusions and answers the overall RQ.

2 Literature review and theoretical framework

‘The contemporary social world is the product of prior collective efforts to transform old social orders into new ones’ (Buechler, 2000: xii).

2.1 Introduction This chapter reviews the literature and defines key concepts in social movement theory (SMT) and ID to understand what a social movement is (2.2, 2.3); how they emerge (2.4); how framing is used to recruit participants and persuade policy-makers (2.5); what strategies and tactics they employ to communicate their arguments (2.6); what their impacts are (2.7); and how movements to LFFU can contribute to ID (2.8). Building on 1.6, I identify further gaps in the literature to address, guided by four literature reviews: social movement theory, environmental movements, movements to LFFU, and ID. 2.2 Social movements Throughout history, social movements have been a vehicle for transformative change; including ‘the spread of Christianity and Islam, the Reformation, and the French, American, Russian, and Chinese communist revolutions’ (Snow, 2009: 1). Situated in civil society – separate from the state and market – they consist of social movement organisations (SMOs) that carry out conscious, sustained ‘large-scale, collective efforts to bring about or resist changes that bear on the lives of many’ (Oberschall, 1993: 2). Participants are ordinary people with a common purpose using ‘extra-institutional means’ for a sustained period against opponents, typically the elite in power (Diani & Bison, 2004; Goodwin & Jasper, 2015: 3; Rootes, 2004; Tarrow, 2013: 2; Smith in Verbong & Loorbach, 2012).

2.2.1 Conceptual evolution Social movements have a highly variable and contested definition, distinct schools of thought emphasise different characteristics. Resource Mobilisation theory (RM) stresses their ‘strategic, rational and organised character’ (McCarthy & Zald, 1977; Snow, 2009: 199; Tilly, 1978). Some scholars focus on the coalitions of ‘dense interorganizational networks and collective identities that transcend the boundaries of any specific organization and encompass much broader collectivities’ (Diani & Bison, 2004 in Porta & Diani, 2012: 3). Others give centrality to ideology and identity in the ‘new’ social movements (Larana et al., 2009; Zald, 2000). Another camp stresses the political nature of social movements, with the state as the target of their claims (McAdam et al., 2001); while some argue for a broader concept of movements as ‘collective challenges to institutional, organizational, and cultural domains other than just the state or the polity’ (Snow, 2009: 199; Snow et al., 2019). This research conceptualises social movements as primarily, but not solely, challenging the state; they are collective challenges to ‘institutional, organizational, or cultural systems of authority’, i.e. the logic of extraction (Snow and Soule 2010 in Della Porta, Diani, Tan, et al., 2014; Snow et al., 2019; Taylor & Dyke, 2004). The implication of broadening the social movement definition allows movements to counter both the structure and the story of neoliberal hegemony; which exist in both state and non-state institutions, and the discourse that surrounds them (see 1.3.6). Different theories are relevant to social movements in different contexts of place and time due to social movement theory being a ‘grounded theory’, derived and revised from data (Strauss et al., 1998: 12).

Demonstrated by the number of paradigm-shifts SMT has undergone from collective behaviour, RM, to political process theory (PPT), and New Social Movements (NSMs) (Edelman, 2001: 285).11 2.3 New Social Movements NSMs emerged in the 1960s and 70s and were mostly identity or issue orientated and included those concerned with civil and other human rights, gender and sexuality, as well as peace and environmentalism. Unlike the labour or nationalist movements of the past, they did not directly focus their actions on the struggle for state power (Della Porta & Diani, 2012).12 Empirically, moreover, most NSMs have combined political goals with more culturally oriented efforts; such as the LGBTQ movement (Polletta & Jasper, 2001: 287). The theorisation of NSMs occurred due to the deficiencies of functionalist and Marxist traditions in explaining the phenomena (Della Porta & Kriesi, 1999: 21). A fundamental shift occurred in capitalist development, from industrial to post-industrial society. Previously, the central conflict had been the class struggle (Calhoun, 1993; Melucci, 1996); however, in post-industrialist society, there was now a proliferation of grievances that caused social conflicts (Scott in Drury, 2015; Edelman, 2001; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; Marcuse, 1964). Rather than a cohesive theoretical perspective, the NSM approach is better understood as a paradigm. As with Marxism, the NSM approach offers a historical and structural understanding of social movements; RM theories focus on the structures that give rise to collective action, but their dependence on the conception of individuals as rational actors limits their analysis of social movements (Polletta & Jasper, 2001: 284). The central propositions of the approach on the macro-level ‘concentrates on the relationship between the rise of contemporary social movements and the larger economic structure, and on the role of culture’ in the emergence, dynamics and processes, and impacts of social movements (Pichardo, 1997: 411; Williams, 2013: 2). The NSM paradigm combines the dominant frameworks of social movement theory and states that both grievances and resources are mediated by meanings (Drury, 2015: 450). While there is contestation over the ‘newness’ of NSMs (Calhoun, 1993), the contributions of the NSM approach – the emphasis on the role of culture, and movement targets outside the realms of the state – are relevant to this research.

2.3.1 Environmental movements Environmental social movements were one of the many NSMs that rose to prominence in the 1960s and 70s, primarily in the Global North. The ‘environmental movement’ is not a singular, cohesive movement but refers to a broad and highly diverse spectrum of collective action from radical direct action to NGOs and lobbying groups that form ‘partially overlapping networks that interact at local, regional, national, and international levels’ (Brulle & Rootes, 2015: 763; Della Porta et al., 2015: 2). This ‘loose, non- institutionalized network of informal interactions…is engaged in collective action motivated by shared identity or concern about environmental issues’ such as pollution, waste management, biodiversity and LFFU (Della Porta et al., 2015: 2; Rootes, 2004). The Environmental Justice Movement (EJM) emerged in marginalised communities in America in the 1980s and is a subset of environmentalism which politicised environmental issues and linked them to the notion of social justice. There has been both an ‘environmentalisation’ of social struggles whereby ecological issues have grown in importance but are also invoked to contest political and socio-economic disputes (Acselrad, 2010; Buttel, 1992; Lopes, 2010). Simultaneously, ‘local political ecologies are becoming increasingly

11 Former theories explain ‘old’ social movements which were typically ‘struggles for material resources and political power’; whereas ‘new’ social movements tend to centre around specific issues or identity (Leach & Scoones, 2007: 276) 12 For example, the environmental movement, pursued securing funding and freedom for researchers and changing consumer perceptions and behaviours, alongside policy reform (Della Porta & Diani, 2012: 5).

transnational and interlinked’ with growing convergence amongst movements due to globalisation (Temper et al., 2015: 256). Social movements around food sovereignty, labour rights, land-grabbing, water management, and climate justice often address several sectors at different levels of governance at the same time; the EJM is an example of such confluence (ibid). The EJMs’ evolution since 1985 has seen movements adopt formal legal status, create partnerships and networks and broaden their missions; creating ‘cross-movement’ activism (Carmin & Bast, 2009; A. C. Perez et al., 2015). The growth of the EJM led to a corresponding development of Environmental Justice (EJ) as a theoretical approach. While many EJMs tackle LFFU, not all movements to LFFU are EJMs. This research is concerned with movements that oppose fossil fuel extraction, infrastructure, transportation, and consumption, to LFFU. The diverse sample of movements studied are situated in the Global North and South; therefore, while EJ is a developed theoretical approach, its weak history of academic application to the Global South means that it will not be utilised to analyse the cases identified in this research. 2.4 Movement emergence Theories of recruitment and participation evolved from focussing on what types of people joined movements to the structural conditions of participation. Weberian inspired social movement theorists saw the proliferation of new social movements emerging due to a combination of capitalism’s crises and as a reaction to the monopolisation of coercion by the state (Della Porta, Diani, & Eder, 2014). Cultural approaches, within the NSM paradigm, have attempted to link these aspects by understanding the context in which movements are situated, temporally and geographically; and the conditions that generate the mobilising grievances (Jasper & Goodwin, 2015). RM and PPT are the two dominant structural approaches that explain movement emergence. RM stresses the preconditions for movement occurrence are money and resources (McCarthy & Zald, 1977). The analogy of the market explains the organisational composition of movements, where SMOs were competing for funding and activists, which applies to more formal social movements (ibid). PPT, now the dominant theory of mobilisation, assimilated aspects of RM into its framework, ultimately stressing the availability of resources, framing techniques, and political and economic context as preconditions of emergence (Jenkins & Perrow, 1977; McAdam & McAdam, 1999; Tarrow et al., 1998).

Political Process Theory PPT details three factors that contribute to the emergence of social movements: growth in political opportunities or threats; the presence of established organizations; and cognitive liberation, a social- psychological process whereby mobilising grievances are realised (Buechler, 2018; D McAdam & McAdam, 1999). Political opportunities are greater given the relative openness of a given democracy and arise during local or national election cycles, and opportunities for consultation during legislative development. An instrumental political threat and a precondition for mobilisation in the history of the environmental movement, is the failure of governments to respond to issues of widespread public concern (Rootes, 2004c; Wapner, 2013). This is pertinent to movements to LFFU due to the inaction of climate governance at a global and national level. PPT stresses the importance of pre-existing SMOs and social networks in movement emergence; looking at the ‘structural conditions within the community… those with strong pre- existing social ties or formal organisations, can easily generate a social movement’ (Della Porta et al., 2015; Jasper & Goodwin, 2015).

2.4.1 Structural conditions for the emergence of movements to LFFU To understand the emergence of environmental movements, particularly those to LFFU, it is necessary to briefly explore the root causes of climate change. As the opening of the Peoples Agreement of Cochabamba

states, climate change is often discussed as a ‘problem limited to the rise in temperature without questioning the cause, which is the capitalist system’ (Peoples Agreement: World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, 2010).

Capitalist development and environmental degradation The ‘ecological crisis, resource depletion and scarcity [is put] into context as historically specific outcomes of historically specific patterns of capitalist development’ (Spence, 2000: 82). Marxism purports that capitalism is ‘crisis-dependent’ due to inherent contradictions (O’Connor, 1991: 108). The first internal contradiction is the tendency towards overproduction that eventually destroys the social conditions – the working classes - upon which it depends. Because workers do not realise the surplus value that they create, economic crises and the class struggle is inherent to capitalism (Biersack & Greenberg, 2006: 13). Capitalism’s second contradiction is its tendency to deplete and degrade the material resources upon which it depends, namely, the environment (O’Connor, 1991). The tendency towards overproduction is exacerbated by the fact that the economy is not circular, but entropic: only 10% of materials used are recycled, and the rate at which we consume materials surpasses that of natural replenishment (Temper et al., 2018: 575). Consequently, there is a constant search for new sources of energy and materials (ibid). Therefore, where the workers’ revolution is the result of capitalism’s first contradiction, environmental movements are the ‘logical outgrowth’ of its second contradiction and ‘an impediment to further capitalist accumulation’ (Greenberg, 2006: 13). Thus, environmental social movements have proliferated and strengthened over the past century, with rapid expansion occurring from 1960 onwards, in response to the increasing ecological degradation caused by industrialisation (Brulle & Rootes, 2015).

Uneven and combined development These crises are experienced at both the local and global scales. The expansion of capitalism has been characterized by uneven and combined development. Uneven development describes the ‘uneven, spatial distribution of industry, banking, commerce, wealth, consumption, labour relations, political configurations and so on… [it] is the exploitative relationship between town and country (centre/periphery; developed/underdeveloped country) as the basis for the reproduction of global capitalism’ (O’Connor, 1989: 2). Combined development is the combination of certain characteristics of ‘developed’ countries with those of ‘underdeveloped’ countries to maximize profit. Such as the combination of technology with exploitative labour conditions and poor environmental regulations (ibid). Capitalism’s accelerated expansion since the industrial revolution has been characterized by inequality, injustice and unsustainability - accumulation by dispossession (Harvey, 2007). Uneven and combined development explains the potential for stranded resources in the Global South and stranded assets in the Global North if LFFU is not addressed with ID policies. As the impacts of expanding capitalism and industrialisation became increasingly obvious, environmental social movements mobilised in response, initially in the US and Europe, and later across the globe. In addition to capitalism’s crises, there are other structural preconditions for social movement emergence set out such as the availability of resources, networks, and degree of openness present in the political system (see 2.4).

2.4.2 Cultural conditions for movement emergence There are three cultural conditions for movement emergence in the literature that are relevant to this research: mobilising grievances, cognitive liberation, and collective identity. The effects of rapid capitalist development generate mobilising grievances. For example, the destruction of livelihoods due to fossil fuel projects with little renumeration for local communities. PPT states that

‘cognitive liberation’ - the ‘process through which hopeless submission to oppressive conditions is transformed into a readiness to challenge those conditions’ - must occur in potential activists for them to participate in movements (McAdam & McAdam, 1999; Temper et al., 2018: 752). This consists of two factors: the collective definition that a situation is unjust, and the notion that it can be changed through collective action (McAdam & McAdam, 1999: 1982). Identity helps one recognise others and the self (Saunders, 2008: 152). In the advent of NSMs, identity is studied alongside political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes (Doug McAdam, 2000). Three types of identity are integral to the study of social movements: individual, collective, and public (Jasper, 1997). Collective identity is an instrumental factor that facilitates and sustains collective action; it accounts for the more ‘social-psychological, emotional and cultural factors’ that were not included in the structural and rationalist theories such as RM, PPT, rational choice, and ideology-based explanations for collective action (Flesher Fominaya, 2010: 393; Melucci, 1980). The concept deconstructs the ‘dualism between structure and meaning’ (Melucci, 1995: 42). It is defined as ‘a shared definition of the social world, shared goals, and a shared conception of the possibilities and constraints of collective action’ (Drury, 2015: 451). It is not only crucial to the emergence and persistence of social movements sustaining collective action but also drives cultural change (Fominaya, 2019: 430). 2.5 Framing This research focuses on the concept of framing, popularised by Goffman in his 1974 Frame Analysis, to understand both how participants are mobilised through the creation of a collective identity, and policy- makers persuaded. In the context of social movements, framing ‘refers to the signifying work or meaning construction engaged in by movement adherents’ (Snow, 2013: 1). It is understood that both structural conditions, such as networks, and meanings work together in the mobilisation process to recruit new members and grow a movement. Recruitment and retention are dependent on the ‘framing’ of issues to appeal to activists over a prolonged period. Framing techniques are also employed strategically to appeal to certain targets; particularly salient frames remain as the part of the cultural legacy of a movement. Frames are particularly important to achieve objectives such as policy change; social movements to LFFU typically consist of those without economic, political or material power, yet they change power relations through discourse. In the case of the EJM, it attempts to persuade its targets of its interpretation of ‘what is wrong with the world and [worth] advocating for change’ (Benford & Snow, 2000 in Gillum, 2000: 4). Frames focus attention, function as articulation mechanisms and perform a transformative function acting as ‘mobilising grievances’ (Snow, 2013: 2). Furthermore, framing ‘intersects with the issues and processes examined via the theoretical lenses of resource mobilization, political opportunity, and cultural perspectives’; demonstrating that they are not competing perspectives but illuminate different facets of social movements (Snow, 2013: 6). 2.6 Strategy, tactics and targets Different frames are communicated to movement targets using tactics. Protests, or non-institutional tactics, are the fundamental factors of social movements that distinguish them from other political actors (Taylor & Dyke, 2004: 263). ‘Repertoires of protest’ describes the range of tactics that movements can choose from; these tactics are often categorised into institutional and extra-institutional means (see 2.5.2) (Adams & Shriver, 2016; Gamson, 1990; Doug McAdam, 1996; Taylor & Dyke, 2004). Repertoires of protest are mostly ‘structurally determined’ by the political, legal, and economic context in which movements are situated (see 2.7) (Meyer, 2004; Skrentny, 2006). Tactical choices are also made through interaction with other stakeholders such as opponents, allies, politicians, the police, and the media (Goodwin & Jasper, 2015a). The target of a movement influences the strategies and tactics employed, depending on its vulnerability to delegitimization or openness to influence (Adams & Shriver, 2016; Walker

et al., 2008). When the target is the state, the political structure determines tactical repertoires; political opportunities are less frequent in authoritarian states and lack avenues for engagement, pushing movements to use extra-institutional means (Adams & Shriver, 2016: 896; Osa, 2001). Additionally, the less favourable movement demands are, as perceived by policy-makers, the ‘more assertive strategies are needed by the social movement for a positive outcome’ (Amenta et al., 2010; Skrentny, 2006: 1764). Social movements predominantly target their efforts at the state, although in the case of movements against extraction, they target other powerful groups and institutions such as multinational corporations and the media.

2.6.1 Tactics of the environmental movement The modern environmental movement’s tactics are influenced by the repertoires of protest available at any given time and place. In the 1970s, public displays of contention were characterised by ‘street demonstrations, non-violent direct action, and boycotts’ and other media-grabbing stunts typically carried out by NGOs Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace (Rootes, 2004b). As the environmental movement became more institutionalised in Europe - Green Parties and government departments dedicated to environmental policy emerged – the movement’s tactical repertoire shifted towards a focus on lobbying rather than more contentious forms of protest. However, elsewhere, particularly in the Global South, this ‘de-mobilisation’ did not occur (ibid).

2.6.2 Tactics to LFFU I have elaborated the tactical repertoire used by social movements to LFFU and have categorised by institutional or extra-institutional means:

Institutional tactics ● Information campaigns about the economic risks associated with the fossil fuel industry by ‘breeding uncertainty’ through the framing of fossil fuel investments as ‘stranded assets’ part of a ‘carbon bubble’; ● Media campaigns and stunts to increase awareness; ● Changing social norms and attitudes through the stigmatisation of the fossil fuel industry and highlighting the benefits of a ‘green’ economy; ● Boycotting of consumption (difficult when the economic means of production are reliant on fossil fuels); ● Lobbying politicians to restrict extraction and consumption of fossil fuels; ● Supporting politicians who promote climate policies that restrict fossil fuel supply and/or trying to stop politicians who support the fossil fuel industry from being elected; (Piggot, 2018: 946).

Extra-institutional tactics ● Violent tactics such as ‘bombings, shootings, kidnappings, physical sabotage such as the destruction of infrastructure, and other types of physical harm of people and property’(Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011). ● Physically stopping extraction by stopping construction and/or blocking access to fossil fuel infrastructure or its development, particularly through the use of ‘soft-blockades’ (Piggot, 2018: 946).

Yet there is a gap in the literature on movements to LFFU concerning why strategies and tactics are employed and under what conditions they are effective in such movements, which this research seeks to address. 2.7 Impacts of social movements The impacts of social movements are highly contested; some scholars attest that movements have accounted for most political change; others have argued that movements have not been influential in comparison with other political actors (Amenta et al., 2010: 288; Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2005; Giugni, 1999). However, it is recognised that social movements bring about a spectrum of changes upon society, some intended and others not. These impacts include: achieving movement goals, or not but benefitting constituents, policy changes, changes to norms and culture, or creating a favourable cultural context for future movements to thrive in - some leave behind organisational structures, tactical repertoires, and experienced activists for other movements to use (Goodwin & Jasper, 2015c: 379). Some scholars have lauded 50 years of environmental activism as ‘successful’ due to the proliferation of environmental policies and creation of green parties; however, we are still on path for a 3-5C world by 2100, due to an absence of adequate environmental policies (IPCC, 2019). While recognising the spectrum of impacts social movements have on society, the definition of social movement ‘success’ employed in this research refers to policy impact, specifically, the creation of new legislation to LFFU. This research limits itself to the study of the social movements that have achieved policy change for two reasons: the lack of effective policies to LFFU (see 1.3.5) and its measurability. For this purpose, Gamson’s typology of social movement success is particularly useful: he delineates two ‘clusters’ of outcomes: policy change, and/or the acceptance of the movement as ‘representative of legitimate interests’ (2003: 350). There are several stages to achieving policy change: Figure 2: Policy change stages

1 • Access to legislators and policy-makers

2 • Agenda setting for legislators

3 • Official policies

4 • Implementation and enforcement of policies

5 • Achievement of the policies’ intended impact

6 • Deeper structural changes to the political system

Source: (Burstein et al., 1995; Goodwin & Jasper, 2015c).

Given that the movements studied have achieved policy change (stage 3 above) it is necessary to evaluate the implementation and enforcement of policies (stage 4); to understand whether they have contributed to structural changes to LFFU through ID (see Chapter 6). 2.8 Social movements and inclusive development While I am generally averse to using the term ‘development’ as it implies a uni-linear notion of progress; ID is a concept that counters the ‘dominant neo-liberal capitalist agenda’ and focusses on social, ecological, and relational development (Gupta et al., 2015: 541). Social inclusiveness ‘includes marginalised people, sectors and countries in social, political and economic processes for increased human well-being, social and environmental sustainability, and empowerment’ (Gupta et al., 2015: 546; Pouw & Gupta, 2017). Ecological inclusiveness ‘entails protecting access to, and ownership of, resources as well as the protection of ecosystems’ for the most marginalised at the local, national, and international levels (Hillson, 2019: 3). ID’s relational aspect demands multi-level governance to tackle global problems and achieve social and ecological inclusiveness using the CBDRRC principle (1.3). Failure to approach LFFU with ID policies will lead to stranded resources in DCs, exacerbating the vulnerabilities of the most marginalised (Gupta & Vegelin, 2016). Therefore, this research will assess the policies implemented by social movements to LFFU through an ID lens. Despite being theoretically grounded in social movements, there are no scholarly articles within the topic of social movements that explicitly reference ID, further strengthening the theory’s suitability (see 3.4.1) (Pouw & Gupta, 2017). 2.9 Conclusion SMT helps define the units of analysis, namely, successful social movements to LFFU. PPT guides the analysis of the structural and cultural conditions for mobilisation (0); to understand what grievances are mobilising chapter 5 looks at what frames are used to both mobilise participants and persuade policy- makers (5.2), it then explores what strategies and tactics are used to communicate movement demands (5.6). ID guides analysis of the movement impacts (5.7). EJ was considered and despite its theoretical evolution and application globally and to the Global South (Agyeman, 2013; A. Martin et al., 2013; J. L. Martin et al., 2016; Martinez-Alier et al., 2014; Mehta et al., 2014; Schroeder et al., 2008; Sikor & Newell, 2014; Svarstad & Benjaminsen, 2020). It has been critiqued for its Global North focus, with a tendency to universalise, in need of a more post-colonial perspective (Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020; Fraser, 2018; Lawhon, 2013; A. Martin et al., 2013; Svarstad & Benjaminsen, 2020; Temper, Demaria, et al., 2018; Vermeylen, 2019). Given the presence of movements in both the Global North and Global South, I chose not to use it in my theoretical framework. The multi-dimensional and scalar ID approach and the corresponding knowledge gap was the motivation to use ID as a framework for social movement research.

3 Ontology and Epistemology, Research design, Methodology, Quality criteria, and Ethics 3.1 Introduction This chapter explains the ontological position (3.2); which guides the research design (3.3) and methodology (3.4); the methodology is reflected upon (3.5); followed by an ethical reflection (3.6). 3.2 Ontology and Epistemology This research uses a pragmatic approach, sequential mixed research methods, and both deductive and inductive research strategies (Creswell et al., 2003). A pragmatic approach focuses on the ‘problem being studied, and the questions asked about [it]’ (Creswell, 2009: 28). Social movements are the unit of analysis; ontologically, the study of social movements is situated in constructivism, implying that social phenomena and categories are socially produced and continually revised (Bryman, 2012: 33). However, a pragmatic approach means that while the socially constructed nature of reality and problems is recognised, the problem statement of this research is objective; because nature, and climate science, must exist for the problem of climate change to be real (Gupta, 2014a). Furthermore, a pragmatic approach allows for the quantitative analysis to be guided by a post-positivist ontological stance while the qualitative analysis is based on a constructivist ontology. 3.3 Research Design Using sequential mixed methods, this research avoids a priori assumptions about causal mechanisms but seeks to understand what factors contribute to the success of a social movement to LFFU. This design allows for quantitative analysis, using a deductive approach, to define the unit of analysis (successful social movements to LFFU) and steer case study selection; then qualitative analysis to understand them in depth (Bryman, 2012: 36). The research strategy is a case study: a ‘subset’ of a broader phenomenon, the results are ‘temporally and spatially contingent’ giving rise to thick description; and data sources are triangulated to do so (Snow, 2013a: 2). This research analyses a sample of 10 cross-country and longitudinal cases, embedded in an encompassing case. Most comparative case studies have focussed on left-wing social movements in the Global North (ibid: 3). This research addresses this gap in the literature, balancing cases between the North and South. While I initially aimed to use a purely inductive approach to the qualitative analysis - through semi- structured interviews with activists - to understand the process of producing social realities (ibid). I used the concepts and theoretical framework developed in chapter 2 to inform my analysis deductively too. The semi-structured interviews aim to co-produce new knowledge, which activists can use to achieve their goals. Figure 3 illustrates the research design, depicting what methods answer which questions (see 1.8 for RQs).

Figure 3: Research design and methods used to answer RQ and sub-questions

Source: own analysis 3.4 Methodology

3.4.1 Literature reviews Research guided by five literature reviews: purposive literature reviews on LFFU, social movement theory, the EJM, and ID; followed by an exhaustive literature review of social movements to LFFU. For consistency scope of the research, sampling used the JSTOR database. Broad literature on LFFU comprised of 1,120 articles, 33 which were relevant. For social movement theory, key theorists were read focussing on the concepts: emergence, mobilisation processes, political process theory, cognitive liberation, framing techniques, tactics, impacts, and the EJM (see 3.2).13 153 articles on social movements were surveyed, 60 of those on theory. Literature was selected purposefully and on an ad hoc basis; as the relevant concepts changed during the process of data analysis. The exhaustive literature review of social movements to LFFU yielded 51 articles, four were not in English, the remaining 47 were read with 13 being pertinent.14 All articles focussed on singular case studies, demonstrating a gap in the literature for a meta-analysis of social movements to LFFU, guiding my research design.

13 Scholars such as: Tarrow, Tilly, Della Porta, Diani, McAdams, Melucci, Snow, Zald, Johnson, see Chapter 2. 14 Exhaustive literature review was guided by the BOOLIAN operator: (ab:(((fossil fuel) OR (fracking) OR (oil) OR (coal) OR (gas) OR (LNG) OR (liquid natural gas)) AND (social movements)))

ID literature was purposively sampled due to the vast and varied literature on it (195,442 articles). However, it was only recently conceptualised and defined in the way that is operationalised in this research, narrowing the sample (Pouw & Gupta, 2015). Despite 10,099 articles relating to ID within the topic of social movements, none were relevant or explicitly referenced ID. 507 articles were surveyed relating to ID, fossil fuels and social movements, 67 of which were read, 24 mentioned social movements but none discussed their role in implementing ID.15

3.4.2 Theoretical framework Concepts from different schools of thought within SMT are operationalised, for their explanatory power for different facets of movements (2.2-2.7). To answer the overarching RQ I considered ID, Marxism, postcolonial theory, EJ, and Political Ecology. Social movements to LFFU have typically been analysed through Political Ecology or EJ frameworks. While Political Ecology is useful for its structural explanation for environmental movement emergence; its focus on context and power relations prevented me from generating interesting conclusions and recommendations. Both have been criticised for focusing too much on the local, in the form of singular case studies, EJ specialising in quantitative analysis while Political Ecology tends towards qualitative studies; informing the mixed methods research design (Holifield et al., 2009; Svarstad & Benjaminsen, 2020). ID was chosen due to its multi-dimensional approach, which is easily operationalised to analyse policies (see Table 9 in Appendix).

3.4.3 Quantitative data analysis of the EJM Data for the initial quantitative analysis of the EJM (stage 2 in Figure 3), was sourced from the EJAtlas. The EJAtlas (see Figure 4) was created to enable ‘deeper systematic evidence-based enquiry into the politics, power relations and socio-metabolic processes surrounding environmental justice struggles’ (Temper et al., 2015: 257). It is an activist-led research project, part of the wider 'Environmental Justice Organizations, Liabilities, and Trade' (EJOLT) project. Its goal is to develop a database where ‘environmental conflicts can be described, analysed, compared and interpreted’ and where ‘the rates of success in stopping extractive projects or introducing new regulations can be discerned and productive lessons can be learned’ (Temper et al., 2015: 262). The criteria applied to identify conflicts are: ● ‘Economic activity or legislation that has actual or potential negative environmental and social outcomes ● Claims by environmental justice organization(s) that such harm occurred or is likely to occur as a result of this activity, and mobilization ● Reporting of that particular conflict in one or more media stories.’ (ibid: 262) While the EJAtlas is not exhaustive, it is the most comprehensive database of movements to LFFU, with 3,129 recorded conflicts to date. Due to time constraints, scope, and to maintain internal and external validity, data was taken directly from the EJAtlas, denoting the broader population of cases. Sampling was taken from the 2,754 conflicts since 1970 when a cohesive environmental movement emerged (2.3.1). Quantitative analysis produced descriptive statistics about the characteristics of the EJM (4.2), on 588 energy-related conflicts and movements to LFFU (4.2.1), and select the case study sample (see 4.2).

3.4.4 Case study selection Criterion-I was the sample selection process, whereby cases are selected if they qualify a chosen criterion (Palinkas et al., 2015). The criteria were a) social movements that have successfully stopped fossil extraction

15 BOOLIAN operator: (inclusive development) AND (fossil fuels) AND (social movements) which yielded 507 articles

or infrastructure development, therefore have LFFU b) successful social movements, where success is defined as implementing a new policy to LFFU (see 2.5.4). Figure 4: Screenshot of EJAtlas map of fossil fuel and climate justice conflicts

Source: EJAtlas16

Figure 4 shows the EJAtlas filter used. The sample consists of 10 social movements where the project has been stopped and new legislation has been enacted (see Table 5).

16 All maps used are from the EJAtlas for consistency and accuracy of the conflict locations as it is activist-led. However, a methodological limitation is that it does not include a scale or compass. In Chapter 4, all maps depicting the sample of 10 movements are set to the same ‘zoom’ level for consistent scale, despite this not being depicted on the map.

3.4.5 Conceptual framework Figure 5: Revised conceptual scheme

3.4.6 Interviews Interviewee sampling was purposive, to identify key stakeholders involved with each case. I collated a database of 153 key activists from social movement websites, social media pages, and media materials. Further interviewees were sourced through the ‘snowballing’ technique by asking interviewees if there was anyone else I should speak to. The semi-structured interviews consisted of both closed and open-ended questions (Bryman, 2012: 202).

3.4.7 Document selection I used purposive and snowballing sampling methods to select documents to triangulate with interviews. Sampling was undertaken at the movement level with sources comprising of leaflets, manifestos, strategy documents, slogans, speeches or public statements (Johnston, 2014: 619-620).17 153 documents across the ten movements were analysed.

3.4.8 Frame analysis Coding for categories and frames was conducted using a combination of both a deductive and inductive approach, drawing on both theory and empirical data (see Table 9 in Appendix). Categories were the concepts derived primarily from SMT. Comparative frame analysis was undertaken due to the similarity of the cases. The number of mentions of key terms was recorded in excel as a proxy for the frame used. This was undertaken using the ‘ctrl F’ function in the background document. Percentages were made to evaluate the dominant framing of the conflict.

17 To add context, I also looked at newspaper articles, documentaries, social media posts and listened to podcasts.

3.4.9 Inclusive development rating A points-based system was developed using the variables operationalised (see Table 9) to determine whether the policies implemented by movements to LFFU have contributed to ID (5.7). The more variables that satisfy the ecological, social, and relational aspects of ID, the higher the score of high, medium, and low. 3.5 Methodological reflection This research uses the post-positivist quality criteria ‘trustworthiness’ credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability’ alongside the positivist validity criteria for the quantitative analysis (Bryman, 2012: 614). Due to the aim of this research to provide recommendations to LFFU, Lincoln and Guba’s quality criteria ‘authenticity’ is also utilised; for social research with practical outcomes (1985 in Bryman, 2012: 393).

3.5.1 Validity and credibility Data analysis of the EJM and movements to LFFU has a sample size of 588, drawn from the 3,129 cases on the EJAtlas. The number of cases makes it externally valid; the analysis and results are replicable and thus, internally valid. The case study is representative of the EJM, specifically successful movements to LFFU (see 4.2); however, a sample of 10 is not large enough to make statistically significant claims, hence why case study analysis was mostly qualitative. Credibility, or the ‘power to elicit belief’ of my research is strengthened through the triangulation of my data using both primary and secondary sources. To answer the overarching RQ I spoke to 22 activists from nine out of the 10 cases studied, supplemented by 153 documents (see 3.4.7). Credibility was further bolstered through building trust with participants (see 3.6.2).

3.5.2 Transferability Transferability relates to whether findings from a sample are ‘applicable outside the immediate frame of reference’ (O’Leary, 2005: 58). My findings are temporally transferable because I analysed all successful social movements that stopped fossil fuel projects and brought in new legislation since 1970. Findings could apply to similar contexts in the future. Transferability of this research is strengthened through the rich description. Further research could ascertain whether my findings are transferable to outside the sample to social movements that have achieved different types of ‘success’.18

3.5.3 Confirmability and dependability Confirmability assesses whether the researcher’s subjectivity has guided the analysis and findings; and whether other researchers would reach the same conclusions. This research does not strive for objectivity, but neutrality; furthermore, this research cannot be objective because it has an agenda. I have reflected on my subjectivity and the potential impacts on the analysis in section 3.5. The wider LFFU research group, comprised of six master’s students, acts as an auditing function to further strengthen confirmability.

3.5.4 Authenticity Authenticity is ‘concerned with the truth value while recognizing that multiple truths may exist’ and the wider political impacts of social research (O’Leary, 2005: 57; Bryman, 2012: 316). It covers whether the research is fairly representative of different viewpoints; helps participants better understand their reality

18 i.e. Stopped fossil fuel projects and achieved policy change rather than created new laws, or have not affected policy change.

and others’ perspectives within their social settings; is an impetus for action; and empowers participants to take action (Bryman, 2012: 393). The sample selection of documents relating to the social movements studied may have influenced results due to the reliance on databases and internet searches; which relies on certain terms being used. The purposive sampling of interviewees may have hindered fair representation different viewpoints within the cases studied. While the sampling method favoured those, who hold positions of power within social movement organisations, in the broader context of society, respondents from grassroots organisations are typically marginalised. In terms of gender, respondents were balanced; yet in terms of ethnicity, respondents were mostly white. A summary of findings was sent to participants so that the research process was not entirely extractive and to satisfy the educational authenticity criterion. This research aims to provide recommendations for social movements to LFFU by sharing best practice. While my respondents may not benefit directly from the summary as the campaigns they were involved in have finished, the recommendations should benefit the wider activist community. The conclusions and recommendations should act as a catalyst for action to both participants and readers and empower those in similar situations to act. 3.6 Ethical reflection

3.6.1 Positionality and subjectivity Given the constructionist study of social movements, the relationship between the researcher and the observed must be subject to scrutiny (Melucci, 1995). The distribution of power in society means that social movements typically comprise of disenfranchised and marginalised people. As a privileged researcher and knowledge producer, situated in the Global North, I acknowledged and attempted to mitigate the power dynamics present in the interaction between the activists and myself in interviews; allowing them to direct the semi-structured interview.

3.6.2 Consent and trust-building This research followed the principles of voluntary participation based on prior, informed consent for interviewees. Consent was first asked for over email, then again verbally before the interview commenced. Interview requests - sent over email or social media - described the wider study, my specific interests, its objectives, and its potential future use. Due to the politically sensitive nature of the research, where requested, the interviews were conducted on an anonymous and non-attributable basis; which was upheld throughout the analysis and final written thesis to avoid harm to respondents.19 This research aims to provide recommendations for social movements to help LFFU. An unintended consequence and a hindrance to the authenticity (3.5.4) of this research is if adversaries (fossil fuel companies, pro-fossil fuel industry governments, or investors) are ‘empowered’ to utilise my findings to pre-empt or respond to direct action. This is particularly pertinent in countries where climate activism is heavily criminalised. To reduce such risks, the respondents were also given the opportunity to retract consent at any time; and to read and edit their transcripts before they were used in the research.

3.6.3 Ethical challenges encountered The broad scope of this research entailed remote primary data collection. I struggled with to engage with activists in social movements from the global south over the internet without excluding marginalised

19 Most respondents gave consent for their organisation to be named.

groups, being extractivist, and re-enforcing the power dynamics of knowledge production. Despite 15% of approached interviewees belonging to indigenous groups, who are on the frontline of many extractive projects, I only managed to speak to one member of a First Nation in Canada. Geraldine Thomas, of the Yinka Dene Alliance (YDA), was instrumental in the fight against a proposed pipeline through her territory. As a member of a group that has been persecuted, marginalised and silenced throughout history, she stressed that she wanted ‘to be named, because I want to make sure that people know that our stories are being told, through [our] own eyes’.20 I regret not being able to speak to more indigenous people despite six of the ten social movements studied affecting them. On reflection, the remote nature of the research and its reliance on technology to communicate perhaps hindered my ability to contact marginalised groups; although I attempted to mitigate this by using social media.

20 Interview 17: Geraldine Thomas, YDA

4 Case study context and movement emergence 4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the context of the ‘successful social movements to LFFU’ case study. Firstly, I set out an overview of the environmental justice movement since 1970; looking at conflicts over energy, particularly fossil fuels (see 4.2). I then detail the case study sample context (4.3); elaborating on each movement according to whether it took place in the Global South (4.4) or Global North (4.5). In these sections, I also identify the mobilising grievances that arise from the structural pre-conditions (see 2.4.2). Therefore, this chapter seeks to answer sub-questions 1a, b, and c (see 1.8). 4.2 The EJM Figure 6 depicts the EJ conflicts by category since 1970, alongside the percentage of projects stopped (see Table 6). Energy conflicts (nuclear and fossil fuels) are the highest proportion of reported incidents (21%). Only 14 social movements since 1970 successfully advocated for and developed alternatives: 2 against nuclear, 9 to LFFU, and 3 against water management. Focusing on energy conflicts, only 9% of movements that stopped the project also advocated for, and developed, alternative renewable energy sources; equalling only 2% of all energy-related conflicts. This trend is reflected in the case study sample, with only one movement advocating for renewables (see 4.5.3). Figure 6: Plot of environmental justice conflicts

Environmental Justice Conflicts since 1970 700 40% 600 35% 500 30% 25% 400 20% 300 15% 200 10% 100

Number of conflicts of Number 5%

0 0% Project stopped (%)Projectratestopped

Commodity

Number of conflicts Project stopped Rate of success

Source: EJAtlas, own analysis

4.2.1 Movements to LFFU Fossil fuel conflicts have increased in frequency and severity since 1970, depicted by the number of ‘blockadia’ conflicts in Figure 7 (Owen & Rivin, 2017).21 Figure 7: Graph depicting the increasing frequency of ‘blockadia’ fossil fuel conflicts since 1970

Total 'blockadia' conflicts 12

4 Number of conflicts of Number

Year

Source: EJAtlas, own graph Since 1970, 86 (18%) movements to LFFU stopped a project (see Table 6); 52 of them were deemed a success by the movement, the others not attributing the cessation of the project to the movement.22 Furthermore, combining domestic fossil fuel extraction data with these 52 movements that stopped fossil fuel projects; I found that extraction decreased in the 5 years after the social movement in 33% of cases, and increased in 67% of the cases (see Figure 8).23 Aside from these two national successes, a subsequent decrease or increase in fossil fuel extraction cannot be attributed to a particular social movement. This depicts the inefficacy of the global EJM, and more specifically, movements to LFFU.

21 The term ‘Blockadia’ was coined by activists protesting against Keystone XL pipeline with their bodies and popularised by Naomi Klein to describe the ‘transnational conflict zone’ where ‘regular’ people are stepping in where our leaders are failing’ (Klein, 2014b, 2014a). 22 I excluded a conflict over geothermal energy production; which is considered renewable energy and did not fit my case study selection criteria (see 3.4.3). 23 In two cases, fossil fuel data was negligible or none existent but were counted as decreasing as the social movements brought about Moratoriums on offshore oil extraction, and all oil exploration and extraction in Belize and Costa Rica respectively.

Figure 8: Pie chart showing the change in domestic fossil fuel extraction after LFFU movements

DOMESTIC EXTRACTION CHANGE FIVE YEARS AFTER FOSSIL FUEL 'PROJECT STOPPED'

Domestic extraction increased Domestic extraction decreased

33%

67%

Source: own analysis: EJAtlas data, UN Environment Programme International Resource Panel Global Material Flows Database While 18% of movements to LFFU are successful – where the project stopped – only 9% of them also advocated for and developed alternative renewable energy sources. This figure is in line with the sample where only one out of ten advocated for renewables. 4.3 Characteristics of case study sample: successful movements to LFFU Table 1 outlines the context of the sample of social movements studied. Building on the theories of mobilisation surveyed, contextual factors are the structural conditions for mobilisation (2.4). I include the location; duration; the commodity the movement protested against; when in the fossil fuel life cycle conflict occurred; socio-economic context; energy market in terms of net imports or exports and the production mix in TerraWattHours (TWHs); political context is depicted in terms of a democracy index to measure political openness, and relevant regional or national elections that took place during the movement.24 The movements studied occurred from 1999 onwards; indicating that the case study is representative of the wider EJM, which has seen an increase in the frequency of fossil fuel conflicts since 1970, demonstrated in Figure 6. The movements lasted for six years on average. Four movements took place in the Global South, six were situated in the Global North. Those in the Global South were more likely to implement national policy changes to LFFU, while those in the Global North only achieved regional policy changes. Three movements were based in countries that were net importers of fossil fuels (Costa Rica, Belize, Spain) and resulted in a ban on extraction. All movements occurred in politically ‘open’ states, in line with PPT (The Economist, 2019). Seven out of ten movements occurred at the ‘extractive frontier’; the three movements that did not were all situated in the Global North: two movements in Canada were against the transportation of gas and a movement in Chicago opposed fossil fuel consumption (Scheidel & Schaffartzik, 2019). This dispersion demonstrates the ‘uneven and combined’ nature of capitalist development as conflicts in ICs occur further along the fossil fuel life cycle (2.4.1) (Scheidel & Schaffartzik, 2019).

24The democracy score is given as a proxy for political openness in a given regime; which PPT purports may impact the likelihood of movement emergence and the ability of a movement to influence policy (2.4) (The Economist, 2019).

Table 1: Case study context

Movement Costa Rica oil Belize Colombia oil Mexico Cantabria, Victoria, Yes 2 Enbridge / Gitwilgyoots Chicago coal power moratorium offshore oil and coal maritime Spain, fracking Australia UCG Renewables Northern LNG export plants moratorium Extraction space dispute ban fracking ban #VRET, Gateway facility Victoria, Pipeline Australia Country & Region Costa Rica, Belize, SIDC, Colombia, DC, Mexico, DC, Spain, IC, Victoria, Victoria, British British Illinois, USA, G7, DC, Global Global South Global South Global South Global North Australia, IC, Australia, IC, Columbia, Columbia, IC, Global North South Global North Global North Canada, IC, G7, G7, Canada, Global North Global North Energy market: Net Net importer, Net exporter, Net exporter, Net importer, Net exporter, Net Net exporter, Net exporter, Net exporter: importer/exporter, importer, N/A Coal: 658.33 Coal: 72.22 Coal: 12 Coal: 3652.78 exporter, Coal: 308.33 Coal: 308.33 Coal: 3972.22 domestic FF N/A Oil: 543.1 Oil: 1103.7 N/A Oil: 239.6 Coal: Oil: 3,197.1 Oil: 3197.1 Oil: 8684.12 production TWhs Gas: 129 Gas: 332.16 Gas: 1499.61 3652.78 Gas: 1691.1 Gas: 1691.1 Gas: 8996.68 Oil: 239.6 Gas: 1499.61 Democracy score 8.13 6.1325 7.13 6.09 8.29 9.09 9.09 9.22 9.22 7.96 Relevant Elections 2002 General 2015 General Governor of State of 2015 & 2019 2014 state 2014 state 2011-2017 2011-2017 Chicago Mayoral election: election: UDP Norte Campeche Cantabrian election: election: Liberal party Liberal party elections 2011: small (centre right) Santander Governor elections: Conservative Conservative (centre right) (centre right) Rahm Emmanuel majority for won 3rd term Department 1997-present Peoples Party lost to Labour lost to in BC state: in BC state: (Democrat) beat incumbent 2003-07 went Institutional (conservative) party Labour party 2017 BC state 2017 BC state incumbent Social on to run Revolutionary & Regionalist election won election won 2008: Obama Christian National Party (PRI) Party; by NDP & by NDP & implemented Union Party Hydrocarbons Green Green pollution (centre-right) Agency regulations Dates 1999 – 2003 2010 – 2017 2002 – 2006 1996 – 2017 2011 – 2019 2011 – 2016 2013 – 2016 2010 – 2016 2015 -2017 2002 – 2012

Commodity Crude oil Crude oil Crude oil, coal Crude oil Shale gas Unconventional Coal, Crude oil, Liquid Natural Coal fracking gas fracking Electricity Natural gas, gas Bitumen Stage in fossil fuel Exploration & Exploration & Exploration & Exploration & Exploration & Exploration & Extraction / Transportation Transportation Consumption life cycle extraction extraction extraction extraction extraction extraction alternatives

Success level National National Regional policy Regional Regional Regional policy Regional Regional policy Regional policy Regional policy policy change policy change change policy change policy change change policy change change change change

25 No data due to size of country, Latin American average used as a proxy. 35

Sources: EJAtlas; UN World Economic Situation, 2020; The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020; EIA, 2017; BP, 2019; IEA, 2019; own data Given that the developmental histories and the implications of LFFU differ vastly for the Global North and South the sample will be split into two and analysed accordingly. 4.4 Context of successful social movements to LFFU in the Global South Latin America has a strong history of debates centring around alternatives to development. During a period of neo-extractivism characterised by growing demand for natural resources and high prices in the early 2000s; there was a growing ‘post-extractivism’ critique that stressed the ‘externalization of its social and ecological costs’ of an extractivist development model (Brand et al., 2017: 37). A prominent approach, which informed the failed Yasuni ITT proposal, is the concept of Buen Vivir (see 1.3.7). The popularity of alternatives to development in the region is demonstrated by all social movements in the sample being in Latin America. The two social movements that achieved national policy changes – in Costa Rica and Belize - were in Central America and are detailed below.

4.4.1 Costa Rica Map 1: Costa Rica

Source: EJAtlas

Context Costa Rica does not produce any fossil fuels due to the moratorium on oil exploration and extraction which was enacted in 2002, as a result of the movement studied, and extended in 2019 until 2050 (Rico, 2019). The Talamanca region in the southeast of Costa Rica – where the movement originated - is home to three indigenous communities, a UNESCO world heritage site, a national park, endangered turtle breeding grounds, and UN-designated wetlands (PublicCitizen, 2018: 1). Costa Rica is politically open due to its ‘lack

of mineral resources, weak colonial institutions and early cultivation of coffee [which] allowed stable democratic foundations to form’ (Oilwatch Costa Rica, 2005). Civil society started to mobilise in response to the 1994 Hydrocarbon Bill which declared ‘oil exploration and exploitation as “public interest”’ giving the Executive sole power over concession granting for oil exploration (ibid). In 1999, the Municipality of Talamanca declared itself free from oil exploration and extraction (ibid). This mobilisation turned into a social movement against Harken Energy, who had received a concession from former President Miguel Angel Rodriguez to drill for oil in the area. In 1999, the Constitutional Court ruled Harken Energy’s EIA as insufficient, particularly concerning indigenous consent with respect to the ILO (Pier, 2020: 4). The Supreme Court ruled the concessions ‘null and void’ in September 2000, on the basis that the indigenous consultation process had been insufficient Oilwatch, 2005: 5). In February 2002 Costa Rica rejected Harken Energy’s application for environmental permits on the basis that the concession was incompatible with Costa Rica’s environmental law (ibid; Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, 2004: 1).26

Who mobilised? The movement was a large coalition of 100 grassroots groups from Limón called Acción De Lucha Anti- petrolera (ADELA).27 Initially, the campaign was led by those with a ‘high dependency on intact natural environments and also accredited a high inherent value to the health of nature’ such as indigenous people, artisanal fishers, and afro-descendants, yet it soon engaged and mobilised a large portion of society (Pier, 2020: 4). The coalition’s breadth is demonstrated by the Catholic Church’s involvement, declaring compensation from the oil companies for environmental damages ‘immoral’ (Oilwatch, 2005: 7).

26 Harken Energy retaliated by attempting to bring an international law suit against Costa Rica for $57 billion worth of forgone earnings. Costa Rica refused to settle outside the courts and exercised its right to keep the case within its own jurisdiction. 27 Oilwatch Costa Rica was a key actor in the movement, later supported by large NGOs such as the Natural Resource Defence Council (NRDC), FoE, alongside farmers’ organisations, businesses, faith groups, marine biologists and the fishing union (Engler & Martinez, 2003).

4.4.2 Belize Map 2: Belize

Source: EJAtlas

Context In 2008, Belize discovered oil onshore and it ‘became an increasing contributor to GDP’.28 The Belize Coalition to Save Our Natural Heritage (the coalition) successfully campaigned for an oil moratorium on offshore oil exploration and drilling. In December 2017, the Belizean Government unanimously passed the Petroleum Operations (Offshore Zone Moratorium) Bill, placing an indefinite moratorium in Belize’s waters (Gomez, 2018). Politically, civil society – particularly environmental NGOs - were not functioning properly before OCEANA’s arrival. Marine focused organisations ‘couldn’t be vocal or critical’ due to a ‘contaminated relationship [of] dependency between the Government and NGOs’; where ‘NGOs were being charged with the management of marine and terrestrial areas’.29

Who mobilised The coalition initially consisted of six NGOs, eventually growing to 41 organisations. 30 The coalition ‘pulled together non-traditional groups’.31 However, businesses were wary of publicly supporting the campaign despite providing funds.32

28 Interview 10a & b 29 Interview 10a & b 30 The initial SMOs: Citizens Organised for Liberty through Action (COLA), OCEANA, Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (Healthy Reefs), WWF, APAMO, and the Alabons society; Interview 8: senior member of COLA 31 Interview 9: Healthy Reefs member 32 Interview 8

4.4.3 Colombia Map 3: Colombia

Source: EJAtlas

Context Colombia is South America’s largest coal producer (EIA, 2019). The Catatumbo River basin is a forested area in the state Department of Northern Santander, close to the border with Venezuela and home to the Moliton Bari Indigenous peoples (WRM, 2006). A campaign fought against oil and coal extraction by Ecopetrol in the Moliton Bari territory. Ecopetrol is a previously state-owned company ‘responsible for administering the nation's hydrocarbon resources’; in the early 2000’s Ecopetrol was privatised by then- President Alvaro Uribe (Temper et al., 2013: 86).

Who mobilised The movement consisted of indigenous groups, in coalition with larger institutions including the UN and Oxfam. In a meeting between Campesinos and indigenous people, there were 12 communities and the respective leaders of the Motilon Bari Indigenous peoples discussing their opposition to the proposed oil exploration (Pérez, 2007). The campaign was led by Bari community leaders, and supported by Doctors without borders (Salazar, 2005).

4.4.4 Mexico Map 4: Mexico

Source: EJAtlas

Context Mexico relies on fossil fuels for 90% of its energy consumption; it is also estimated to have 10 percent of the world’s crude oil, with total petroleum resources second only to the Arctic (Anderson & Park, 2016; Trading Economics, 2020). The bay of Campeche is known for its biodiversity and artisanal fishing; the area is Mexico’s largest red snapper producer and its second-largest prawn, oyster, and snook producer (Quist, 2019). Offshore lies the oilfield, Cantrell, which is owned by Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) – the 10th largest oil company in the world - and is responsible for approximately 86% of Mexico’s oil production (Quist, 2019). Government-owned PEMEX had a monopoly on the ‘leading industry’ of oil production (Cuéllar et al., 2004: 311). A social movement consisting of mostly fishermen engaged in a conflict PEMEX over maritime space off the coast of the state of Campeche. Initially, the conflict centred around the continued expansion of an exclusion zone by the oil company (Soto et al., 2009). Then, in 2014, due to declining production levels and poorly maintained infrastructure, energy reforms were introduced to privatise the oil industry; and the National Agency for Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection for the Oil and Gas Industry (ASEA) was created, resulting in another surge of protests against PEMEX (Quist, 2019). Politically, there is little room for environmental activism and ASEA ‘lacks comprehensive legislation regarding marine-environmental contamination’ (Quist, 2019). After a 13-year conflict over maritime space, a federal plan was introduced to reopen an area of 10,000 km2, which had been formerly part of the 15,900-km2 exclusionary zone (Comisión Nacional de Pesca, 2016).

Who mobilised Self-employed or small fishing entrepreneurs make up Tabasco’s 7000 to 8000 fishers who are affected by PEMEX’s activity (Quist, 2019). In 2015 500 fishers mobilised demanding greater compensation from PEMEX; in 2017 800 filed complaints against PEMEX regarding an alleged oil spill, see 5.4.3 (Chim, 2015; Herrera, 2017; Soto et al., 2009). 4.5 Context of successful social movements to LFFU in the Global North All successful social movements studied in the Global North resulted in regional policy changes. Except for Spain, all are fuel exporting countries. Unlike the Global South, there is a less strong debate on development alternatives (4.4), demonstrated by there being no mention of ‘degrowth’ in any of the documents surveyed or interviews conducted from movements in the Global North.33 While ideas such as degrowth, environmental justice and ID are engaged with at the academic level, these do not translate into policies. The exception being the USA which institutionalised environmental justice as a ‘central priority of the federal government in 1994’ by then-President Bill Clinton (Perez et al., 2015: 2).

4.5.1 Cantabria, Spain, social movement against fracking Map 5: Spain

Source: EJAtlas

Context During the anti-fracking movement in 2014, Spain imported 99% of its oil and gas which accounted for approximately 60% of its energy mix (Burgen, 2014; Lin, 2014: 1046). Economic woes and desire to move away from energy dependence led the national government to promote fracking and by 2014, 70 permits

33 Interviews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20

had been granted and a further 40 were pending, the majority in the Northern provinces of the Basque- Cantabrian basin (see Map 11 in Appendix) (Burgen, 2014). Politically, Spain is a ‘unitary state from which power can be devolved to subnational governments’ involving a supreme central government which recognises 17 autonomous communities, each with a government (Lin, 2014: 1042). Where subnational and national laws conflict, national jurisprudence takes precedence. 34 Civil society engagement and effectiveness have increased in Spain since 2008 due to ‘economic crisis and the unease in relation to the public policies of the governors’ (Herranz de la Casa et al., 2018: 37). The ‘Assembly against Hydraulic Fracking’ arose in the northern region of Cantabria with collective action concentrated from 2011-2016. In April 2020, the Spanish Government announced its intent to ban fracking at the national level through a new law for Climate Change and Transition (Spanish Government Plans to Ban Fracking, 2020). Cantabria – with Santander as its capital on the North coast of Spain - was the first autonomous community to bring about new legislation to prohibit fracking. Its citizen’s assembly is exemplary of others across Spain in different provinces and regions.

Who mobilised NGOs and citizen assemblies from different provinces in the region led the Spanish anti-fracking movement (Herranz de la Casa et al., 2018). Large international environmental NGOs were also involved,35 A network was formed in 2018 called ‘Gas is Not Solution’ including the large NGOs such as FoE, WWF and 350 degrees, but the local assemblies – platforms where many groups converged - were the primary SMOs (WWF, 2018).36 Local-level SMOs were vital for organisation and coordination of tactics, while the larger NGOs have (had?) the institutional capability to deliver international and national level lobbying and media strategies (Jiménez, 2007: 187). The Cantabria assembly coordinated with others in the area against specific permits. Cantabria, Alava and Burgos all collected signatures against the Angosto permit in 2015; which would have impacted 26,000 hectares across the provinces (ibid: 45). By 2016 ~400 municipalities had declared themselves fracking free (Leza in Rodriguez, 2015: 67). A member of the Asamblea Antifracking de las Merindades, Burgos, described those who mobilised as ‘different kinds of people, local inhabitants, who love our land and want to protect its biodiversity’ (Delgado in Benítez, 2015).

34 Furthermore, as a member of the EU, EU regulations and directives complement Spanish law, although no directives relate to fracking (Lin, 2014: 1045). 35 Including Greenpeace, WWF-Spain, Ecologists in Action, Friends of the Earth and Birdlife (Herranz de la Casa et al., 2018). 36 Members of the Assembly were also affiliated with groups such as: Asamblea 15M Cabezón de la Sal, Agitación Rural, Asamblea 15M Torrelavega, Asamblea 15M Santander, Ecologistas en acción, ARCA, Democracia Real Ya, Regüelta and Asamblea contra el TAV (EJAtlas, 2016; Herrero, 2016).

4.5.2 Australia, movement against UCG fracking Map 6: Australia

Source: EJAtlas

Context Victoria, Australia predominantly extracts and produces coal for export to Asia. A social movement spearheaded by Friends of the Earth (FoE) Melbourne through their collective Quit Coal campaigned to ban fracking for onshore unconventional gas and got a moratorium on conventional gas exploration and drilling (Walker, 2016). The movement, part of a broader campaign called ‘No new fossil fuels in Victoria’ also prevented several planned coal mines from being constructed (Friends of the Earth Melbourne, n.d.).

Who mobilised The movement ‘was started by a couple of farmers’, growing into a large coalition.37,38 The campaign is renowned for bringing together individuals across the political spectrum; mobilising conservative farming communities and environmentalists, despite FoE’s anti-neoliberal stance (Aldenhoven & Walker, 2016: 10; FoEI, n.d.). FoE created the Gippsland Alliance, as a result of ‘collaboration with local groups’ in 2011; which included First Nations communities, further demonstrating how the campaign ‘brought together people who didn’t necessarily have the same political interests’ (Walker, 2016: 6).39 450 local Lock the Gate groups developed in opposition to unconventional gas exploration licences, and focussed on door to door canvassing to recruit members, of which there were approximately 400 per group (Woods & Lock the Gate,

37 Consisting of the following SMOs: Quit Coal, Lock the Gate, Coal and CSG Free Mirboo North, CSG Free Poowong, Doctors for Environment Australia, and Environmental Justice Australia. 38 Interview 2: Land-owner, Farmer, Doctor, Committee of Doctors for the Environment 39 Interview 3: member of Lock the Gate and Friends of the Earth Melbourne

n.d.).40,41 However, on the lobbying front, the campaign's political power was largely ‘from conservative organisations’.42

4.5.3 Yes 2 Renewables, Victoria, Australia Map 7: Australia, Y2R

Source: EJAtlas

Context For context see 4.5.2, Yes 2 Renewables (Y2R), a campaign collective that falls under the FoE Melbourne chapter, was a successful social movement that fought against reliance on brown coal consumption in the state of Victoria and instead advocated for the use of renewable energy sources. Brown coal is the ‘lowest rank’ of coal - therefore the most polluting – and is most prevalent in Victoria’s Gippsland Basin and produced and used ‘almost exclusively in Victorian mines and power stations’ (Hughes, 2018: 1). The campaign resulted in the commitment of the state government to a Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET) of 25% by 2020 and 40% by 2040 (Ewbank, 2016: 1). The campaign ran in tandem to those against UCG and coal (see 4.5.2). The campaign lasted from 2014-2016; a period known as the ‘wind wars’ in response to the newly elected Conservative Abbott Government’s review and cut of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme (Ewbank, 2016).43 Y2R is the only movement in the sample that advocated for alternatives to fossil fuels.

40 ibid 41 Interview 2: Land-owner, Farmer, Doctor, Committee of Doctors for the Environment 42 ibid 43 Interview 1: Yes2Renewables Coordinator

Who mobilised The campaign was run by a ‘broad coalition of businesses, community and environmental organisations’; including FoE, Voices of the Valley, the Victorian Clean Employers, and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Ewbank & McConnell, n.d.: 2). Y2R coordinator stated that the movement ‘filled a niche working at the community level when a lot of the work being done was at the policy level. We partnered with sustainability groups, worked with people who wanted to set it [wind farms] up in their backyard – and used it to challenge the state level.’44

4.5.4 Canada: Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline Map 8: Canada, Enbridge

Source: EJAtlas

Context Canada is the fourth-largest oil producer, responsible for 5% of the world’s annual production; exporting mostly to the US through pipelines (US Department of Energy, 2019). In Alberta, Canada is the third-largest oil resource in the world in the form of tar sands; a ‘dense form of petroleum called bitumen, usually found mixed with sand, clay and water’ (Temper et al., 2013: 115). Resistance against Canada’s expansion in its fossil fuel production started with opposition to its tar sands production in Alberta.45 The Canadian conflicts studied in this research took place in the political context of Canada rethinking its relationship to the First Nations; the Canadian Federal Government was debating whether to abolish the much-amended 1876 Indian Act (Glover, 2020).46 According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which the Canadian Government has adopted, stipulates

44 ibid 45 Interview 15 46 Interview 15

free, prior, informed consent (FPIC) (2007, A18 &19).47 Throughout most of British Columbia, First Nations yintah (territory) has not been surrendered or ceded through treaty; if Canada is to implement the UNDRIP then the Federal Government should respect First Nation Governance systems and their ‘right to determine the use of their territory’ (Ward, 2011: 1). The crux of both Canadian conflicts studied concerns the competing governance structures of the elected Band Councils and Hereditary Chiefs, and a lack of FPIC.48 The conflicts were not only about who to consult, but recognition of Indigenous law, and Indigenous peoples land claims over lands that were not ceded by treaty (Estella et al., 2020; ibid). 49 By 2016, the campaign had successfully prevented Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway tar sands oil pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat being built. The Pembina Institute found that ‘the carbon pollution generated by filling the Northern Gateway pipeline would be equivalent to adding over three million cars to Canada’s roads (Flanagan, 2014).

Who mobilised: Those who mobilised against the pipeline were predominantly First Nation groups: the Yinka Dene Alliance (YDA) being the most prominent SMO.50 Indigenous groups were supported by legal groups West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) and the Dogwood Initiative, as well as environmental NGOs.51 Larger international NGOs joined four years into the campaign, the coalition followed the ‘canoe model’ where indigenous groups and environmental NGOs helped each other but recognised their differences and different tools at their disposal.52 To ensure complementary strategies, there were ‘mechanisms for coordination’ including an ‘annual retreat at the Hollyhock centre up on British Columbia’s coast where all the groups working on pipelines share ideas, strategies, hold training workshops’.53 The coalition of support was broad, a volunteer at the Dogwood Initiative recalled that there were ‘fiscal conservatives on our side who think that it is an economically bad idea, due to the rivers, streams, and coastlines that would be ruined’.54 Alliances were also built with businesses, 100 businesses signed up to a campaign for a clean economy.55

47 ‘Indigenous people have the right to participate in decision-making via representatives of their own choosing, and government has an obligation to obtain “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) before adopting measures that may affect those people’ (Perrin & Starmetro, 2020: 1). 48 Elected band councils were introduced by the Canadian Federal Government in 1876 and get their authority from the 1869 Indian Act, which was initially introduced to assimilate indigenous peoples into European culture (Glover, 2020). 49 Interview 13: Greenpeace member; Interview 15 50 The YDA consists of the Nadleh Whut’en; Nak’azdli; Saik’uz; Takla Lake; Tl’azt’en and Wet’suwet’en First Nations (YDA, 2014: 1) 51 Including Greenpeace, the Pembina Institute, ForestEthics Advocacy and the NRDC (Lemphers, 2012). 52 Interview 13, Greenpeace member 53 Interview 13 54 Interview 14 55 Interview 15

4.5.5 Proposed Petronas Liquid Natural Gas export facility on Lax U'u'la Island, Gitwilgyoots Map 9: Canada, Petronas Gitwilgyoots

Source: EJAtlas

Context Canada is the third-largest producer of natural gas, aside from Russia and the USA, and has significant natural gas reserves alongside its oil reserves (Ritchie, 2017; EIA, 2019). During 2012-13 there was a ‘gold rush of natural gas’ resulting in 18 proposals in British Colombia (BC) which would take fracked Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) from North-eastern BC to the coastal areas in Prince Rupert and Kitimat (Friends of Wild Salmon, n.d.).56 LNG is particularly energy and emissions-intensive in its extraction and transportation: in 2017 it accounted for 18% of BCs total provincial emissions (Heerema & Kniewasser, 2017). While a policy framework existed to limit the GHG emissions from LNG facilities, they were not stringent enough to induce companies to adopt best practice, or for the province to meet its climate targets (ibid: 4). Furthermore, the IEA described LNG as ‘too carbon intensive’ to limit warming to 2C (IEA, 2016). A LNG export facility was proposed by Petronas and Pacific Northwest in 2013 on Lax U'u'la (Lelu) Island for exporting to Asia which ‘the elected Lax Kw'alaams council spurned’ (Jang, 2020). A campaign ran opposing the facility until 2017 when Petronas withdrew their plans; during which the ‘Lax Kw'alaams people voted to turn down a $1.14 billion benefit agreement offer’ from Petronas because of the potential impacts on salmon (Friends of Wild Salmon, n.d.).57 A successful lobbying campaign resulted in the opposition party for BC opposing the project; effective in the context of an upcoming provincial election which they went on to win.58 Following the withdrawal, the Federal Canadian Government agreed not to allow the use of the Environmental Assessment (EA) permit for future projects on the site; and on 17th January 2019, the Port

56 Interview 12 57 Interview 11 58 Interview 11

Authority announced a development moratorium on certain parts of the island to protect marine life (Lough, 2019).59 Key factors causing the delays and cancellations of BC LNG projects ‘include legal challenges, postponed investment decisions, and low commodity prices’ (Heerema & Kniewasser, 2017: 1).

Who mobilised: The campaign consisted of First Nations groups, salmon scientists, climate scientists, and a coalition called Friends of Wild Salmon which included businesses who depended on the Skeena fisheries.60,61 ‘Academics, other NGOs, [and] community groups of coastal commuters’ to Lelu Island from nearby towns such as Prince Rupert were also involved in the campaign later on.62 However, ‘it was difficult to mobilise people because they were preoccupied with the Enbridge and Shell Campaigns’.63 Grassroots activity was prioritised to show both federal and provincial governments the ’concern for the project and its location’.64 First Nation support and mobilisation was also divided along the lines of support for the Hereditary Chiefs and the Elected Band Councils.

4.5.6 Chicago, Illinois, movement against two coal-fired electricity plants Map 10: Chicago

Source: EJAtlas

59 Interview 12 60 Interview 11 61 Interview 12 62 ibid 63 Interview 12 64 ibid

Context The USA is second only to China in fossil fuel production. Historically, since 1973, the USA has been a net importer of fuel; yet in September 2019 it started to export more petroleum products than it imported for the first time since recording began (EIA, 2019). In Chicago, Illinois, from 2002-2012 a coalition of grassroots and larger environmental NGOs campaigned to close the old, polluting coal plants, Fisk and Crawford. The coalition focussed on closing two of the most polluting coal plants in the country; and then campaigned for Chicago to commit to a 100% renewable energy target (Germanos, 2019).

Who mobilised: In 2010, the Chicago Clean Power Coalition was formed of six organisation, eventually growing to 60.65 The ‘bridges of understanding’ between ‘rich white groups and the front-line communities’ were vital to the success of the campaign. Yet there were difficulties encountered by the coalition due to the diversity of its members: ‘there were trust issues; lower income communities of colour don’t trust other groups such as the Sierra Club, for good reason’.66 The campaign changed how large environmental organisations engage with low- income people of colour (POC), shifting the emphasis towards ‘health, economic and equity issues’.67 4.6 Who mobilised? Mobilising grievances arise from the context within which a movement is situated, and participants undergo a process of ‘cognitive liberation’ to join. The EJM has been lauded for ‘bringing together formerly disparate and often conflicting groups, such as trade unionists, environmentalists, indigenous people's movements and non-government organizations’ (Routledge & Routledge, 2016: 335). Whereas the traditional environmental movement has been criticised for ignoring its most ‘natural allies - the people who have the most to lose from inaction because they are on the front lines of fossil fuel extraction and combustion—are too often never invited, or invited in ways that are perfunctory or seem disingenuous’ (Klein, 2014: 5). The creation of broad coalitions rests on large swathes of local communities undergoing cognitive liberation and having the same mobilising grievances, sometimes generating a sense of collective identity.

Table 2: Who mobilised Movement Chicago Enbridge Cantabria Gitwilgyoots Mexico Costa Rica Oil Belize Offshore Colombia Oil Victoria Victoria Yes 2 coal fired pipeline fracking ban LNG export Maritime Moratorium Oil moratorium and coal UCG Renewables plants facility space Extraction fracking dispute ban Coalitions Broad Narrow: Broad Broad coalition Narrow: Broad Broad coalition Narrow: Broad Broad coalition Indigenous coalition Fishermen coalition Indigenous coalition coalition people & people & activists NGOs Source: own analysis, citations in text Seven out of the ten movements studied mobilised broad coalitions of people across the political spectrum, from different backgrounds and different age-groups. In six out of the ten movements studied, indigenous people mobilised against the fossil fuel industry; indicative of successful mobilisation of broad coalitions and also the unequal distribution of ecological destruction globally and locally. Indigenous people make up

65 Consisting of: Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform (PERRO), the Sierra Club, American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago (ALAMC), Environmental Law and Policy Centre, and Eco-Justice Collaborative (Richart, 2012). 66 Interview 6 67 ibid

5% of the global population, yet 15% of the extreme poor, who ‘safeguard 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity’ and are ‘affected in no less than 40% of the cases documented in the [EJ]Atlas’ (Temper, Demaria, et al., 2018: 578; World-Bank, 2019). Movements in more populated countries such as Mexico, Colombia and Canada (excluding the movement in Chicago which was not national but at city level) did not mobilise broad coalitions. In the campaign against the Enbridge pipeline, they focussed on identifying ‘people who are sympathetic and radicalising them’ in addition to ‘coordinating the camp with other indigenous movements’ to build support.68 The movement was ‘successful for not relying on wide but shallow support’ adding that ‘it matters that the 1% of people who think it is bad actually do something.’69 4.7 Conclusions The ten social movements studied are the only movements since 1970 to successfully stop a fossil fuel project and implement new legislation. The case study sample is suitable for a meta-analysis due to it fitting the movement ‘success’ criteria (3.4.3), and being representative of movements to LFFU within the wider EJM (4.3). Context influences movement emergence, the characteristics and claims of movements (see 5.2, 5.6), and their outcomes (see 5.7). Successful movements to LFFU emerge in politically open states (see Table 1). In the Global South, movements emerge in net importers of fossil fuels at the frontier of extraction; in the Global North they are more likely emerge all along the fossil fuel life-cycle: from extraction to consumption. Two of these movements resulted in national policy changes, the remaining eight achieved regional policy changes. All movements to achieve national policy changes were situated in Latin America, in the Global South. Belize and Costa Rica both implemented moratoriums on oil exploration and extraction. While this can be partially attributed to a national ‘collective identity’ being activated due to a closer affinity to nature in the Global South; there are further structural, contextual factors, that influenced the outcome of national or regional policy changes. The populations are smaller and more homogenous. As net importers, fossil fuels are a small contributor to GDP; therefore, there is a lower opportunity cost to forgoing extraction. The eight other successful social movements consisted of participants who did not share a definition of the social world. The only common ground was an objection to the specific proposed fossil fuel project. Broad coalitions were created by raising awareness through educational outreach programmes, communicating efficacious frames (see 5.2-5.6.2).

68 Interview 16 69 ibid

5 How do social movements to LFFU operate and what are their implications for inclusive development?

5.1 Introduction This chapter answers questions 2ai, ii, and 3ai, ii, iii (1.8). To understand how social movements operate, I analyse the frames that mobilise activists and persuade policy-makers (5.2). Once the efficacious frames are determined I analyse what strategies were used to communicate these messages (5.6). 5.2 Dominant frames Figure 9: Dominant frames of case study Figure 9 denotes the dominant frames SUCCESSFUL MOVEMENTS TO used in SMO produced content, LFFU newspaper articles, and academic papers for the entire sample of movements Green local Climate change Economic within the successful movements to LFFU Health Conservative Indigenous rights case study. Figure 10 breaks down the dominant frames by movement. The 10% frames that effectively mobilise 4% participants and persuade policy-makers 32% 9% to LFFU are economic and local green narratives. Economic narratives centre around jobs, particularly for the tourism 32% 13% and fishing industries. Local green values concern pollution, water, and food impacts of fossil fuel projects. Source: own analysis The economic frame was particularly prevalent and effective for social movements in the Global South; where discourse is dominated by development questions. Five movements are motivated by local arguments (5.3); four are motivated by conflicts over the distribution of natural resource revenue allocations, using economic arguments to encourage sustainable development based on fishing or ecotourism instead (5.4). The movements against the Enbridge pipeline in Canada framed its arguments around local issues and indigenous rights, specifically the lack of consultation for projects on unceded territory.

Figure 10: Dominant frames of each movement within the case study

Dominant Frames 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Green local Climate change Economic Health Conservative Indigenous rights

Source: own analysis 5.3 Local place-based issues framing Successful movements to LFFU employed frames centred around localised issues such as pollution, water contamination, and health effects of the fossil fuel project but did not utilise climate change as an argument. In two cases - the movement against UCG fracking in Victoria, Australia, and the movement against fracking in Spain – framing was initially centred around property rights and ‘Not In My Back Yard’ (NIMBY) arguments.70 Once broad mobilisation was achieved, both campaigns tied in climate change. Three movements on indigenous territory, two in Canada against fossil fuel transportation and one in Colombia, used frames of local impacts on the land such as detrimental effects on biodiversity, indigenous food supplies, local economies and culture; rather than centring on indigenous rights.

5.3.1 NIMBY In Victoria, Australia FoE launched their campaign immediately after the Labour Government granted exploration licences for tight, shale, and CSG in 2010 (Aldenhoven & Walker, 2016: 10). Conflict arose between rural landowners and the state due to a ‘loophole’ in Australian law whereby ‘the state reserves the right to develop any resources [12 inches] under [your land] if it’s for the larger benefit of the state’, which ‘got a lot of people wound up’.71,72 The campaign stemmed from ‘conservative culture’ with a ‘property rights frame’.73 However, the geographical context of smaller farms in Victoria compared to New South Wales and Queensland pushed the campaign outside ‘individualistic property rights frame’ towards a focus on protecting the region and freeing the community.74 Climate change was not employed to frame

70 This refers to movements that organise against proposed projects in their local environment but do not question the activity itself or its underlying assumptions i.e. extractivism (Rodriguez, 2015). 71 Interview 2: Land-owner, Farmer, Doctor, Committee of Doctors for the Environment 72 Interview 3 73 Interview 3: Member of FoE & Lock the Gate 74 Interview 3: Member of FoE & Lock the Gate

the campaign’s argument due to the ‘high rates of climate denialism in rural communities at that time… and they were the ones who had the real political power in this situation’.75 While the scope of the campaign was primarily involved with stopping fossil fuel extraction using local issue frames rooted in property rights; in February 2016, FoE Melbourne joined with another active campaign in Victoria, Y2R (4.5.3, 5.4.5) (Aldenhoven, 2016: 13). Y2R, while being predominantly driven by economic frames and local issues such as health impacts of coal mines, also linked climate change into its discourse. In Spain, successful mobilisation was based on NIMBY arguments; demonstrated by the emergence of social movement organisations in the regions where permits for hydraulic fracturing had been requested or granted (Herranz de la Casa et al., 2018: 52). The ‘early knowledge’ of hydrocarbon permits in Cantabria was ‘thanks to a journalist from El Mundo’; Ecologistas en Accion Cantabria sent information ‘to all the town halls affected by the first known project (ARQUETU research permit in the Saya and Nansa Valleys) which triggered the reaction’, catalysing the creation of the Assembly against Fracking.76 However, the movement managed to surpass localised arguments due to the involvement of global NGOs, shown by the slogan ‘not here, not anywhere’; and the understanding that climate change was going to ‘increase [in the event of] the extraction of shale gas’.77

5.3.2 Health impacts In the campaign against two coal-fired plants in Pilsen, Chicago, a Harvard School of Public Health study was integral to the movement’s success (Levy et al., 2000).78 The study found that the older plants, exempt from emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, were responsible for ‘41 premature deaths, 550 emergency room visits and 2,800 asthma attacks every year’ in Chicago (Levy et al., 2000; LVEJO, 2013). These statistics were used in all media communications and informed stunts; such as erecting 41 crosses outside the plant (Lydersen, 2014: 22). The emphasis on public health impacts rather than climate change allowed for the campaign to be framed as an environmental and social justice issue, due to the disproportionate health effects on disadvantaged communities and POC. Executive Director of the LVEJO articulated their position: ‘But when we’re talking about our neighbourhood, it’s not a priority for them…We’re talking about discrimination and racism against our community’ (Turnil in Lydersen, 2002: 2). Frames used to communicate to policy-makers were pollutant focused. At the national level, in the context of the Bush administration relaxing pollution restrictions, ALAMC and other organisations were pushing to legislate a national pollution reduction programme.79 While, the objective was climate change, the framing of the three pollutant bills were on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury to ‘reduce those pollutants rather than broad GHGs as they are more tangible. Sulphur dioxide contributes to the ozone smog in cities, nitrogen oxide is the fine particulate pollution, and mercury is damaging to children's brains’.80 While the bills did not pass, it is indicative of an effective framing technique to engage a conservative administration.

5.3.3 Local environmental impacts The movement in Gitwilgyoots and Lalu Island, emphasised the risks to wild salmon rather than indigenous rights. Both local communities and First Nations depend on salmon ‘economically, recreationally’, culturally, and as a source of food.81 The focus ‘on the local issue of the salmon [was] because we knew it

75 Interview 3: Member of FoE &Lock the Gate 76 Interview 20: President of Ecologistas en Accion, Cantabria 77 Interview 20: Floren Enriquez, President of Ecologistas en Accion, Cantabria 78 Interview 7 79 Interview 6 80 Interview 6 81 Interview 12

would unite people’ and mobilise support; alongside other issues such as ’health, community, economic and climate’.82,83 The coalition focussed on educational outreach programmes to raise awareness in interior communities who ‘thought it was a coastal issue’84 Another ‘major’ frame used to mobilise participants to raise ‘awareness about other pollutants like nitrogen oxides’ (Yvon-Durocher et al., 2014: 488)85,86 5.4 Indigenous rights Despite six movements involving indigenous communities, only two used it as their dominant frame. The arguments against Enbridge’s proposed pipeline centred the impacts on indigenous ‘livelihoods and culture which is closely connected to the land’, and Enbridge’s inadequate consultation process.87 The movements in Colombia and against the proposed Petronas export facility in Gitwilgyoots, BC, also used indigenous rights framing, although it was a secondary argument to local environmental impacts of the fossil fuel projects. In Colombia, the framing of the campaign centred around the ‘defence of mother earth’.88 In a meeting between indigenous groups and peasants the areas ‘rich biodiversity’ as well as it being ‘home to more than 23 indigenous communities, where more than 200,000 peasants live’ was stressed (Perez, 2007: 1). 5.5 Economic frames Movements used economic frames to focus on the loss of jobs to the fishing, tourism and renewable energy sector. The maritime space dispute in Mexico centred wholly around fishing, movements in Belize and Costa Rica focused on fishing and tourism, and the Y2R campaign in Victoria centred on jobs lost in the renewable energy sector.

5.5.1 Fishing and Tourism jobs In Mexico, the conflict was predominantly over the use of the sea, a common pool resource, and the division of economic rents it generates between fisheries and oil production. A fishing news publication described how PEMEX has ‘had a negative impact on the reproduction of Pink Gulf shrimp and all commercially valuable species’ due to the ‘contamination caused by oil exploitation’ (Notipesca, 2014: 1). The mobilising grievances included the continued expansion of the exclusion zone, and an alleged oil spill and lack of compensation for being ‘displaced by extractive activity’ (Notipesca, 2014; Herrera, 2017; Chim, 2015: 29). In Mexican media, the conflict was framed in economic and livelihood terms because the fishermen’s valuation of the sea, and their notion of ‘development’ is in opposition to that of Mexico’s politics of oil which treats the marine environment as an area of ‘sacrifice’ for economic growth (Quist, 2019). The economic argument had weight at the national level due to Mexico’s national dependence on the area for shrimp fishing, resulting in the President announcing in 2016 a ‘Programme for the Economic Reactivation of Tabasco and Campeche’ (Pagina Abierta, 2017). The Belizean movement focussed its arguments on the economic benefits of tourism and fishing.89 A scientific report ‘Too precious to drill’ framed the arguments against offshore drilling in terms of the environment, economy and employment (Palomares & Pauly, 2011). This framing helped mobilise communities who were closely ‘linked to the marine environment’ namely the ‘fishing and tourism

82 Interview 12 83 Interview 11 84 ibid 85 Interview 12 86 ibid 87 Interview 13 88 Interview 18: Director of CODACOP 89 Interview 11a & b

communities’.90 Both fishing and tourism hold cultural and economic value for Belizeans, fishing comprises about ‘one quarter of the jobs, so that is an easy sell’.91 Another frame employed to mobilise the community was Belizean’s sense of collective identity: ‘every single person embraces our marine resources, it’s the second longest barrier reef in the world, it sets us apart from everybody else’, ‘these resources [are] part of us as part of our heart and soul’.92 This was reflected in the use of the national flag in communications to instil a sense of national pride.93 Alongside the economic and identity-based arguments, OCEANA framed banning offshore oil exploration to the Government as a ‘win-win’ rather than being ‘construed as a capitulation. This can be capitalisation, from a political point of view’.94 Costa Rica focussed on its biodiversity, using scientific reports detailing ‘one of the richest marine ecosystems on the planet’ (Friends of the Earth & NRDC, 2004: 1). It specified that ‘turtle breeding areas for the hawksbill, great-headed, and endangered leatherback and green turtles’; fishing and ecotourism jobs; and mangroves under threat from offshore oil exploration and extraction (ibid). By 1998, tourism was the country’s largest earner, and dependent on natural resource attractions (Báez & Valverde, 2019). Dependence on eco-tourism allowed the campaign to frame arguments for biodiversity and ESS in economic terms. The cost to ESS calculated was $57 million if oil exploration and extraction was permitted; tallying losses of environmental services, fisheries, potential tourism growth, environmental costs, turtles, lost taxes for imported machinery and material, and Harken’s insufficient environmental guarantees. Further arguments were risks of fossil fuel price volatility; the role of Afro-descendants and indigenous people in conserving biodiversity and ecology; ‘social, cultural, and economic fragmentation’; the loss of livelihoods in Talamanca; potential human rights violations by oil firms and the reluctance to supply the United States (Oilwatch Costa Rica, 2005: 17; Pier, 2020: 1).

5.5.2 Renewable energy jobs The VRET review which ‘axed the price on carbon’, ‘undermined the national renewable energy target [and] thousands of people lost their jobs in the renewable energy sector’ was the mobilising grievance for Y2R.95 The 20% RET cut resulted in a ‘90% decrease in investment in Australia’s renewable sector’(Ewbank & McConnell, n.d.). Another mobilising grievance was the 45-day fire at Hazelwood mine in Latrobe Valley, Victoria in February 2014 which the Government, council, and company, failed to do anything about (Kolovos & Hope, 2019).96 Y2R predominantly framed the campaign ‘in terms of jobs, economic benefits, and carbon emissions’ to mobilise the coalition of business, conservative rural communities, and those with green values (Ewbank et al., 2014: 2). FoE’s approach to cooperating with businesses - ‘as an anti-capitalist environmental justice organisation - is through the economic argument, saying “we can create this amount of jobs and bring money to the state”…you need to be doing that work in conservative areas too. When you’re having a cup of tea with a wind farmer - you have to leave your politics at the door’.97 Similarly, the frames used by the campaign lobbying politicians strived to tell a ‘different story’, and ‘didn’t talk about climate change that much’; instead there was an ‘emphasis on the economic benefits’.98 This is demonstrated through a joint report published by FoE and the University of Melbourne which modelled that changes to the RET would

90 Interview 9 91 ibid 92 Interview 10 93 ibid 94 Interview 10 95 Interview 1:Y2R coordinator 96 Interview 21: Wendy Farmer, President of Voices of the Valley 97 Interview 1 98 Interview 1

create ‘over 2,500 construction jobs and nearly 300 full-time operations and maintenance jobs for the 25- 30 year life of the projects’ (Ewbank & McConnell, n.d.: 7). The success of this framing technique is demonstrated in Victorian Premier, Rt Honourable Daniel Andrews MP, producing a press release titled ‘Renewable Energy Target to create thousands of jobs’ and stating ‘growing renewable energy means growing jobs’ (2016: 1). 5.6 Effective strategies and tactics The movements employed framing strategies and tactics from their repertoires of protest (2.6) to communicate their demands. Four movements strategically used different frames to persuade policy- makers to accept their demands, than those that mobilised activists. Educational outreach programmes consisting of training and informative events, the use of scientific reports, and door to door canvassing were the tactics used to recruit and mobilise activists (5.6.2). The three most prominent tactics employed to persuade policy-makers were: lobbying (5.6.3); legal recourse (5.6.4); and extra-institutional tactics such as marches and soft blockades (5.6.5). The movements predominantly used institutional tactics, while all involved protest marches, only three employed soft-blockades, and none of the movements employed violent tactics. This is in line with Chenoweth’s finding that ‘historically, nonviolent resistance campaigns have been more effective in achieving their goals than violent resistance campaigns’ (2011: 220).

5.6.1 Framing strategies In Belize, Chicago, and the two Canadian movements studied, the movements strategically employed frames to persuade policy-makers that differed from the initial mobilising grievances for activists. The movements in Belize and against the Enbridge pipeline were both mobilised to act in the wake of the 2010 BP deep horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which ‘opened our eyes’ then became the ‘driving force of nationally educating people’ (Navas, 2015; OCEANA, 2017).99,100 A Belizean activist viewed a ‘map where the entire country of Belize had been blocked off into blocks for oil… I got really angry about it and became interested [in campaigning against it]’; which led to them joining COLA and suggesting ‘that we take on the offshore oil drilling issue’.101 Yet rather than focussing on the global issue of climate change, the campaigns respectively focussed on the impacts on indigenous people (5.4) and economics (5.5). Correspondingly, the ‘narrative and the consequent win’ for the campaign against the proposed Petronas facility in Canada ‘wasn’t because of climate change - people were not as clued up as they are now’.102 The movement used the support of local businesses to frame the argument in economic terms to policy-makers; despite focussing on salmon and the impact of the project on indigenous communities to mobilise participants (5.4), because ‘economics and public opinion play a huge role’.103 Businesses are attracted to the area ‘because of the lifestyle [it] offers helped frame the campaign in economic terms and counter the fossil fuel industry’s key argument stating ‘”there’s a clean economy out there that we are part of and we create jobs”’.104 Conversely, in Chicago, rather than environmental justice, the climate change narrative was employed in ‘rich white liberal neighbourhoods’ to mobilise those constituents and fundraise for the campaign.105

99 Interview 10a & b: OCEANA 100 Interview 17: Geraldine Thomas, Yinka Dene Alliance 101 Interview 8: senior member of COLA 102 Interview 16 103 Interview 16 104 Interview 13 105 Interview 6

5.6.2 Educational outreach programmes Educational outreach programmes were a tactic used in all movements studied to communicate mobilising grievances to recruit and retain activists, leading to cognitive liberation (2.4.2); as well as build awareness amongst members of the public. The publication of scientific reports was used in three movements to add weight to their claims. Only one – against Enbridge in Canada - explicitly focused on cultural change through the educational outreach programme to educate communities on the implications of the pipeline for indigenous people.

Education and training events In Colombia, an integral aim of the NGO CODACOP is to support the ‘mobilisation processes of social movements, especially peasants and indigenous people’ through ‘awareness and training… thus strengthening the capacity for action of individuals, groups and communities’.106 In Spain, Ecologistas en Accion focussed on ‘informative events in many towns around Cantabria’ due to the ‘essential’ nature of grassroots support ‘to exercise political influence’.107 The campaign against UCG fracking in Victoria, Australia started with a ‘CSG roadshow’ to educate communities about the experiences in Queensland and New South Wales with UCG exploration and the subsequent growing resistance (Aldenhoven & Walker, 2016: 10). By 2016, 75 communities had declared themselves gasfield free (Walker, 2016: 19). Similarly, Y2R dedicated substantial resources to producing educational content to change attitudes around renewable energy sources. A key strand of the campaign against Petronas’ export facility was educating communities about the risks of LNG, which are less tangible and visible than fracking or oil projects. This was also to combat the ‘propaganda campaign’ which the Provincial Government had embarked on labelling LNG as a ‘clean transition fuel’.108 An interviewee described ‘educational gatherings’ and ‘articles in papers, brochures distributed, and mail drops’ inland to create a ‘strong awareness throughout the region’ as key tactics employed.109 The strategy of building support in the interior as well as along the coast also demonstrated to the provincial government the insufficient consultation process; which had only consulted coastal First Nations, not upriver ones.110

Scientific reports To mobilise the grassroots, the coalition focussed on ‘educating and making people aware of the threat’; particularly given that ‘Belizeans are not natural advocates’.111 OCEANA pulled together a scientific report ‘in the context of offshore oil’ and focussed their efforts on educative programmes, including events and radio shows, a major form of media in Belize, to help get the ‘groundswell’.112,113 In Chicago mobilisation of the grassroots community was enabled through a comprehensive educational outreach programme based on the Harvard study (5.3.2), using existing organisational networks. The predominantly Mexican immigrant neighbourhood close to the plant ‘didn’t even know about it – they were shocked when they found out’ and were reached through ‘door to door canvassing’.114,115

106 Interview 18: CODACOP Director 107 Interview 20: Floren Enriquez, President of Ecologistas en Accion, Cantabria 108 Interview 11: member of the Friends of Wild Salmon coalition 109 Interview 11: member of the Friends of Wild Salmon coalition 110 Interview 11 111 Interview 10a & b: OCEANA 112 Interview 10a & b: OCEANA 113 Interview 9: Healthy Reefs 114 Interview 6 115 Interview 6: ALAMC Director

Canvassing For the Enbridge campaign, Geraldine of the YDA ‘went out into the communities and talked to our members about it’ which ‘kicked off our campaign’.116 The most effective tactic for Y2R was also ‘knocking on people’s doors and speaking to them’; the community engagement strategy was ‘the bedrock’ of the campaign.117,118 For the campaign against coal-fired plants in Chicago, a PERRO volunteer listed ‘rallies, marches, social media campaigns, letter-writing parties, fundraisers, TV and radio advertisements, talk shows, press conferences and door to door outreach’ as the tactics employed by the Coalition; deeming the door to door canvassing as the most effective.119

Effects of education tactics Mobilisation against pipelines in non-indigenous communities is easier due to them being a ‘very real threat that people give attention to’.120 In the campaign against the proposed Petronas export facility, an interviewee described how initially, ‘a lot of first nations were not opposing LNG... These communities are very impoverished and they are looking for any kind of economic development’.121 Such nuances to the relationship between communities and extractive industries are often missing in PE and EJ literature which tends to romanticise the indigenous relationship to nature (Arsel, Pellegrini, & Mena, 2019: 203).

5.6.3 Government Relations Lobbying was employed as a tactic in all movements, typically by established, formal SMOs.

Local-level The strategy to close the Fisk and Crawford plants in the USA was to pass a Chicago City ordinance to impose the ‘strictest pollution reductions achievable’ (PERRO, 2020). The movement found a sympathetic member (Alderman) of the City Council, Ed Burke, who represented a predominantly Latino neighbourhood in proximity to Pilsen and Little Village and whose father had died of lung cancer (Lydersen, 2014: 23). On the 27th February 2002, he proposed the Chicago Clean Power Ordinance to the council, to limit Chicago’s coal plant emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury by either installing pollution controls or operating at 20% capacity (ibid).122 The grassroots community drafted a ‘ballot initiative supporting the passage of Burke’s ordinance’ by obtaining ‘signatures from 10% of the voters in a precinct’ (ibid).123 The public support pushed 35 out of 50 Aldermen to endorse the tough ordinance.124 While the ordinance was never voted on in the city council, the prospect of the regulations pushed Midwest Generation to close (Silverman, 2020). Dogwood Initiative, a legal organisation involved in the campaign against the Enbridge pipeline, focussed solely at the local level and pursued a Citizens Initiative at the provincial level whereby 10% of the electorate can put legislation to the provincial government.125

116 ibid 117 Interview 3: Member of FoE &Lock the Gate 118 Interview 2: Land-owner, Farmer, Doctor, Committee of Doctors for the Environment 119 Interview 5 120 Interview 13 121 Interview 11 122 Interview 6: ALAMC director 123 Interview 5 124 Interview 6: ALAMC director 125 Interview 14

State-level In the context of the 2013 national election of the conservative Abbot Government in Australia, Y2R focussed their efforts at the state level government to champion renewables due to the administration presenting a ‘significant threat’ to the VRET (Ewbank, 2016: 3). Similarly, the Enbridge campaign, focussed lobbying efforts at the Federal level with the British Columbian Government; because ‘municipally, we had a lot of support’ and ‘we didn’t do government relations at all with the [Conservative] Harper Government’ at the national level.126 The Unist'ot'en camp specialised in ‘creative confrontation’ (5.6.5) while Greenpeace, WCEL, the Dogwood Initiative and the Sierra Club engaged in government relations at the local government level, alongside national and international strategies.127

National level A key tactic employed at the national level in the Enbridge campaign by Greenpeace was to ‘separate oil and state’ using Access to Information and Privacy requests (ATIPs) to expose the influence of the oil and gas lobbying.128,129

5.6.4 Legal Eight movements used lawsuits as a tactic. The legal course was particularly effective for the three movements that involved indigenous people and rights’ infringement.

Global North Greenpeace’s main ‘strategy was to build public opposition and then build legal opposition’ to make the pipeline ‘financially untenable’ despite Federal Government support for it.130,131 WCEL, legal reform organisation, provided ‘free legal counsel for a number of the indigenous nations who were going to be impacted by the Northern Gateway pipeline… …[and] helped bring about an Oil Tanker Moratorium Act’ in the Great Bear Rainforest.132 The YDA submitted to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) in February 2012. A key strategy employed by the Skeena Wild Conservation Trust and First Nation groups against the proposed Petronas facility were court challenges ‘citing issues involving the [lack of] consultation of indigenous communities, impacts on fish habitat, and carbon pollution’ (Heerema & Kniewasser, 2017: 3). The success of the litigious tactics used was down to the ‘alliance building between indigenous nations, labour groups, environmental groups and seeking broader public support’.133

Global South In Costa Rica, ADELA ‘filed an appeal before the Constitutional Court requesting that the exploration concession be revoked due to violations to ILO’s Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (C. 169)’ (Oilwatch, 2005: 6). Concessions on indigenous territory were revoked, yet the concessions offshore remained which Harken pursued (ibid). Similarly, senior staff members at OCEANA interviewed detailed the

126 ibid 127 Interview 13 128 Canada’s version of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs). Completed ATIs: https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati 129 Interview 13 130 ibid 131 Interview 13 132 Interview 15 133 Interview 16

legal tactic employed to counter the ‘legality of the concessions that had been granted to companies engaged in offshore oil activities’.134 In Colombia, the indigenous Bari people launched an ‘Act of Guardianship’ to ‘protect the basic rights that are presently being violated’ (Perez, 2007; WRM, 2006). Indigenous leaders undertook human rights legal training through the Indian Law Resource Centre (ILRC), who also met with the National Authority of Indigenous Governments (ONIC), international human rights organisations and Government officials on behalf of the Bari people (ILRC, 2008).135

5.6.5 Extra-institutional tactics: Soft blockades and protest marches Marches were used in all movements, and soft-blockades were used in three social movements as a tactic. Movements against fossil fuels have used protests, occupations, and blockades with increasing frequency; demonstrated in Figure 7 (see 2.6, 5.6.5) (Owen & Rivin, 2017).

Soft blockades The campaign against the Enbridge pipeline employed soft blockades, the most prominent of which is the Uni’stot’en camp (Barker & Ross, 2017).136,137 The camp was set up in 2009 so that the companies ‘building the pipeline would have to arrest these protestors… to make the cost too high for the state to allow the pipeline to go ahead’.138 The camp is an SMO, a healing lodge, and home to members of the Uni’stot’en clan. The camp is located over the Widzin Kwah river which is important for salmon fishing and spawning, as well as being the nexus of ‘three separate proposed oil and natural gas pipelines: Pacific Trail Pipeline, Enbridge Northern Gateway, and Coastal Gaslink (CGL)’ (ibid: 205). The camp and all unceded Wet’suwet’en territory are governed by the traditional legal systems dictating the use of and access to the land (Huson & Spice, 2019: 4). Any visitors have to engage with a traditional protocol and be given FPIC in line with the UNDRIP, before accessing the territory (Werre, 2009). In January 2019, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) entered Wet’suwet’en territory without consent and arrested 14 activists on the basis that the ‘Aboriginal Title to this land… has not been determined’ (RCMP statement in Kung et al., 2020: 2). Since the camp was established, no pipelines or other forms of fossil fuel infrastructure have been built (Huson & Spice, 2019). However, at the time of writing, CGL is continuing to work during the Coronavirus pandemic (Unist’ot’en, 2020). Likewise, the Gitwilgyoots tribe set up a camp on Lax U’u’la island, which is their traditional hunting territory (Montreal Counter Information, 2012). On 24th October 2012, there were ‘rallies in 70 communities across British Columbia with more than 7,000 people participating’ (Lemphers, 2012). In Chicago, physical obstruction to the operation of the plants was also employed by Greenpeace activists with banners hung from canal bridges stating ‘Nosotros Podemos Para el Carbon’ and ‘We can stop coal’ preventing barges from passing and delivering coal to the plants (Lydersen, 2014: 28). In Mexico, the most impactful tactic employed, effective due to the widespread mobilisation, which garnered lots of publicity, was a roadblock of a key transport route consisting of 500 fishers and shrimp farmers that caused 5km queues in both directions of travel (Chim, 2015). They demanded adequate compensation from Pemex, after the closure of the Fishing Trust compensation scheme (ibid; (Herrera, 2017). Yet while the

134 Interview 10 135 Interview 18: Director of CODACOP 136 The Uni’stot’en is one of the five Wet’suwet’en clans (Ducklow, 2019) 137 It is worth noting the camp does not describe itself as a protest or demonstration, while it is recognised as a form of resistance. 138 Interview 16

Government accepted their demands and implemented new legislation to increase the fishing zone, PEMEX has increased security around the rig (Santana, 2017).

Protest marches and media stunts Local groups in the Australian movement against UCG held public events to attract media attention and declare themselves ‘gasfield free’; such as a human sign on the famous 90-mile beach, ‘locking people to their gates, and a cross country tour’ (Aldenhoven & Walker, 2016: 11).139 FoE dedicated substantial resources to producing educational content to change attitudes around renewable energy sources; although this was secondary to the strategy of amplifying the existing community support.140 Y2R also employed tactics that demonstrated the breadth and depth of the community engagement, particularly in sparsely populated rural areas; such as farmers spelling ‘food not gas’ in the middle of harvest was deemed the most effective by interviewees.141 These tactics ‘changed the discourse in the media’ and revealed the anti-windfarm movement to be a ‘small chorus’ with large political leverage, and links to ‘nuclear energy, mining, and fossil fuel industries’ (Keane, 2011 in Chapman & Crichton, 2018: 184).142 Similarly, in Chicago, another ‘very effective stunt was when Greenpeace climbed the smokestack and painted ‘Quit Coal’ in 30 ft letters and occupied it for several days’ which pushed the campaign into the national spotlight.143

5.6.6 Tactical timing Tactics were deployed before elections to put the movement’s demands on the policy agenda. In Belize, a mock referendum on offshore oil was held ‘a few weeks before the general election’ after the Government had disqualified the official referendum. ‘We mobilised very quickly, and held our own, mimicked our own polling stations and used fingerprints to show you had participated, despite being unofficial, 30,000 voters came out and 96% of participants were saying no to offshore oil on the ballot’.144 The government then pivoted and ‘gave us a referendum’.145 This finding holds at the state or city level. In Chicago, ‘the coal plant company was in the top 5% of his [the mayor’s] donors. He switched his position towards the end. He did it because he needed to be re- elected.’146 Similarly, engaging with opposition politicians in BC, Canada was ‘important because an election was coming up and they are now in power.’147 Y2R’s success was also ‘very contingent on who was in power, when the conservatives were in they accused us of being funded by green energy, and that wind turbines in the forest would start fires.’ 148 5.7 Impacts of social movements and contributions to inclusive development The successful movements implemented policies that restrict fossil fuel supply in nine out of ten cases, one championed renewables. In the case of the closure of the Chicago coal plants, the movement restricted consumption. Therefore, the movements are contributing to LFFU by filling the policy deficit that traditional

139 Interview 13 140 Interview 2; Interview 3: Member of FoE &Lock the Gate 141 Interview 2; Interview 3: Member of FoE &Lock the Gate 142 Interview 1 143 Interview 6 144 Interview 10: OCEANA 145 Interview 8: senior member of COLA 146 Interview 7 147 Interview 11 148 Interview 4: Y2R coordinator

political actors fail to enact due to the prevalence of SD policies (see 1.3.2 and Table 5 in appendix). However, ID requires a three-dimensional, multi-scalar approach that has long-term impacts.149 Table 3: Inclusive Development rating

Movement ID score

UCG exploration and production banned in Victoria Medium

Fracking banned in Arquetu, Cantabria, Spain Low

Offshore Oil drilling ban, Belize Medium

Oil and coal Extraction in the Indigenous Motilon Bari Territory Medium / Low

Moratorium on Oil exploration, Costa Rica High

Maritime space dispute between oil and fishing industry, Sonda de Campeche Low

Enbridge/Northern Gateway Pipeline Medium

Gitwilgyoots and Lelu Island (Lax U’u’la) vs Petronas LNG export facility Low / Medium

Coal Fired Power Plants closed in Chicago Low

Yes 2 Renewables campaign #VRET, Victoria Medium / High

Source: own analysis

5.7.1 Local-level At the local-level, all movements studied contributed to ID in the short term; except for the dispute over maritime space in Mexico which resulted in the reduction of the exclusion zone, which has not been implemented yet. At the national level, the oil moratorium in Costa Rica and offshore oil moratorium in Belize demonstrate the potential for countries in the global south to realise different development pathways than those paved by industrialised countries in the Global North. Both have satisfied the ecological aspect of ID in the long term. However, domestic extraction increased five years after the movement ended in six out of ten cases; as most cases creating regional rather than national legislation.

5.7.2 Macro level Successful social movements to LFFU in the Global North contribute to ID on a global level by stranding fossil fuel assets and resources in fuel exporting countries: Australia, Canada and the USA. This is in line with the CBDRRC principle set out in the PA. Similarly, the movements in the Global South that have eschewed the RtD discourse, particularly Belize and Costa Rica, have contributed to ID on a global scale by LFFU and securing access to resources for the most marginalised. However, these countries did not deal with the issue of stranded resources by demanding compensation from the international community for maintaining ESS and not exploiting their resources. Therefore, have not contributed to the structural changes that are required at the macro level.

149 See operationalisation Table 9 in appendix for instruments that contribute to inclusive development.

5.8 Conclusion This research examines the mobilisation processes and policy impacts of movements through their framing techniques and the tactics used to communicate them. While the distribution between place-based, local frames and economic frames is equal. There are nuances within these dominant frames, with some emphasising local health impacts (5.3.2); indigenous rights (5.4); and property rights, later linking to climate change (5.3.1). Others that mobilised participants using climate change frames strategically used economic frames to persuade policy-makers (5.6.1).

5.8.1 Frames The literature on fossil fuel industries and social movements typically analyses such conflicts through an environmental justice lens; based on an a priori assumption of the underlying motivations of environmental conflicts. An environmental justice reading of the sample would describe the movements as calling ‘into question the baseline operations of the dominant political and economic paradigm’ (Amster, 2019: 37; Martinez-Alier et al., 2014; Nixon, 2011). Activist literature often assumes, and presents, societal responses to fossil fuel extraction as being against it (Pellegrini & Arsel, 2018).150 Arsel and Pelligrini found that the most salient frames in the Amazon against extraction were not purely ‘green’, but often ‘brown’ or ‘mixed’; where ‘brown’ denotes conflicts over the economic rents generated by common pool resources (2018: 210). Y2R, the conflict in Mexico over maritime space, the Belize movement for an offshore oil moratorium, and the movement for an oil moratorium in Costa Rica are exemplary of a ‘brown’ conflicts. The success of the economic frame in bringing about national and regional legislation indicates 1) that participants, even those with subsistence-based traditional livelihoods, care about their development opportunities and that 2) climate justice movements benefit from using a ‘neoliberal nature’ framing to persuade policy-makers (Bond, 2018). Place-based local arguments are useful to mobilise broad coalitions of participants on NIMBY arguments or health impacts of specific fossil fuel projects. However, these frames are not linked to the broader discourse on climate change; eliciting regional, rather than national policies.

5.8.2 Strategies and tactics All movements employed educational outreach programmes to mobilise participants, seven movements mobilised broad coalitions using economic or local impact frames. Speaking face to face was cited as a key tactic by all interviewees. All movements employed government relations, predominantly at the local or state level (5.6.3). Eight of the movements used legal recourse as a tactic and it was particularly effective in the movements against Enbridge in Canada, Harken Energy in Costa Rica, and Eco petrol in Colombia, which all involved indigenous communities (5.6.4). In terms of extra-institutional tactics, there were protests and marches in all movements but only three employed the use of soft blockades. These were all situated in the Global North suggesting that movements in countries that are net exporters of fossil fuels must go to greater lengths to be successful (5.6.5). Political context also influences tactical choice and timing in seven of the ten movements (5.6.6).

5.8.3 Inclusive development Social movements inherently address the social and relational aspects of ID to some extent; due to the most marginalised participating in movements. Successful movements to LFFU, studied in this research, have also satisfied the ecological component to ID at the local level as the fossil fuel extraction, transportation, or consumption, has ceased. The policies implemented movements in Costa Rica, Belize,

150 This assumption had not been tested empirically given the context of most literature focussing on case studies (see 3.3).

and Spain implemented policies that contribute to ID at the national level; however only the movement in Costa Rica scored highly on the inclusive development rating (5.7).

6 Discussion and conclusions 6.1 Introduction This research has examined the factors that contribute to the success of movements to LFFU. Situated within the framework of ID, this research sought to understand:

2) How do social movements to LFFU operate? a) What are the dominant frames used to: i) mobilise participants? ii) persuade policy-makers? b) What strategies and tactics are effective?

3) How have successful social movements to LFFU contributed to inclusive development? a) How did they satisfy: i) Ecological aspect ii) Social aspect iii) Relational aspect

This chapter answers the overarching questions, initially focussing on the case study (6.2). I detail the structural conditions for mobilisation (6.2.1); the mobilisation processes for emergence (6.3.1); effective strategies and tactics (6.3.2); the impacts of movements to LFFU, including their contributions to ID (6.4); recommendations for social movements (Error! Reference source not found.); before extrapolating to the wider EJM (6.5); reflecting on the scope, theoretical framework, and suggesting topics for further research (6.6).

6.2 When do successful social movements to LFFU emerge? Table 4: Summary of findings Movement Region Fossil fuel Political Breadth of Tactics Framing Policy ID score life-cycle openness mobilisation change stage

UCG Global Extraction 9.09 Broad Blockades Local / Regional Medium exploration and North coalition Rallies Property production Opinion rights banned in polls Victoria Petitions Fracking Global Extraction 8.29 Broad Legal Local / Regional Low banned in North coalition Lobbying Climate Arquetu, Rallies Change Cantabria, Spain Education Offshore Oil Global Extraction 6.13* Broad Referendu Economic / National Medium drilling ban, South coalition m Local Belize Legal Scientific reports Education Oil and coal Global Extraction 7.13 Narrow: Education Local / Regional Medium Extraction in South Indigenous Legal Indigenous / Low the Indigenous people & rights Motilon Bari NGOs Territory Moratorium on Global Extraction 8.13 Broad Legal Economic / National High Oil exploration, South coalition Education Local Costa Rica Lobbying Maritime space Global Extraction 6.09 Narrow: Legal Economic Regional Low dispute South Fishermen Blockades between oil and Scientific fishing industry, reports Sonda de Campeche Enbridge/North Global Transport 9.22 Narrow: Legal Local & Regional Medium ern Gateway North Indigenous Blockades Indigenous Pipeline people & Rallies rights activists Education Gitwilgyoots Global Transport 9.22 Broad Legal Local / Regional Low / and Lelu Island North coalition Education Economic Medium (Lax U'u'la) vs Lobbying Petronas LNG Scientific export facility reports Coal Fired Global Consump- 7.96 Broad Legal Local / Regional Low Power Plants North tion coalition Blockades Health n/a closed in Scientific Chicago reports Education Yes 2 Global Consump- 9.09 Broad Rallies Economic / Regional Medium Renewables North tion / coalition Media Green / High campaign renew- Lobbying #VRET, Victoria ables

6.2.1 Structural conditions for movement emergence Table 3 presents key findings from the sample studied, answering 1b). The ten social movements to successfully implement policy to LFFU have occurred since 1999, lasting on average six years. Seven movements occurred at the point of extraction. All movements situated in the Global South occurred at the extractive frontier, addressing stranded resources; movements in the Global North took place all along the fossil fuel life-cycle, including transportation and consumption, stranding assets. Therefore, movements in the Global North and South had different demands, strategies, and tactics.

Political context The primary target of all movements was the state, although many also targeted fossil fuel companies (movements in Costa Rica, Colombia, Mexico, Canada, and Chicago). Therefore, political context was instrumental in both movement emergence and outcomes, strengthening the claims of PPT (2.4, 2.6, 4.7) (A. Adams & Shriver, 2016; Goodwin & Jasper, 2015a; E. T. Walker, 2012). All movements emerged in response to two political threats: the global climate policy regime marked by inaction and inadequate SD policies; and individual catalysts at the national level as structural preconditions for mobilisation (4.4 and 4.5). Also, they were all situated in politically open states, which have more frequent political opportunities (2.6), such as local elections, (see 4.3). Political openness and policy-maker perceptions also influenced the movements’ repertoires of protest (5.6) and outcomes (6.3.3). While movement emergence is predicated on these structural conditions, collective action frames articulate these political threats as unjust and mobilise participants (Snow, 2013b: 3).

Who mobilised Seven out of the ten movements were successful due to broad coalitions mobilised. Large populations were mobilised through ‘mobilising grievances’ whereby participants learnt something they deemed to be unjust and felt they could alter it through collective action, undergoing a process of ‘cognitive liberation’. The over-representation of indigenous people in movements to LFFU – six out of the ten movements studied, despite only comprising 5% of the global population - demonstrates the ‘wicked’ nature of the problem, whereby the people who cause climate change are not those whose livelihoods are affected as a result of inequality (1.2) (Gupta & Vegelin, 2016; Harriss-White, 2006). 6.3 How do successful social movements to LFFU operate?

6.3.1 Mobilisation Answering 2ai) broad coalitions are mobilised through local issues such as NIMBY arguments, or health impacts of pollution, and economic issues focussing on fishing and tourism jobs (5.5). Three movements linked their arguments to climate change once broad coalitions had been mobilised with NIMBY arguments (5.3.1). While health impact frames are effective at mobilisation and persuading policy-makers, they were not linked to climate change (5.8.1). All movements articulated these frames to mobilise participants through educational outreach programmes (5.6.2). Three of these educational programmes were underpinned by scientific reports detailing the impacts on health, biodiversity, or jobs (5.6.2). Tactics of canvassing and holding events were used to disseminate and communicate these mobilising grievances; speaking face to face was cited as a key tactic by all interviewees.151

151 Interviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10a & b, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

6.3.2 Strategies and tactics Answering 2b) all movements employed educational outreach programmes to mobilise participants (5.6.2). All movements used non-violent tactics: particularly, lobbying at the local and state government level (10) (5.6.3) and court cases (8) (5.6.4). Legal tactics were particularly effective for movements involving indigenous communities (against Enbridge and Petronas in Canada, the Costa Rica oil moratorium, and in Colombia). Protest marches (10) and soft blockades (3) were the only non-institutional tactics used (5.6.5). Small soft-blockades were used in three movements, in the Global North, creating regional policy change. The greater frequency of non-institutional tactics in fossil fuel producing countries demonstrates the importance of policy elite perceptions on movement success and the difficulty of eliciting structural changes when fossil fuel economic dependency is entrenched.

6.3.3 Strategies to persuade policy-makers Answering question 2aii and 2b, the dominant frames to persuade policy-makers were also economic and local issue arguments (5.8.1); four movements whose mobilising grievance had been climate change, strategically used different frames to obtain policy change (5.6.1). Tactics to communicate arguments were strategically deployed before elections when policy-makers are more sensitive to constituents demands (5.6.6). The success of these frames in eliciting policy change is due to 1) participants interest in their health and economic development and 2) movement success being reliant on favourable ‘policy elite perceptions’ (Skrentny, 2006). Activists experiences and relationship to their environment transcending ‘the modern nature-culture divide, [which] remains beyond being verbalised as recognisable or acceptable narratives in formal arenas of politics’ (Cadena, 2015; Quist, 2019). When movement demands align with the institutional structure and its goals, policy elites are more likely to absorb them; exhibited by the predominance of the economic frame (Amenta et al., 1999; Skocpol, 1992; Wisler & Giugni, 1996: 88). Political institutions, firmly embedded within the neoliberal growth paradigm, incentivise activists to present their claims in economic terms to be acknowledged as legitimate claims. However, the economic frame inhibits movements from demanding and achieving the structural changes necessary to LFFU. 6.4 Movement impacts

6.4.1 Structural conditions influencing movement outcomes Successful movements to LFFU in the Global South, net importers of fossil fuels, implemented national policy changes (4.4.1, 4.4.2). Movements in the Global North implemented regional policy changes in fossil fuel producing countries. The lack of national policy changes in fossil fuel producing countries indicates the ‘higher the degree of economic dependency’ on fossil fuels, the greater the structural challenges are (Muttitt & Kartha, 2020: 4). In Costa Rica and Belize, a greater portion of GDP is generated from ESS, through tourism and fishing, than fossil fuel extraction. Additionally, there is a stronger academic tradition debating ‘alternatives to development’ in the Global South (4.4, 4.5). The inability of social movements in net exporting countries in the Global North to affect national policy changes, which entail structural changes to the economy is due to economic dependence on the fossil fuel industry. Furthermore, the movements in the global North were situated in larger countries, thus it is harder to mobilise swathes of the population on localised issues.

Exogenous factors of economic viability and political context were cited as instrumental to the movement’s success by all interviewees. Interviewees noted the pivotal role of upcoming elections on the outcome of seven out of ten movements.152

6.4.2 How have successful social movements to LFFU contributed to inclusive development? All movements created policies that limited fossil fuel supply, addressing the inadequacy of current climate policy (1.3.2), and fulfilling the ecological aspect of ID at the local level. However, all policies implemented were lacking in the social and relational dimensions (see

152 Interviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10a & b, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

Table 10 and Figure 11). The conceptual scheme illustrates how social movements arise challenging SD policies (2.4.1). Social movements to LFFU both challenges hegemony and suggest policies to LFFU. However, the policies implemented only satisfy the ecological aspect of ID.

Figure 11: Conceptual scheme

Source: own analysis

National level At the national level, movements in Costa Rica, Belize and Spain achieved long term structural changes, altering national ‘development’ paths; however, the reliance on tourism in the Global South, even ecotourism, does not contribute to a radical transformation at a global level. Additionally, protecting biodiversity through oil moratoriums without a mechanism for compensation is dispossessing marginalised people by stranding their resources.

Global level In the cases of Costa Rica and Belize, where national legislation was enacted, mobilising grievances and cognitive liberation happened on a national scale due to the small populations and the environment being an integral part of the national cultural identity. Both countries also brought their arguments to LFFU to the global stage. In Costa Rica, ‘people are really close with the environment and care about it very much’ and the country has a reputation for being environmentally sustainable in the region, allowing the campaign to ‘promote global political changes’ (Lynch et al., 2004: 474).153 Furthermore, the economy of both countries is reliant on ecosystem services (ESS); therefore, the contract with Harken led to Costa Rican’s feeling ‘threatened’ (ibid). The mobilisation processes were relatively easy due to an existing ‘very

153 Interview 19: Oilwatch Costa Rica facilitator 1999-2009

high level of discourse on the environmental issue in Costa Rica’.154 The campaign in Belize similarly engaged with the international community through online petitions and pre-existing relationships with international magazines where they ‘spend millions of dollars promoting Belize as a paradise and a haven for nature’.155 6.5 Extrapolation Within the same parameters, the case study findings are generalisable temporally and geographically due to the balance in the sample between the global north and south, although findings from the Global South may not be applicable outside of Latin America. The case study of social movements studied is situated within the broader, transnational EJM; due to the stringent definition of success employed (2.7, 3.4.3), it represents 2% of the EJM. One-fifth of all EJMs since 1970 have been energy-related conflicts; one-fifth of those have successfully stopped the fossil fuel project, yet only 9% also advocated for renewables (4.2.1). Movements to LFFU have similar success rates: yet while 18% stopped a fossil fuel project, only 11% attributed that success to the movement. Furthermore, domestic fossil fuel extraction only decreased in 37% of these successful cases (Figure 8); demonstrating that movements to LFFU do not achieve ecological inclusiveness past the local level. While a 20% success rate is not in line with the need to leave 80% of known reserves underground (1.2), especially given that not all projects are met with resistance; social movements are one actor needed to coordinate to LFFU and have other, long-lasting impacts on society (see 2.7). 6.6 Reflections, recommendations, and further research Social movements should 1) frame their demands in economic terms to elicit policy changes to LFFU; 2) strategically deploy non-institutional tactics at moments of political opportunities (6.3.3). The conclusions drawn demonstrate the explanatory power of PPT for movement emergence (2.4, 4.7, 6.2.1) and their outcomes (5.6.1, 5.6.6, 6.4.1). This research highlights the power of discourse and its ability to change material realities through frames (2.5, 5.8.1) demonstrating the strength of the concept. Lessons regarding effective tactics are weaker (5.8.2), suggesting the need for further theoretical development and empirical analysis to understand their effects on movement outcomes. The definition of social movement success employed in this thesis, for policies to be implemented that satisfy ID, is particularly stringent. There are further impacts that are not covered by the scope of this research such as the creation of networks and movement ecologies that create a culture of activism. While the policies implemented may not embody ID, all movements achieved the initial four stages of policy impact depicted in Figure 2; falling short of achieving ID and eliciting broader structural changes (2.7). The scalar perspective demanded by the relational aspect of ID, which ‘requires policies that involve actors at all levels, rather than just dealing with the empowerment of the marginalised that social inclusivity prescribes’ (Harriss-White, 2006; Hillson, 2019: 3; Mosse, 2010). Is a particularly rigorous criterion to apply to social movements. Future research could 1) evaluate policies using just the ecological and social aspects of ID; 2) evaluate policy elite perceptions of LFFU to understand how they impact movement outcomes; 3) loosen the definition of movement ‘success’, expanding the case study sample to find if the findings hold for other ‘successful’ social movements to LFFU. 6.7 Recommendations and conclusion Despite the last 50 years of the EJM, emissions and extraction have continued to rise. Social movements have not contributed to a legislative framework to LFFU at the global or national levels. The unresponsiveness of governments does not render activists’ efforts futile. These movements have widened

154 Interview 19: Oilwatch Costa Rica Facilitator 1999-2009 155 Interview 10a & b: OCEANA

the parameters of ‘acceptable behaviour’ with respect to the environment (Wapner, 2013: 178). The development of ideas, knowledge contestation, and communities of practice; exemplified by the Unist’ot’en camp (5.6.5), pushes the boundaries of possibility for human-nature relations. Over 3000 EJMs recorded in the EJAtlas is indicative of movement ecologies and a growing culture of activism (see Figure 7). The convergence of the campaign to ban UCG fracking in Victoria with the Y2R campaign is an example of the supposition that SMs are not distinct but part of a ‘continuum of activism’ where ‘the ideas, tactics, style, participants, and organization of one movement often spill over its boundaries to affect other social movements’ (Meyer & Whittier, 1994: 227; Perez et al., 2015). Reality is socially constructed through interaction; therefore, we need social movements to challenge dominant discourses and policies that are not compatible with LFFU (1.4). Educating and consequently mobilising the public; while presenting alternative ways of interacting with the natural world (1.5). LFFU and the corresponding energy transformation requires structural changes in technology and markets driven by states and citizens; ‘structural changes in an economy necessarily take time: to build new industries, institutions, infrastructure and human capital’ (Muttitt & Kartha, 2020: 4). This research has focussed on citizens mobilising through social movements against extractive industries, involving marginalised communities who managed to ‘challenge formidable and powerful entities’ (A. Adams & Shriver, 2016; E. T. Walker et al., 2008). Social movements are a necessary component to achieve a radical, inclusive, energy transformation.

Appendix

Table 5: Matrix of potential policies to restrict fossil fuel supply and demand Supply side policies Demand side policies Restricting fossil fuels Fossil fuel subsidy reductions Carbon taxes Tax on fossil fuel supply Cap and trade on emissions Quotas for fossil fuel production Emission standards Bans or moratoriums on fossil fuel Divestment supply Supporting alternatives Government provision of low- Government procurement policies carbon infrastructure Consumer subsidies for renewables Research and Development subsidies Feed-in tariffs for renewables Renewable targets Source: (Lazarus et al., 2015)

Table 6: Filters used on EJAtlas for case study selection

Filter Number of cases

((Project stopped) AND (Fossil fuels/climate justice)) 86

((success) AND (Fossil fuels/climate justice)) 76

((success) AND (Fossil fuels/climate justice) AND (Project stopped)) 52 (51)

((success) AND (Fossil fuels/climate justice) AND (Project stopped) AND (Court Victory)) 22

((success) AND (Fossil fuels/climate justice) AND (Project stopped) AND (New legislation)) 10

Source: EJAtlas

Table 7: Case study sample

Movement Country & Region Dates Commodity Success level

Unconventional gas exploration and Australia, Global 23/09/2011 Natural gas Regional policy production (fracking) banned in Victoria North 30/08/2016 change

Yes 2 Renewables campaign #VRET, Australia, Global 01/01/2013 Coal, Electricity Regional policy Victoria North 15/06/2016 change

Offshore Oil moratorium Belize, Global South 2010 Crude oil National policy 2018 change

Enbridge/Northern Gateway Pipeline Canada, Global 2010 Crude oil, Natural Regional policy North 2016 gas, Bitumen change

Stopping proposed Petronas LNG export Canada, Global 01/09/2015 Natural gas Regional policy facility on Lelu Island (Lax U'u'la), North 25/07/2017 change Gitwilgyoots

Stopping oil and coal extraction in the Colombia & 2002 Crude oil, coal Regional policy Indigenous Motilon Bari Territory Venezuela, Global 2006 change South

Moratorium on oil exploration by Harken Costa Rica, Global 01/12/1999 Crude oil National policy Energy South 2003 change

Maritime space dispute between the oil Mexico, Global 1996 Crude oil Regional policy and fishing industries, Sonda de South 2017 change Campeche

Banning exploratory fracking in Arquetu, Spain, Global North 2011 Shale gas fracking Regional policy Cantabria 2019 change

Closing coal fired power plants in USA, Global North 2002 Coal Regional policy Chicago 01/08/2012 change

Source: EJAtlas

Table 8: Environmental Justice conflicts since 1970 success rate

Number of Project Rate of Category conflicts Proportion stopped success Nuclear 98 4% 36 37% Mineral Ores & building material extraction 557 20% 119 21% Biomass & land conflicts 397 14% 73 18% Fossil Fuels & climate justice/energy 490 18% 86 18% Water management 338 12% 56 17% Infrastructure & built environment 283 10% 53 19% Tourism recreation 60 2% 22 37% Biodiversity conservation conflicts 107 4% 17 16% Industrial & utilities conflicts 206 7% 54 26% Waste management 218 8% 58 27% TOTAL 2754 100% 574 21% Energy related 588 21% 122 21%

Map 11: Gas free municipalities, Spain

Source: (Fracturahidraulicano, 2011)

Table 9: Operationalisation

Concept Dimension Variables Indicators/Questions

Social Emergence Structural How/why did the movement emerge? Movements conditions Geographical location Commodity Fossil fuel life cycle (extraction, production, transportation, consumption) Political openness (democratic, election cycle, access to officials) Duration and date

Mobilising How/why did the movement emerge? grievances Health impacts of pollution Knowledge of fossil fuel project Climate impacts Way of life threatened Home/territory threatened Food supplies threatened

Cognitive Who mobilised and how? liberation Educational programmes Scientific reports Media strategies - Coordination with NGOs, businesses, SMOs

Framing Green local What arguments were used to persuade policy makers? Pollution: air/water Food Health

Green global What arguments were used to persuade policy makers? Climate change Environmental justice

Economic What arguments were used to persuade policy makers? Economy Jobs: fishing/tourism

Health What arguments were used to persuade policy makers? Health Death(s)

Conservative What arguments were used to persuade policy makers? Property rights NIMBY

Indigenous What arguments were used to persuade policy makers? Indigenous rights Indigenous territory

Tactics Institutional What tactics were effective? tactics Lobbying Court cases Educational programmes Canvassing Media campaigns

Non- What tactics were effective? institutional Marches/rallies tactics Blockades/camps

Impacts (LFFU): Policy change Question: How have SMs achieved policy change to LFFU?

Indicators: Environmental policy change Project stopped

Structural Have policy changes to LFFU led to structural changes? change Domestic extraction reduction Inclusive development (see below)

Structural Inclusive Ecological Maintenance of biodiversity & ESS by reducing change development extraction and pollution Continued access to and allocation of resources by and for the most marginalised Multilateral governance strategies (bottom up & top down) Regulatory instruments: technology standards, EIAs, targets & timetables Economic instruments: green subsidies, carbon taxes Suasive instruments: education, monitoring, labelling

Social Rights Equitable allocation of resources, responsibilities, risks Strong state / independent regulatory functions

Relational Structural changes to power politics through discursive politics – states must allow the rule of law and constitutional protections of citizens Transparency - No securitisation of issues (water, land, food) Redistribution

Participation Development of ideas, disseminating and contesting knowledge, communities of practice

Table 10: Inclusive development rating

Movement Ecological Social Relational

UCG exploration and Permanent ban on UCG Access to resources secured for local Lock the Gate – individual production banned in exploration and exploitation & farming community who depend on submissions for Government Victoria extension of onshore it inquiry into fracking156 conventional gas moratorium Agricultural jobs saved (2016) Domestic extraction increased Fracking banned in Fracking banned in Basque Regional legislation upheld by Arquetu, Cantabria, country constitutional court (Weyndling, Spain Domestic extraction decreased 2018) Offshore Oil drilling Biodiversity protection Tourism jobs saved ban, Belize Offshore oil moratorium Fishing jobs saved, access to Domestic extraction decreased resources secured for locals Oil and coal Extraction Biodiversity Courts ruled in favour of Bari Indigenous mobilisation & in the Indigenous Oil and coal extraction & Indigenous people, rights respected participation Motilon Bari Territory pollution stopped Access to resources for indigenous Domestic extraction increased people secured Costa Rica Moratorium upheld since 2002, 600-800 fishing jobs saved (Oilwatch, 1999 Constitutional Court ruling Moratorium on Oil 160 million tonnes CO2 2005: 21) EIA insufficient, particularly in Exploration unburned, has been extended to Tourism jobs reliant on environment respect to indigenous consent 2050 (6.8% GDP) SETENA consulted broadly before New EIAs with cost-benefit Harken Energy’s EIA rejected on rejecting Harken’s EIA analysis imposed grounds that indigenous consent had Indigenous mobilisation 6% of worlds biodiversity not been granted, upholding preserved indigenous rights according to the Domestic extraction ceased ILO 169 (Pier, 2020) Access to resources secure for indigenous people and local communities who depend on them Maritime space Exclusion zone reduced, less Access to 10,000km2 marine area for Lack of consultation or dispute between oil pollution fishermen previously part of zone of participation and fishing industry, Domestic extraction decreased exclusion Sonda de Campeche Lack of environmental protection legislation & mechanisms through ASEA Enbridge/Northern Oil Tanker Moratorium in Great Access to resources for indigenous Unist’ot'en Camp as a community Gateway Pipeline Bear Rainforest communities who rely on them for of practice Pipeline not built, no pollution food FPIC protocol Domestic extraction increased Bill C-51 passed, anti-terror Indigenous mobilisation legislation to criminalise Indigenous protest (Palmateer, 2015) Gitwilgyoots and Lelu Development moratorium on Access to resources secured for Indigenous mobilisation Island (Lax U'u'la) vs Gitwilgyoots island those who depend on salmon for proposed Petronas Domestic extraction increased food LNG export facility Jobs that depend on Skeena saved Coal Fired Power Plants closed, 5 million metric Community Advisory Council set up Immigrant community Plants closed in tonnes CO2 per year not emitted to advise on development of sites mobilisation Chicago (Lydersen, 2014: 35) (Pilsen Alliance, 2012) Domestic extraction increased

156 Interview 2: Lock the Gate & National Committee of Doctors for the Environment member

Yes 2 Renewables State renewable energy targets: Wind and solar job creation: 10,000 Community level engagement, campaign #VRET, 25% by 2020 & 40% by 2025 jobs estimated and $2.5 billion including First Nations157 Victoria Domestic extraction increased investment opportunity by 2025 (FoE, 2017)

Interviews

Interview Date number Organisation/role interviewed Interview 1 Yes 2 Renewables coordinator 31/03/2020 Lock the Gate member, farmer, doctor, National Committee of Doctors Interview 2 for the Environment member 12/03/2020 Interview 3 Friends of the Earth Melbourne and Lock the Gate member, 31/03/2020 Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group action group leader, Yes 2 Interview 4 Renewables 25/03/2020 Interview 5 Pilson Environmental Rights and Reform Organisation member 10/03/2020 Interview 6 American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago member 11/03/2020 Interview 7 Pilson Environmental Rights and Reform Organisation member 30/03/2020 Interview 8 Citizens Organized for Liberty through Action (COLA) 25/03/2020 Interview 9 Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative, Director 29/03/2020 Interview 10a & b OCEANA Belize, two employees 01/04/2020 Interview 11 Friends of Wild Salmon member 25/03/2020 Interview 12 Skeena Wild Conservation Trust employee 01/04/2020 Interview 13 Greenpeace director, Canada 17/03/2020 Interview 14 Dogwood Initiative, director 10/03/2020 Interview 15 West Coast Environmental Law 17/03/2020 Interview 16 Deep Green Resistance, Canada 16/03/2020 Interview 17 Yinka Dene Alliance 17/03/2020 Interview 18 CODACOP Director 05/04/2020 Interview 19 Oilwatch Costa Rica Facilitator 10/04/2020 Interview 20 Ecologistas en Accion Cantabria President 12/04/2020 Interview 21 Voices of the Valley member 15/04/2020 Interview 22 Extinction Rebellion 23/04/2020 Interview 23 Environmental Law 01/05/2020

157 Interview 1: Y2R coordinator

Interview questions • Please could you talk me through your successful campaign • How was the movement structured (formal SMOs, NGOs, or grassroots)? • How is your organisation structured? • How did you mobilise grassroots? • To what extent did you prioritise lobbying efforts at the international level, national, state, or local level governance? • How do you mobilise participants? • What do you give more priority to - changing norms and attitudes or lobbying for policy change and why? • Did you employ climate change as an argument? If not, why? • To what extent did you cooperate with businesses, other NGOs or SMOs, • To what extent did you cooperate / engage with adversaries • What tactics did you employ and why? • Which did you deem to be most effective and why? • To what extent do you believe your campaign was successful due to the tactics you employed, or external factors such as favourable public opinion, political opportunities, economics, or demographics?

Bibliography Acselrad, H. (2010). Ambientalização das lutas sociais-o caso do movimento por justiça ambiental. Estudos Avançados, 24(68), 103–119. Adams, A., & Shriver, T. (2016). Challenging Extractive Industries: How Political Context and Targets Influence Tactical Choice. Sociological Perspectives, 59(4), 892–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416641683 Adams, N. (2019). Mapping hegemonic power in a time of monsters – thinking, doing, changing. https://thinkingdoingchanging.com/2019/07/24/the-twilight-of-neoliberalism/ Agyeman, J. (2013). Introducing just sustainabilities: Policy, planning, and practice. Zed Books Ltd. Aldenhoven, C., & Walker, C. (2016). Victory ! Victoria ’ s unconventional gas ban. Chain Reaction, 128(November), 10–13. Álvarez, L., & Coolsaet, B. (2020). Decolonizing Environmental Justice Studies: A Latin American Perspective. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 31(2), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1558272 Amenta, E., Caren, N., Chiarello, E., & Su, Y. (2010). The Political Consequences of Social Movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120029 Amster, R. (2019). Blockadia. May 2020. Anderson, O. L., & Park, J. J. (2016). South of the border, down Mexico way: The past, present, and future of petroleum development in Mexico, part I. Natural Resources Journal, 56(2), 257–290. https://doi.org/10.15781/T2D795C0M Andrews MP, T. H. D. (2016). Renewable Energy Targets To Create Thousands Of Jobs | Premier of Victoria. 2025. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy-targets-to-create-thousands-of- jobs/ Arellano-Yanguas, J. (2011). Aggravating the resource curse: Decentralisation, mining and conflict in Peru. Journal of Development Studies, 47(4), 617–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220381003706478 Babb, S. (2006). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 35(5), 529–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/009430610603500554 Báez, A., & Valverde, F. (2019). Claves para el éxito de proyectos ecoturísticos con participación comunitaria. El caso costarricense del sky walk - sky trek. Revista de Ciencias Ambientales, 17(2), 18– 24. https://doi.org/10.15359/rca.17-1.5 Barbier, E. B., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E. W., Stier, A. C., & Silliman, B. R. (2011). The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. In Ecological Monographs (Vol. 81, Issue 2, pp. 169–193). https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1 Barker, A. J., & Ross, R. M. (2017). Reoccupation and resurgence: Indigenous protest camps in Canada. Protest Camps in International Context: Spaces, Infrastructures and Media of Resistance, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447329411.003.0012 Bates, T. R. (1975). Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony. Journal of the History of Ideas, 36(2), 351. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708933 Baumgartner, F. R., & Mahoney, C. (2005). Social Movements, the Rise of New Issues, and the Public Agenda. Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy, 6200(814), 65–86. Benítez, I. (2015). Growing Mobilisation Against Introduction of Fracking in Spain. Inter Press Service. http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/06/growing-mobilisation-against-introduction-of-fracking-in-spain/ Biersack, A., & Greenberg, J. (2006). Reimagining Political Ecology. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388142-001 Bond, P. (2018). Social Movements for Climate Justice during the Decline of Global Governance From International NGOs to Local Communities. Rethinking Environmentalism: Linking Justice, Sustainability, and Diversity, 23, 153–182.

Bos, K., & Gupta, J. (2016). Inclusive development, oil extraction and climate change: a multilevel analysis of Kenya. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 23(6), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1162217 Bos, K., & Gupta, J. (2018). Climate change: the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets and resources to the developing world. Third World Quarterly, 39(3), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1387477 Brand, U., Boos, T., & Brad, A. (2017). Degrowth and post-extractivism: two debates with suggestions for the inclusive development framework. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 24, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.007 Brulle, R. J., & Rootes, C. (2015). Environmental Movements. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (Second Edi, Vol. 7). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08- 097086-8.91016-X Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (Fourth). Oxford University Press. Buechler, S. M. (2000). Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism. American Journal of Sociology, 108(3), 724–726. https://doi.org/10.1086/378449 Buechler, S. M. (2018). Political Process Theory. Understanding Social Movements, 125–140. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315631387-9 Burgen, S. (2014). Spain’s oil deposits and fracking sites trigger energy gold rush. The Guardian, 5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/spain-oil-deposit-fracking-sites-energy-offshore- gas Burstein, P., Einwohner, R. L., & Hollander, J. A. (1995). The success of political movements: A bargaining perspective. The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements, 275–295. Buttel, F. H. (1992). Environmentalization: Origins, Processes, and Implications for Rural Social Change 1. Rural Sociology, 57(1), 1–27. Calhoun, C. (1993). “New Social Movements” of the Early Nineteenth Century Published by : Social Science History, 17(3), 385–427. Carmin, J., & Bast, E. (2009). Cross-movement activism: a cognitive perspective on the global justice activities of US environmental NGOs. Environmental Politics, 18(3), 351–370. Carroll, W. K., & Ratner, R. . (2010). Social Movements and Counter-Hegemony: Lessons from the Field. New Proposals - Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, 4(1), 7–22. Chapman, S., & Crichton, F. (2018). Opponents of windfarms in Australia. Wind Turbine Syndrome, 179– 224. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1zrvhrt.12 Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. (2011). Why Civil Resistance Works. Chim, L. (2015). Pescadores exigen a Pemex $ 500 millones por daños. 1–4. Conway, J. M. (2016). Anti-Globalization Movements. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss250 Corporación Colectivo de Abogados Luis Carlos Pérez. (2007). New Threats in the Catatumbo: Exploitation of Open-Pit Mining, Fumigation, Militarization, OIl Exploitation: Aggression to Indigenous Motilon and Peasants. Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design : Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches / J.W. Creswell. Crutzen, P. J. (2006). The Anthropocene. In Earth system science in the anthropocene (Vol. 115). Springer Berlin. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6428 Cuéllar, G., Angel, J., Sánchez, A., Vázquez, H., Cota, L., Daniel, B., Tres, T., Actividad, D. D. E., Revisión, U. N. A., García-cuéllar, J. Á., Arreguín-sánchez, F., & Hernández, S. (2004). 33909304. Della Porta, D., Diani, M., & Eder, K. (2014). Social Movements in Social Theory. The Oxford Handbook of

Social Movements, February, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.013.11 Della Porta, D., Diani, M., Rootes, C., & Nulman, E. (2015). The Impacts of Environmental Movements. The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.013.55 Della Porta, D., Diani, M., Tan, A. E., & Snow, D. A. (2014). Cultural Conflicts and Social Movements. The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements, February, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.013.5 della Porta, D., & Kriesi, H. (1999). Social Movements in a Globalizing World: an Introduction BT - Social Movements in a Globalizing World (D. della Porta, H. Kriesi, & D. Rucht (eds.); pp. 3–22). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27319-5_1 Demaria, F., & Kothari, A. (2017). The Post-Development Dictionary agenda: paths to the pluriverse. Third World Quarterly, 38(12), 2588–2599. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1350821 Diani, M., & Bison, I. (2004). Organizations, coalitions, and movements. Theory and Society, 33(3), 281– 309. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RYSO.0000038610.00045.07 Drury, J. (2015). Social Movements: A Social Psychological Perspective. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (Second Edi, Vol. 22). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24094-4 Dryzek. (2013). Making sense of earth ’ s politics : a discourse approach. Edelman, M. (2001). Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 285–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.285 EIA. (2019). U.S. petroleum exports exceed imports in September - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42176 Engler, M., & Martinez, N. (2003). True gold of our future | New Internationalist. Escobar, A. (1996). Construction Nature: Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology. Futures, 28(4), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(96)00011-0 Estella, B., Charleson, W., Naih, H., Chist, C., Thomson-leach, E., & Law, J. (2020). Making Space for Indigenous Law speaking at the Social. 1–6. Ewbank, L. (2016). The long road to VRET : FoE ’ s campaign for a Vic Renewable Energy Target. Friends of the Earth Melbourne. Ewbank, L., Courtice, B., Walker, C., Liew, T., & Engelhardt, G. (2014). Ted Baillieu ’ s anti-wind farm laws : Costing Victoria jobs and climate action Report authors. Ewbank, L., & McConnell, D. (n.d.). MAKING VICTORIA THE PLACE TO BE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY. Flanagan, E. (2014). Pembina reacts to federal decision on Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. Flesher Fominaya, C. (2010). Collective Identity in Social Movements: Central Concepts and Debates. Sociology Compass, 4(6), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00287.x Flesher Fominaya, C. (2019). Collective Identity in Social Movements: Assessing the Limits of a Theoretical Framework. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 1, 429–445. FoEI. (n.d.). Agroecology Archives - Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/about-foei Fracturahidraulicano. (2011). Map of opposition to hydraulic fracture Hydraulic Fracture. https://www.fracturahidraulicano.info/municipios.html Fraser, J. A. (2018). Amazonian struggles for recognition. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43(4), 718–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12254 Friends of the Earth Melbourne. (n.d.). No New Fossil Fuels in Victoria - Friends of the Earth Melbourne. https://www.melbournefoe.org.au/no_new_fossil_fuels_vic#:~:text=Donate-,No New Fossil Fuels in Victoria,new local fossil fuel projects. Friends of the Earth, & NRDC. (2004). The threat to the environment from the Central America Free Trade Agreement ( CAFTA ): The case of Harken Costa Rica Holdings and offshore oil. Friends of Wild Salmon. (n.d.). LNG development. http://friendsofwildsalmon.ca/campaigns/detail/liquefied_natural_gas_lng_development

Gamson, W. (2003). Defining Movement “Success.” The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts, 350–352. Gamson, W. A. (1990). The Strategy of Social Protest. Wadsworth Pub. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kwm7AAAAIAAJ Germanos, A. (2019). Monumental Chicago Commits to 100% Renewable Energy by 2040. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/10/monumental-chicago-commits-100-renewable- energy-2040 Gillum, D. R. (2000). Environmental justice. Environmental Compliance: A Web-Enhanced Resource, 6(1), 13-1-13–11. https://doi.org/10.5840/wcp20-paideia199822401 Giugni, M. (1999). Introduction -- How Social Movements Matter: Past Research, Present Problems, Future Developments. In How Social Movements Matter: Past Research, Present Problems, Future Developments1 (pp. xiii–xxxiii). google books Gomez, J. (2018). The Biggest Reef in Americas Says “No!” to Offshore Oil | Oceana Belize. Oceana. http://belize.oceana.org/press-center/press-releases/biggest-reef-americas-says-no-offshore-oil Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. (2015a). Part VI What Do Movements Do ? Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (2015b). Editors ’ Introduction. In The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (2015c). Part IX - What Changes Do Movements Bring About? The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts, 1995, 379–382. Gramsci, A., & Hoare, Q. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. Lawrence and Wishart London. Gupta, J. (2010). A history of international climate change policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(5), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.67 Gupta, J. (2014a). Grasping the essentials of the climate change problem. The History of Global Climate Governance, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139629072.004 Gupta, J. (2014b). Sharing Our Ecospace. 1–46. Gupta, J., & Chu, E. (2018). Inclusive Development and Climate Change: The Geopolitics of Fossil Fuel Risks in Developing Countries. African and Asian Studies, 17(1–2), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.1163/15692108-12341402 Gupta, J., Pouw, N. R. M., & Ros-Tonen, M. A. F. (2015). Towards an Elaborated Theory of Inclusive Development. European Journal of Development Research, 27(4), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.30 Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z Harriss-White, B. (2006). Poverty and capitalism. Economic and Political Weekly, 1241–1246. Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.nl/books?id=CKUiKpWUv0YC Head, B. W. (2019). Forty years of wicked problems literature: forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 38(2), 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1488797 Heerema, D., & Kniewasser, M. (2017). Liquefied natural gas, carbon pollution, and British Columbia in 2017, an overview of B.C. LNG issues in the context of climate change. Pembina Institute, 2017. https://about.jstor.org/terms Herranz de la Casa, J. M., Álvarez-Villa, À., & Mercado-Sáez, M. T. (2018). Communication and effectiveness of the protest: Anti-fracking movements in Spain. ZER - Revista de Estudios de Comunicación, 23(45), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1387/zer.19543 Herrera, G. G. (2017). Fishermen will go the legal way against Pemex. The Mayan Day, 1–4. Hogenboom, B., Gupta, J., Boelens, R., Verrest, H., Bond, P., & Larrea, C. (2017). Leave Fossil Fuels Underground. http://www.leavefossilfuelsunderground.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Brochure-

LFFU.pdf Holifield, R., Porter, M., & Walker, G. (2009). Spaces of environmental justice: Frameworks for critical engagement. Antipode, 41(4), 591–612. Hughes, A. (2018). Australian resource review: black coal 2017. Australian Resource Review: Black Coal 2017, November 2016, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.11636/9781925297980 Huson, F., & Spice, A. (2019). HEAL THE PEOPLE, HEAL THE LAND: In Standing with Standing Rock (pp. 211–221). https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvr695pq.20 IEA. (2016). World Outlook. In Economic Outlook (Vol. 11, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0319.1987.tb00425.x Indian Act (Plain-Language Summary) (2020). In The Canadian Encyclopaedia. Retrieved from https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act-plain-language-summary International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2019). Colombia. IEA (2019), World Energy Statistics 2019, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-statistics- 2019 IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson- Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. In press. Jackson, R. B., Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Korsbakken, J. I., Liu, Z., Peters, G. P., & Zheng, B. (2018). Global energy growth is outpacing decarbonization. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf303 Jang, B. (2020). Native leaders divided on oil-sands pipelines. 3–5. Jänicke, M., Mönch, H., & Binder, M. (1993). Ecological aspects of structural change. Intereconomics, 28(4), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02926195 Jasper, J. M., & Goodwin, J. (2015). Part II When and Why Do Social Movements Occur ? (Issue February). Jasper, James M. (1997). The art of moral protest: culture, biography, and creativity in social movements. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press Jenkins, J. C., & Perrow, C. (1977). Insurgency of the Powerless: Farm Worker Movements (1946-1972). American Sociological Review, 42(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094604 Jiménez, M. (2007). The environmental movement in Spain: A growing force of contention. South European Society & Politics, 12(3), 359–378. Johnston, M. (2014). Secondary Data Analysis: a method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 49(3), 619–626. https://doi.org/10.1159/000479695 Klein, N. (2014a). “Climate: The Crisis and the Movement” an interview by Allen White. December, 1–8. Klein, N. (2014b). Naomi Klein on the People’s Climate March and the Global Grassroots movement Fighting Fossil Fuels. Democracy Now! https://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/18/naomi_klein_on_the_peoples_climate Kolovos, B., & Hope, Z. (2019). Hazelwood mine operator guilty over 45-day fire. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/hazelwood-mine-operator-guilty-over-fire-20191120- p53cfi.html Kothari, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (2014). Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green Economy. Development (Basingstoke), 57(3–4), 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.24 Kung, E., Smith, G., & Law), (West Coast Environmental. (2020). The Unist’ot’en stand off: how Canada’s “prove it” mentality undermines reconciliation. 1–18. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.

Verso. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j_PtAAAAMAAJ Larana, E., Johnston, H., & Gusfield, J. R. (2009). New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Temple University Press. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YeGlNvARb4cC Laville, S. (2019). Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report | Business | The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil- firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report Lawhon, M. (2013). Situated, Networked Environmentalisms: A Case for Environmental Theory from the South. Geography Compass, 7(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12027 Lazarus, M., Erickson, P., Tempest, K., & Lazarus, M. (2015). Supply-side climate policy: the road less taken. 24. Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2007). Mobilising Citizens : Social Movements and the Politics of Knowledge. IDS Working Paper, January, 37. http://w.drc- citizenship.org/system/assets/1052734544/original/1052734544-leach_etal.2007-mobilising.pdf Lemphers, N. (2012). Is Enbridge missing the point of the Gateway hearings? https://www.pembina.org/blog/enbridge-missing-point-of-gateway-hearings Levy, J., Spengler, J. D., Hlinka, D., & Sullivan, D. (2000). Estimated public health impacts of criteria pollutant air emissions from nine fossil-fueled power plants in Illinois. Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health, Boston, MA. Lin, A. C. (2014). Fracking and Federalism: A Comparative Approach to Reconciling National and Subnational Interests in the United States and Spain. In Environmental Law (Vol. 44, Issue 4). http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/eds/detail/detail?sid=5566e551-cd55-490b-9dbf- 8e8f9966685f@sessionmgr115&vid=2&hid=121&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0Z Q==#db=edslex&AN=edslexA8903893 Lopes, L. (2010). Environmental Justice Movement in Brazil. 24(68), 103–119. Lough, S. (2019). Port authority imposes ban on development around Lelu Island – Terrace Standard.pdf. Terrace Standard. https://www.terracestandard.com/news/port-authority-imposes-ban-on- development-around-lelu-island/ LVEJO. (2013). Coal power plant. http://www.lvejo.org/our-accomplishments/coal-plant-shutdown/ Lydersen, K. (2002). Pilsen vs . Polluters. Punk Planet, 48. Lydersen, K. (2014). Closing the Cloud Factories. Lessons from the fight to shut down Chicago’s coal plants. Midwest Energy News, June. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimensional Man (Vol. 69, Issue 269). Routledge. Martin, A., McGuire, S., & Sullivan, S. (2013). Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation. The Geographical Journal, 179(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12018 Martin, J. L., Maris, V., & Simberloff, D. S. (2016). The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(22), 6105–6112. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525003113 Martinez-Alier, J., Anguelovski, I., Bond, P., Del Bene, D., Demaria, F., Gerber, J. F., Greyl, L., Haas, W., Healy, H., Marín-Burgos, V., Ojo, G., Porto, M., Rijnhout, L., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Spangenberg, J., Temper, L., Warlenius, R., & Yánez, I. (2014). Between activism and science: Grassroots concepts for sustainability coined by environmental justice organizations. Journal of Political Ecology, 21(1 A), 19– 60. https://doi.org/10.2458/v21i1.21124 McAdam, D, & McAdam, P. S. D. (1999). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930- 1970. University of Chicago Press. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ADiJTD8s4KYC McAdam, Doug. (1996). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. In Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511803987 McAdam, Doug. (2000). Culture and Social Movements BT - Culture and Politics: A Reader (L. Crothers &

C. Lockhart (eds.); pp. 253–268). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62397- 6_14 McAdam, Doug, Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805431 McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777934 McGlade, C., & Ekins, P. (2015). The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 517(7533), 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14016 Mehta, L., Allouche, J., Nicol, A., & Walnycki, A. (2014). Global environmental justice and the right to water: The case of peri-urban Cochabamba and Delhi. Geoforum, 54, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.05.014 Melucci, A. (1980). The new social movements: A theoretical approach. Social Science Information, 19(2), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901848001900201 Melucci, A. (1995). The Process of Collective Identity - OneSearch. Social Movements and Culture, 41–63. http://ufl.summon.serialssolutions.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/document/show?id=FETCH- proquest_abstracts_600413661&q=the+process+of+collective+identity&s.q=the+process+of+collectiv e+identity Melucci, A. (1996). Youth, time and social movements. YOUNG, 4(2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/110330889600400202 Meyer, D. S. (2004). Protest and Political Opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 125–145. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737688 Meyer, D. S., & Whittier, N. (1994). Social Movement Spillover. Social Problems, 41(2), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096934 Montreal Counter Information. (2012). An anarchist perspective of resistance to LNG on Gitwilgyoots Territory. Mosse, D. (2010). A Relational Approach to Durable Poverty, Inequality and Power. The Journal of Development Studies, 46(7), 1156–1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2010.487095 Murcia Today. (2020). Spanish Government Plans to Ban Fracking. Murcia Today, 14. https://murciatoday.com/spanish_government_plans_to_ban_fracking_1396024-a.html Muttitt, G., & Kartha, S. (2020). Equity, climate justice and fossil fuel extraction: Principles for a managed phase out. Climate Policy, in process(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1763900 Nixon, R. (2011). Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press. Notipesca. (2014). Pémex acaba con la pesca en Campeche (Expediente parte 2). Notipesca, 1–3. O’Connor, J. (1989). Uneven and combined development and ecological crisis: a theoretical introduction. O’Connor, J. (1991). Theoretical notes: On the Two Contradictions of Capitalism. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 2(3), 107–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455759109358463 O’Leary, Z. (2005). The Essential Guide to Doing Research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(6), 665–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03567_1.x Oberschall, A. (1993). Social movements : ideologies, interests, and identities. Transaction. OHCR. (1986). Declaration on the Right to Development Adopted by General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986. December, 1–4. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/rtd.pdf Oilwatch Costa Rica. (2005). ECOLOGICAL DEBT AND OIL MORATORIUM IN COSTA RICA ECOLOGICAL DEBT AND OIL MORATORIUM. August. Osa, M. (2001). Mobilizing structures and cycles of protest: Post-Stalinist contention in Poland, 1954- 1959. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 6(2), 211–231. Owen, A., & Rivin, D. (2017). Blockadia map reveals global scale of anti-fossil fuel movement. Environmental Justice. http://www.envjustice.org/2017/11/blockadia-map-reveals-global-scale-anti- fossil-fuel-movement/

Pagina Abierta. (2017). Piden agilizar apertura de zonas restringidas de Pemex en la Sonda. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. Palomares, M. L. D., & Pauly, D. (2011). TOO PRECIOUS TO DRILL: THE MARINE BIODIVERSITY OF BELIZE. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 19(6), 1–175. Pellegrini, L., & Arsel, M. (2018). Oil and Conflict in the Ecuadorian Amazon. 106(106), 209–218. Peoples Agreement | World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, (2010). https://pwccc.wordpress.com/support/ Perez, A. C., Grafton, B., Mohai, P., Hardin, R., Hintzen, K., & Orvis, S. (2015). Evolution of the environmental justice movement: Activism, formalization and differentiation. Environmental Research Letters, 10(10). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/105002 Perez, L. C. (2007). Nuevas Amenazas En El Catatumbo : Explotación De Carbon a Cielo Abierto , Fumigaciones , Militarización , Explotación De Petróleo : Agresión a Indigenas Motilón Bari Y Campesinos. 10. Perrin, B., & Starmetro, G. (2020). Law is on the side of Indigenous group in pipeline dispute , say legal experts. 1–4. Pichardo, N. A. (1997). New social movements: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 411– 430. Pier, L. (2020). Leave Fossil Fuels Underground at a Glance. Piggot, G. (2018). The influence of social movements on policies that constrain fossil fuel supply. Climate Policy, 18(7), 942–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1394255 Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform Organization. (2020). P.e.r.r.o. https://pilsenperro.org/coal- power/ Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective Identity and Social Movements Author ( s ): Francesca Polletta and James M . Jasper Published by : Annual Reviews Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678623 COLLECTIVE IDENTITY AND SOCIAL MOVEMEN. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(2001), 283–305. Polanyi, K., & MacIver, R. M. (1944). The great transformation (Vol. 2, p. 145). Boston: Bacon press. Porta, D. Della, & Diani, M. (2012). Social Movements. The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society, February 2020, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398571.013.0006 Pouw, N., & Gupta, J. (2015). Inclusive Development in Search of Political Will. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 Pouw, N., & Gupta, J. (2017). Inclusive development: a multi-disciplinary approach. In Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (Vol. 24, pp. 104–108). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.013 PublicCitizen. (2018). Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) | Public Citizen. Public Citizen, 1–6. https://www.citizen.org/our-work/globalization-and-trade/nafta-wto-other-trade-pacts/cafta Quist, L. M. (2019). Fishers’ knowledge and scientific indeterminacy: contested oil impacts in Mexico’s sacrifice zone. Maritime Studies, 18(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0123-7 Richart, P. (2012). Award Goes to Clean Power Coalition. https://ecojusticecollaborative.org/award-goes- clean-power-coalition/ Rico. (2019). Costa Rica extends moratorium on oil exploration. Q Media. https://qcostarica.com/costa- rica-extends-moratorium-on-oil-exploration/ Ritchie, H. (2017) - "Fossil Fuels". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: 'https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels' [Online Resource] Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Joachim, H., Nykvist, B., Wit, C. A. De, Hughes, T., Leeuw, S. Van Der, Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S.,

Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., … Liver, D. (2009). Planetary Boundaries : Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Rodriguez, S. M.-S. (2015). Global resistance to fracking: Communities rise up to fight climate crisis and democratic deficit. In Global resistance to fracking: Communities rise up to fight climate crisis and democratic deficit. https://spip.ecologistasenaccion.org/IMG/pdf/fracking_global_resistance.pdf Rootes, C. (2004a). Appendix A The Methodology of Protest Event Analysis and the Media Politics of Reporting Environmental Protest Events. Environmental Protest in Western Europe, May, 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252068.001.0001 Rootes, C. (2004b). Conclusion: Environmental Protest Transformed? Environmental Protest in Western Europe. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252068.003.0010 Rootes, C. (2004c). The Transformation of Environmental Activism: An Introduction. Environmental Protest in Western Europe, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252068.003.0001 Routledge, P., & Routledge, P. (2016). Convergence Space : Process Geographies of Grassroots Globalization Networks Published by : Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society ( with the Institute of British Geographers ) Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/3804580 Convergence space . 28(3), 333–349. Rowell, A. (2011). France to Say Non to Fracking. Oil Change International. http://priceofoil.org/2011/05/11/france-to-say-non-to-fracking/ Salazar, C. A. (2005). Ishtana, el territorio tradicional barí. 68. Santana, R. (2017). Pemex reinforces security of its facilities in the Sonda de Campeche. Procesco, 1–10. https://www.proceso.com.mx/514387/pemex-refuerza-seguridad-de-sus-instalaciones-en-la-sonda- de-campeche Saunders, C. (2008). Double-edged swords? Collective identity and solidarity in the environment movement1. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 227–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 4446.2008.00191.x Scheidel, A., & Schaffartzik, A. (2019). A socio-metabolic perspective on environmental justice and degrowth movements. Ecological Economics, 161(March), 330–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.023 Schroeder, R., Martin, K. St., Wilson, B., & Sen, D. (2008). Third World Environmental Justice. Society & Natural Resources, 21(7), 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802100721 Selman, P. (1999). Three decades of environmental planning: what have we really learned. Planning sustainability, 148-174. Sikor, T., & Newell, P. (2014). Globalizing environmental justice? Geoforum, 54, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.04.009 Silverman, G. S. (2020). Noah J. Toly. The gardeners’ dirty hands: environmental politics and Christian ethics. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-020-00606-9 Skrentny, J. D. (2006). Policy-elite perceptions and social movement success: Understanding variations in group inclusion in affirmative action. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1762–1815. https://doi.org/10.1086/499910 Snow, D. A. (2009). Social Movements. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00803-8 Snow, D. A. (2013a). Case studies and social movements. In The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia ofSocial and Political Movements. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbespm022 Snow, D. A. (2013b). Framing and social movements. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbespm434 Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A., Kriesi, H., & McCammon, H. J. (2019). Introduction: Mapping and Opening Up the Terrain. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168577

Soto, L., Alejandro, E., Herrera, R., Montoya-Marquez, J., Ruiz, R., Corona, A., & Monterroso, C. (2009). Biodiversidad marina en la Sonda de Campeche (pp. 265–300). Spence, M. (2000). James O’Connor’s theory of the second contradiction of capitalism. Capital & Class, 81–110. Spivak, G. C. (2003). Can the subaltern speak? Die Philosophin, 14(27), 42–58. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. M., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wTwYUnHYsmMC Svarstad, H., & Benjaminsen, T. A. (2020). Reading radical environmental justice through a political ecology lens. Geoforum, 108(March 2019), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.11.007 Tarrow, S, Bates, R. H., Lange, P., Comisso, E., Institute for Urban and Regional Development Peter Hall, S., Migdal, J., Migdal, R. F. P. P. I. S. J. S., & Milner, H. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1- VHOc4XpDAC Tarrow, Sidney. (2013). Contentious Politics. In The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements. https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm051 Taylor, V., & Dyke, N. Van. (2004). Repertoires of Social Movements. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 640. Temper, L., Bene, D. del, & Martinez-Alier, J. (2015). Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: The EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(266642), 254–278. https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21108 Temper, L., Demaria, F., Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2018). The Global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas): ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 13(3), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0563-4 Temper, L., Sharife, K., Godwin, O., Combes, M., Cornelissen, K., Lerkelund, H., Louw, M., Minnaar, J., Molina, P., Murcia, D., Ojo, G., Oriola, T., Osuoka, A., Roa, T., Temper, L., Urkidi, L., Wadzah, N., & Wykes, S. (2013). Towards a Post-Oil Civilization (Issue 06). Temper, L., Walter, M., Rodriguez, I., Kothari, A., & Turhan, E. (2018). A perspective on radical transformations to sustainability: resistances, movements and alternatives. Sustainability Science, 13(3), 747–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0543-8 The Economist. (2019). Democracy Index 2019: A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest. The Economist Intelligence Unit, 1, 43. Thomas, P. D. (2013). Hegemony, passive revolution and the modern Prince. Thesis Eleven, 117(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513613493991 Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Trading Economics. (2020). Mexico - Energy Imports, Net (% Of Energy Use) - 1960-2015 Data | 2020 Forecast. https://tradingeconomics.com/denmark/energy-imports-net-percent-of-energy-use-wb- data.html UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Conference of the Parties 21st session, Paris, 30 November-11 December 2015. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. Unist’ot’en. (2020). CGL Is Still Working Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic. https://unistoten.camp/covid19/ United Nations. (2015). Paris agreement. US Department of Energy. (2019). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3%0Ahttp://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/ Verbong, G., & Loorbach, D. (2012). Governing the energy transition: Reality, illusion or necessity? In Governing the Energy Transition: Reality, Illusion or Necessity? (Issue January). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203126523

Vermeylen, S. (2019). Special issue: environmental justice and epistemic violence. Local Environment, 24(2), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1561658 Walker, C. (2016). The campaign against new coal and gas in Victoria. The story so far. Friends of the Earth Melbourne, 1–26. http://www.melbournefoe.org.au/coal_and_gas?utm_campaign=gasbanwin2017&utm_medium=ema il&utm_source=friendsofearthmelbourne Walker, E. T. (2012). Social Movements, Organizations, and Fields: a Decade of Theoretical Integration. Contemporary Sociology, 41(5), 576–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306112457651b Walker, E. T., Martin, A. W., & McCarthy, J. D. (2008). Confronting the state, the corporation, and the academy: The influence of institutional targets on social movement repertoires. American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 35–76. https://doi.org/10.1086/588737 Wapner, P. (2013). Transnational Environmental Activism. The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy, 47(3), 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118326213.ch16 Ward, T. (2011). The right to free, prior, and informed consent: indigenous peoples’ participation rights within international law. Nw. UJ Int’l Hum. Rts., 10, 54. Werre, P. (2009). The University of Minnesota Press. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40(4), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.40.4.399 Woods, G., & Lock the Gate. (n.d.). About Us - New Site. https://www.lockthegate.org.au/about_us World-Bank. (2019). Indigenous Peoples Overview. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples World Commission On Environment And Development. (1987). Vol. 17 - doc. 149. World Commission on Environment and Development, 17, 1–91. WRM. (2006). Colombia: The Motilon Bari Indigenous Peoples rise up for their rights against oil interests | WRM in English. WWF. (2018). Gran alianza contra el gas en España. Yvon-Durocher, G., Allen, A. P., Bastviken, D., Conrad, R., Gudasz, C., St-Pierre, A., Thanh-Duc, N., & Del Giorgio, P. A. (2014). Methane fluxes show consistent temperature dependence across microbial to ecosystem scales. Nature, 507(7493), 488–491. Zald, M. (2000). Ideologically structured action: An enlarged agenda for social movement research. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 5(1), 1–16.