Thread by @GeorgeMonbiot

1. I’m often asked by the industries I criticise to “work with us and find solutions”. It sounds reasonable. But is it?
In some cases (fossil fuel companies for example), I don’t think any environmentalist should work with them. We should combine to shut them down.
Thread/

2. In other cases, it’s probably a good thing that some environmentalists are working with industries to improve their performance – if indeed that’s what they’re really doing.
But at least some of us – I would say most – should stand apart and apply external pressure.
Why?

3. a. Because the industries tend to be richer and more powerful than we are. They spend more on advocacy and persuasion. Former critics soon adopt their worldview. I have seen so many groups and individual campaigners swallowed whole by them, never to be seen again.

4. b. Because the “partnership” is often nothing of the kind. More often than not, it’s an attempt to neuter critics. The "conversation" is not intended to resolve differences, but to obscure and bury them. Critics get dialogued to death.

5. c. Most organisations and campaigners seem unable to resist the corporate dollar. The “partnership” starts with a conversation, and quickly morphs into dependency, as former critics are offered paid consultancies and other funding by the corporations they once held to account.

6. Before they know it, they are entirely compromised. They lose their independence and lose their campaigning power. “Do what we say, or we, er, um, well, won’t take your money any more.”

7. In other words, the kind invitation is often a trap. They invite you in, then shut the door behind you.

8. Environmentalists, in a world saturated by corporate and oligarchic power, are, on the whole, most effective when we stand apart. When we avoid the situations that might compromise us, and retain our independence. So thanks - but no thanks.