You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
A talk with the creators of the new movie “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” about high-functioning climate coalitions.
“There is something suspicious about total tactical conformity,” writes Andreas Malm in How to Blow Up a Pipeline, his provocatively titled 2021 manifesto that, rather famously, “doesn’t actually teach readers” how to do it.
The film adaptation of the book, out Friday, bears little overtly in common with its IP: For one thing, it more or less does show you how to blow up a pipeline; for another, it’s an original fictional narrative, not an academic treatise or documentary.
But the film’s philosophical allegiance remains firmly rooted with Malm, who believes diversity of opinion and approach in the climate movement — including the evolution of a more radical splinter — are essential for progress. In the film, this materializes as the story of eight aspiring saboteurs who join together to plot an attack on a West Texas oil pipeline. The characters come from diverse cultural backgrounds (college-educated; Christian; Indigenous; vegan, etc.) and follow wide-ranging paths to radicalization (mutual aid work; a pollution-related cancer diagnosis; sticking it to a rich dad) — but for the most part, they get along with little more disparagement of each other than an occasional “weird kid!” comment.
Cynically, this can feel a bit like movie magic — a rose-tinted coalition-building fantasy. As everyone knows, leftists can only agree on one thing: that all the other leftists are wrong. It seems unlikely that the array of ideologies that come together in the film could ever be in agreement for long enough to actually carry out a pipeline-sabotage operation.
But somehow, How to Blow Up a Pipeline never feels false in this regard. Constructed like a heist film, it extends the “perfect crime” to the perfect team of criminals, and in doing so, stakes an optimistic political position that has nothing to do with crime. What if, the script seems to ask, this kind of coalition isn’t actually so far out of reach?
To many, though, leftist movements have never felt more broken. “The progressive advocacy space … has, more or less, effectively ceased to function,” Ryan Grim wrote for The Intercept last June. “The Sierra Club, Demos, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change, the Movement for Black Lives, Human Rights Campaign, Time’s Up, the Sunrise Movement, and many other organizations have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.” Group tensions, fighting between groups, and fundamental disagreements over courses of action are what have caused the blog WagingNonviolence.org to identify “movement infighting and politics” as one of the primary “battlefields” of the climate movement. “When we are struggling to see fruits borne of many years of labor,” the publication writes, “we are more prone to point fingers.”
How to Blow Up a Pipeline’s four-person “film by” team — made up of writer-director Daniel Goldhaber, co-writer and actress Ariela Barer, co-writer Jordan Sjol, and editor Daniel Garber — weren’t ignorant of the “snake-eating-its-tail internal political struggles that ... often tear leftist movements apart,” as Goldhaber told Heatmap. Rather, it was an aspect that they were “very consciously ... trying to engage in.” One obvious example: that four-person film-by credit, a subtle but important meta-testament to successful collaboration.
The writers also spent “months trying to build a larger understanding of the kinds of cross-sections that exist in the climate movement in the U.S.,” Goldhaber said. An early approach to the script involved thinking about what a pipeline attack would look like “if it was us and our friends who did this,” Barer added. “We started talking to anyone who would talk to us and realized that, no farther than like one degree of separation, all of these characters existed in our lives already.” Just because the characters existed at one degree of separation didn’t mean they actually occupied the same orbit, though. As one activist advised the filmmakers, the characters in How to Blow Up a Pipeline shouldn’t all directly know each other before the sabotage team begins to assemble.
Once it does, the relative harmony is also well-researched. “We wanted to tell a story that was aspirational … where the group doesn’t fall apart and doesn’t fall victim to infighting,” Goldhaber said. “We’d actually been given some pointers by some people who do engage with direct action movements about what it takes to really successfully build a group like that.” Malm likewise stresses in Pipeline that heterogeneity of thought, while necessary for progress, makes movements vulnerable to “internal tensions” — a reality, however, that “no movement that has altered the course of history" has avoided.
It’s nevertheless true that in the current moment, “it sometimes seems more important to legislate those differences of values or opinions or even culture than to organize around material interest,” Sjol, the third co-writer, told Heatmap. But while Goldhaber agrees that “to some extent, yes, this is a Hollywood movie that traffics in aspirational ideas,” the team doesn’t see the coalition-building aspect as that far-fetched. In fact, the whole point of the film project was to make it identifiable — to offer a “point of entry to it if you were [in the] mainstream climate movement; if you were a climate radical; if you were a conservative land-rights person; if you were somebody who engaged in mutual aid work” — and thereby possible. You can see yourself in a character, and from there imagine working in a functional coalition of differing viewpoints.
“I think one of the reasons that climate doomism is so pervasive is because it feels impossible to actually figure out how to attack the problem,” Goldhaber said. But “show a bunch of kids building bombs that can directly attack the fossil fuel industry and all of a sudden that just that opens up a sense of empowerment.”
Empowerment … to blow up a pipeline? I’ll leave that read up to you. Certainly, though, it oils the gears of a movement that has felt stuck in its divisions: “We do hope and believe,” said Goldhaber, “that people will start thinking, What can I do?”
If you liked this article, sign up for Heatmap Daily to receive the best of the site directly in your inbox:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
State legislatures are now a crucial battleground for the future of renewable energy, as Republican lawmakers seek massive restrictions and punitive measures on new solar and wind projects.
Once a hyperlocal affair, the campaign to curtail renewable energy development now includes state-wide setbacks, regulations, and taxes curtailing wind and solar power. As we previously reported, Oklahoma is one of those states – and may as soon as this year enact mandatory setback requirements on wind power facilities, despite getting nearly half its electricity from wind farms. According to a Heatmap Pro analysis, these rules would affect 65 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties.
Oklahoma is far from alone in potentially restricting land use. In Arizona, the State House last month passed legislation that according to one analysis would lock wind developers off more than 90% of all land in the state. Roughly half of the remaining available acreage would be on Native tribal lands and in or near national parks, which are especially tough areas to build wind turbines. The bill is currently pending before the state Senate. There isn’t much wind energy in Arizona but utilities, who’ve been mostly mum on the legislation so far, have been trying to build more wind and solar in order to wean off coal and gas power. Unfortunately, according to the Arizona Republic, this legislation was reportedly prompted by the backlash to a specific new wind project: Lava Run, a 500-megawatt wind project in the state’s White Mountains opposed by nearby residents.
When asked if the project would ultimately be built, Repsol – Lava Run’s developer – simply told me the company “believes that wind energy in Arizona represents an opportunity to benefit local communities and the state as a whole.”
Republican states have passed legislation to restrict renewables development in certain areas before, so this isn’t exactly a novel development. Florida last year banned all offshore wind projects, and in Ohio, a recent law empowering localities to block solar and wind projects has significantly curtailed industry investment in the state. Wisconsin Republicans are trying to enact similar legislation as soon as this year.
But the sweeping quickness of this legislative effort is striking – and transcends land use rules. Elsewhere, development restrictions may come in the form of tax increases, like in Idaho where the chief revenue committee in the state House has unanimously approved legislation that would institute a per-foot excise tax on individual wind turbines taller than 100 feet without local approval. (The average wind turbine is 320-feet tall.) In Missouri, Republican state legislators are advancing legislation that would create additional taxes for building solar projects on agricultural land, a proposal that echoes an effort underway in the U.S. Congress to strip tax benefits from such projects. And Ohio Republicans have introduced plans to axe all existing state subsidies for solar project construction and operation.
Then there’s the situation in Texas, where state Republican lawmakers are expected to revive a bill requiring solar and wind projects to get express approval from the Public Utilities Commission – a process that fossil fuel projects do not have to go through. The state is the nation’s top producer of renewable energy, generating over 169,000 gigawatt-hours last year.
The legislation passed one legislative chamber in the previous session and environmental activists are starting to sound the alarm that it could get even greater traction this go-around. Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment America’s Texas division, told me that if it becomes law, it would likely undermine investor confidence in developing solar and wind in Texas for the foreseeable future. “It’s very unclear if they could get a permit” under the bill, Metzger said. “If some wealthy Texans didn’t want a solar farm near their ranch, they could convince the PUC to reject their permit.”
Metzger said he is also worried that Texas acting to restrict renewables would produce similar regulation in other parts of the country given the state’s legacy role as a conservative policy braintrust.
“You could have this ripple effect that could end the industry,” Metzger said, “at least in several other states.”
The aggressive and rapid approach sweeping state legislatures has yet to get a national spotlight, so I'm curious how the renewables trade groups are handling these bills.
I asked American Clean Power and the Solar Energy Industries Association if they have any data on the rise of anti-renewables legislation and whether they have comments on this trend. Neither organization responded with data on how many states may soon pass renewables restrictions, but they did get back to me quite fast with comments. SEIA provided a statement from Sarah Birmingham, their vice president of state affairs, noting that energy demand “is rising across the country and we need all the electricity we can get, fast.” The group also pointed to polling it commissioned on solar energy popularity in Texas and a report it just happened torelease in January touting the benefits solar can provide to the state’s revenue base.
ACP meanwhile provided me with a similar statement to SEIA’s, defending renewables and criticizing state bills restricting solar and wind project development.
“Reducing their growth at state and local levels stifles innovation, raises consumer energy costs, and hinders a cleaner, more reliable grid, leaving communities vulnerable to energy shortages,” said spokesman Jason Ryan.
It’s clear some legislators agree with ACP. In Montana, legislation targeting wind turbine height is stuttering after a large cadre of industry representatives and property owners complained it would kill development entirely and kneecap tax revenue to the sparsely populated state. And in Mississippi, lawmakers appear to have abandoned efforts to enact a one-year moratorium on wind turbines for a study on the industry’s impacts on agriculture.
But it’s only March. I guess we’ll have to wait and see how aggressive – and how public – the fight over these bills this year will become.
A conversation with Katherine Kollins of the Southeastern Wind Coalition
This week’s conversation is with Katherine Kollins of the Southeastern Wind Coalition, an advocacy group that supports offshore wind development in the American Southeast. I wanted to talk with Katherine about whether there are any silver linings in the offshore wind space, and to my surprise she actually had one! Here’s to hope springing eternal – and Trump leaving Coastal Virginia intact.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Tell me about the Southeast. What does offshore wind look like there?
The Southeast is interesting. In Virginia, we have a project that is more in the first mover status – the very large Coastal Virginia wind project – which is already under construction.
As you move further south, I would say all of those projects are later stage than what we see in the Northeast. We get a taste of both of those project stages and how the current administration is affecting them. I believe that the Coastal Virginia wind project will continue construction. They’re already a year and a half into a three year phase of construction. That project is expected to be generating electricity next year.
What about the rest?
The rest – no other project has an offtake agreement in the Southeast. North Carolina is getting closer to defining an offtake agreement through the state’s carbon plan process. That’s a back and forth between Duke Energy and the North Carolina Utilities Commission to produce a least-cost electricity portfolio that also gradually reduces the state’s carbon emissions, and offshore wind is as far in that process as we have ever seen in the state. Right now, the utility is responsible for issuing an acquisition RFI (request for information) – it does put the request out there for the developers in the lease areas off of North Carolina and ask them to submit rough estimates for what their projects might cost to be included in Duke’s portfolio. They’re in the process of that and it needs to wrap up by July 1st.
Before we move on to Coastal Virginia, is it your hope this state level effort further south is able to progress through Trump?
Yes. Even in a best case scenario, we’re still looking at a 2032 or 2033 [completion date]. I still think that’s possible.
Have you seen similar conflicts in the Southeast over stuff like wildlife that we see in the Northeast?
We certainly hear those arguments but they don’t come out as strongly. That could be because projects just aren’t as far along as they are in the Northeast – we don’t have any cable landing sites yet. Our projects are all further offshore than many of those in the Northeast, so they don’t come with the same visual impact concerns which is helpful.
I think as we get further in the development process, certainly there will be more conversations around those things but part of what our organization does as well is come in early and try to talk to folks so there’s more information out there for citizens to understand what offshore wind might really mean, what it might feel like, what it might mean for the economy and the environment – before we start choosing a cable landing site. We’ve got a good runway here.
On Coastal Virginia, my concern is that there seems to be enough time for some shenanigans to go on. Is it just your hope here that the project is able to continue without impediment?
I would say hope but it’s also reasonable-ness. This project has already invested $6 billion of ratepayer funds to generate 2,600 megawatts of electricity. To pull the plug on that would mean the federal government was telling Virginians that even though they spent $6 billion dollars to build clean energy development off their coast, the federal government could step in and take that away.
I don’t think that is a reasonable thing to do. So my hope is that the project is able to continue construction and generate that clean electricity for Virginians.
You’ve seen too, a lot of support – bipartisan support – for CVOW. Jen Kiggans, the congresswoman from the Hampton Roads area, has been more outspoken than many in Congress about the importance of the economic value of the CVOW project as well as the need for new electricity and the demand this project is going to help meet.
Have you found in light of the recent election that organizations like yourself are helpful for offshore wind development, and do you feel like more voices are needed to speak out on what the Trump administration has done? We haven’t seen any litigation or blue states in the Northeast stridently or forcefully go to bat yet.
I think there’s many issues folks are grappling with right now and deciding where to put their political capital. Those processes are still under way. There are so many places to focus our attention right now and just a lot on Congress’ plate right now, so they’ve got to figure out which issues they are going to spend the most time on. And what’s winnable for them.
There are a lot of things folks are focused on right now. And maybe that’s part of the plan – spread our people’s ability to speak, or dilute the ability to speak. If you look at the trade associations and NGOs working on offshore wind, we’re working harder than ever. We are consistently looking at, who do we get the message out to about the benefits of offshore wind?
When you think beyond the organizations like ours that speak explicitly to the benefits of offshore wind – could we use more? Always. You can always use more voices speaking out about an energy technology that is very much part of our future, part of our economic and environmental future, and I don’t think you could have too many people speaking out in favor of offshore wind.
If we’re thinking about politicians, right now there’s a lot on people’s plate. The dust has yet to settle.
Here are the week’s top conflicts around clean energy in the U.S.
1. Barnstable County, Massachusetts – The SouthCoast offshore wind project will now be delayed for at least four years, developer Ocean Winds said on Friday, confirming my previous reporting that projects Biden seemed to fully approve were still at risk from Trump.
2. Albany County, New York – A judge in this county has cast a cloud over tax abatement calculations for essentially all solar and wind projects in the state.
3. Greene County, North Carolina – No more new solar farms here, at least for now.
4. Logan County, Ohio – Sayonara, Grange Solar.
5. Fannin County, Texas – The battery backlash we’ve warned you is on the horizon has spread to the small town of Savoy, north of Dallas, where residents are protesting en masse against an Engie battery storage project under construction.