The New Yorker hosted environmental activist and professor Andreas Malm on their podcast the place he promoted “intelligent sabotage” and property harm as a technique to cease climate change. 

“Andreas Malm insists that the environmental movement rethink its roots in nonviolence and instead embrace ‘intelligent sabotage,’” the outline of the interview states.

In the podcast, Malm, who is a professor from Lund University, emphasised “a call for escalation, a call for the movement to diversify its tactics and move away from an exclusive focus on polite, gentle and perfectly peaceful civil disobedience.”

“I am recommending that the movement continues with mass action and civil disobedience, but also opens up for property destruction,” Malm mentioned.

While Malm, who is a human ecology professor at Lund University doesn’t dismiss peaceable demonstrations and doesn’t condone hurting individuals, he did emphasize that destroying non-public property wouldn’t be “morally illegitimate.”

“If people in that region were to attack the construction equipment or blow up the pipeline before it’s completed, I would be all in favor of that. I don’t see how that property damage could be considered morally illegitimate given what we know of the consequence of such projects,” Malm mentioned.


“The guest literally calls for blowing up pipelines. Not a metaphor. @NewYorker literally platforming a terrorist,” Pluribus editor Jeryl Bier mentioned. 

Malm has advocated for property harm previously. In his guide, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” he supported and reasoned the necessity for violence to advertise climate change causes. One instance from his guide, he advocated for damaging and destroying carbon-dioxide emitting gadgets.

“Damage and destroy new CO2-emitting devices. Put them out of commission, pick them apart, demolish them, burn them, blow them up. Let the capitalists who keep on investing in the fire know that their properties will be trashed,” Malm wrote. 

Critics known as out the New Yorker for “normalizing” or “endorsing” political violence for climate change.

“I think it’s weird that guys who don’t own any guns and certainly don’t know how to use them seek to normalize political violence. I wonder if they’ll act surprised,” senior editor Kurt Schlichter tweeted. 

Spectator contributor Stephen Miller wrote “For those keeping track at home, both the New Yorker and the New York Times are debating and soft endorsing terror acts against national pipelines in the name of climate.”

In July, a New York Times columnist wrote about Malm’s guide and excused co-terrorism towards oil corporations.

“Still, violence is often deployed, even if counterproductively, on behalf of causes far less consequential than the climate crisis. So skepticism of the practical benefits of violence does not fully explain its absence in a movement this vast and with consequences this grave,” Times columnist Ezra Klein wrote.