I'm confused.... This article talks about the popularity of the 2019 protests, and I am making the assumption here that that's referring to shutting the city down for 11 days.....
If that is what's being referred to; how do we conclude the guardrail 'avoid road blockages' advice? With 'confidence' even?
I think there is a wonky undercurrent here though, and maybe its because I'm not in the UK working on the 100 days campaign.
But why is there this undercurrent implication that actions being popular with the public equal success? I understand 3.5% needs to be mobilised; but I dont think the actions that the public 'approve' of equate to those people mobilising and joining in.
Also, if you genuinely acknowledge and understand the emergency we are in, someone stopping a road about it does not turn you away from seeking climate justice. So those people who were 'turned off' by the actions were probably never actually 'on'. Moreover, with the 3.5% rule; that still means 96.5% of the population have not moved into action and dont need to. So mainstream popularity isnt needed to get those changes we need.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on road blocks - it’s a fair point that the XR 2019 protests contained them but I also think it’s fair to say they were not the central focus but most importantly were not seen to cause significant disruption to ordinary people. Comparing them to the IB protests where activists got into fights with people trying to get to hospital etc.
As I wrote in the piece I also think it’s fine if one wants to say popularity isn’t needed, but could you link me to something substantive on the 3.5%? I hear it thrown around a lot but have struggled to find anything especially empirical on it. I’m open to it but I worry it’s another thing we tell ourselves to justify not having to persuade people at large. Happy to read anything you have on it though. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Steve
Although the XR Oct 2019 actions blocked roads it was focused on government with a ring of locations around Westminster. I think that was very different from blocking motorways, where motorists could be trapped for hours.
April 2019 had - crucially - the novelty value and, as a result, largely positive or open-minded media coverage, plus the carnival atmosphere with loads of young people, a skate ramp on Waterloo Bridge, Massive Attack DJing on a stage in the road in Marble Arch near a freshly painted Banksy, the pink boat at Oxford Circus... but all of these things inconvenienced the public, and we did pretty much everything you have somehow concluded we shouldn't do, yet it's now clear this was the point at which XR was most impactful and most positively received.
October 2019 was different - attritional, somewhat repetitive, with the media starting to turn against us and the police starting to wise up. This time the target was Westminster but this didn't make the rebellion more impactful or make it be received more positively.
Comments on Steve Akehurst's Discussion of Impact of JSO,XR actions on Public Opinion about Climate Action, continued 2 of 3
5. Now, why have subsequent ones been less successful?
# I take as given Steve's reasons, and also the media impact, so will not discuss those.
# Everyone got used to them. The police now knew what to do. The politicians returned to their old thinking. Xr had 'done what it intended to do', had already had its impact (even though not enough). Law of diminishing returns.
# XR etc. did silly things - jumping on tube trains, and more zany things. Inconveniencing 'ordinary people' (as Steve says).
# What started with a self-sacrificing attitude became gradually more self-indulgent. ("We activists like protesting"; "we protest for sake of it"; "Exciting to go to prison"; etc.) No longer primarily sacrificial. Now, of course, it is not as simple as that. There will have been some self-indulgence in XR19 and some sacrificiality in later events.
# Timing: Oil terminal blockade occurred as people were alarmed at fuel price increases.
# First one called for 3 actions that seemed reasonable - which were easy to grant (in lip service if not in spirit).
# I do not believe XR's 'theory of disruption', which was one of XR's key elements alongside sacrificial giving, actually works, except for the first time. It does not work because it is a bit reducionist, seeing everything through the grey lens of power dynamics. For example the theory I heard was: keep disrupting and either 'those in power' will take notice or they will become so extremely intransigent that 'the people' will have the sense to chuck them out next election. But (a) there are many politicians who are genuinely wanting to to the right thing, (b) 'the people' include Yellow Vests etc. who take the opposite line to ours, (c) Most humans resist being bullied by the other, but are more willing to change their minds when the other shows love, concern, openness, vulnerability, generosity, etc. (c.f. why the element of Sacrifice was important, above.) Disruption does not work as ongoing strategy.
6. What we need. A widespread change of heart attitude. XR19 began towards that, but ... I have a possible solution to this, but which I will not share here because I suspect most would immediately reject, ignore, or try to rubbish it.
[This was written at request of someone who asked what my 'solution' is in a response to strongmessagehere blog on disruption. Thanks to Stuart Basden for comments. A.B. last changed 20 June 2023]
This tries to set out, step by step, what I believe is the only viable solution to our current environmental and other crises. At least I cannot see any glimmer of any other. It could raise endless argument. But we do not have time for that. So I choose to work for this. If I am wrong, forgive me for not putting my effort elsewhere. If I am right, even to a little extent, I will be glad to have contributed. I set out brief statements that lead to it, with notes afterwards that have some detail.
1. Any solution must take full account of all people, not just environmentalists but also 'ordinary people', and even 'Yellow Vests' and similar. [1]
2. Humankind, though able in theory to fulfil a solution, will not and even cannot.
3. This is because the human heart (of all of us individually and as society) is corrupt / traumatised, so that the way we even see things is distorted and we cannot uncorrupt ourselves. [3]
4. It requires the Source of all Creation (all that is, all that Occurs, all Meaningfulness and all Good) to act. [4]
5. Source was, for long, held to be Great Mystery. For long, humans sought the Source, speculating about Source's nature and character. [5]
6. Source is not indifferent to Creation, but loves Creation, so Revealed the Self of Source, as loving, engaged, communicative, Good, Just, respectful of all Creation, promise-making, and so on. [6a]. Speaking for myself, I have taken the Bible to contain a unique record of this like no other [6b]. [6c]
7. In my view, the clearest and best revelation of Source was in Jesus the promised Messiah, through whom Source acts to bring humans back into intimate relation, and indwell humans to change their heart [7a] from the inside. Those humans who fully accept this represent Source and act in ways Source originally intended humans to do [7b]. Each such fully-indwelt human is like light, is like salt within their community.
8. This indwelling is a free offer, available to every single human. According to Jesus [8a], there are four types of response, (a) those who just ignore and reject it, (b) those who accept it enthusiastically at first but do not allow it to grow deep in them, so they fall away when trouble comes, (b) those who give the pleasures and cares of this life priority over representing Source, and do not allow it to become fruitful, (d) those who fully allow indwelling Source to bear fruit in their lives, keeping nothing back. [8b]
9. Those of type (d) are not yet perfect. To use another metaphor, they are on a journey, in which past traumas etc. might be addressed. Yet, they have a healing effect on the rest of Creation, both human and non-human, bringing joy and attracting others - even if only starting on a journey. [9]
10. When such people become numerous in a society or community, that society radically changes. [10a] This has occurred several times [10b].
11. It is Source that governs when and where such things occur. I believe that conditions might becoming ripe for this to occur now, because people are becoming increasingly desperate. I plead with Source to bring it about. [11a]
--- Notes
[1] I reject the 'us-versus-them' stance.
[2] (no note yet)
[3] We cannot take ourselves 'out'. Our very mindset, language and sets of concepts by which we understand are traumatised. So neither education nor economic incentives nor laws nor moral strictures nor moral examples, etc. can do it.
[4] Source is called "God" by many. Roy CLouser in 'The Myth of Religious Neutrality' uses the word "The Divine", and has a clear philosophical discussion about the relationship between Divine and Creation, in terms of dependence and self-dependence, which I found very helpful.
[5] e.g. the ancient Hindu sages, the animists, and there is evidence of very ancient belief in One Great Spirit or God, e.g. Shang Di in China, and likewise among the Karen, the liu, the Aztecs, and many more. These are set out for example in Don Richardson's 'Eternity in their Hearts', which impacted my thinking 30 years ago, but I don't remember the details.
[6a] By communicating with humans through the limited medium of language, by acting within Creation and thereby revealing character, by relating, by acting within history, by setting up subsets of Creation to represent Source: a nation among nations.
[6b] Not read as theological or doctrinal textbook, not theoretical treatise to think and argue about, but as an everyday account, able to be understood by all, at least to some extent.
[6c] To me, Source is no longer mystery when I take the stance of everyday life. There and then, knowing is personal and intuitive. However, when I try to theorize Source, and to know theoretically, either as theories or doctrinal statements, I find very Mystery beyond all theorizing. However, since I no longer treat theoretical thinking as superior to everyday thinking, rather, the other way round now, I would claim that "Great Mystery" is a misleading title for One Whom I Can Know intuitively.
[7a] Will, aspirations, expectations, assumptions, dispositions, etc. Change of heart means "without coercion"; coercion is an 'ought' from the outside whereas heart is inside, it is tied up with identity.
[7b] With self-giving love, etc. rather than self-centredness and self-protection.
[8a] Luke 8:1-15
[8b] Sadly, for most of the past 2000 years many of us who identify as Christians have been mainly of types (b) and (c) and few of type (d). However, Source still loves and is patient.
[9] Many individuals throughout history, e.g. Francis of Assissi, all flawed in various different ways but with a heart oriented humbly towards Source. We surely keep things back, even when we don't intend to. Sometimes our wounds are so deep we're not aware of them for years or decades, and so we play out harmful patterns, even while we're journeying towards Source. The difference between (a), (b), (c), (d) is not quantitative, as a degree or amount of perfection, but rather in which direction our hearts are pointed: to complete rejection, to shallowness, to keeping our own agendas, or fully towards Source. Prophet Micah: "What does Yahweh require of you: to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
[10a] Not because of law, strictures, etc. but because people change mindset, attitude, aspirations, dispositions, etc. freely; they want to do Good.
[10b] e.g. 1904 Welsh Revival, during which crime and violence almost ceased so that police and magistrates had nothing to do! Because people's hearts were changed and they no longer wanted to do damaging things.
[11a] Source is revealed as open to responding to humans with contrite hearts.
Comments on Steve Akehurst's Discussion of Impact of JSO,XR actions on Public Opinion about Climate Action. contd.
4. First, why was XR19 successful?
# I take as given Steve's reasons, and also the media impact, so will not discuss those.
# XR19 was new, not so much in its happening (police were told beforehand) but in its style. Took people, the police and even the government by surprise. It was also big, and well-organised.
# Timing: Coincidence of 4 things at that time: Greta's school strike, two Attenborough films that made an impact, and XR19 all gave the same message. [Personally I see God's hand in that - if you will allow me to say so.]
# Sacrificial. I think this was probably one of the most important, though least recognised. Humans respond positively towards genuine self-giving and sacrifice by others. One of the fundamental elements of XR strategy at this time was about people making, and being willing to make, personal sacrifices (e.g. willing to be imprisoned). Attitude of sacrificialness was then rare among protests. Being willing to sacrifice also showed that people take it very seriously.
# New attitude to police was demonstrated - which caused surprise to police and others, so they did not know how to react. Onlookers saw this different attitude as showing genuine concern for climate change, not just a liking of protest.
# The fundamental principles were well-thought-out beforehand. It was not just protest, but protest based on new kinds of principles. Subsequent ones seemed less well thought through.
# It was perhaps no wonder that XR people should ask "What now?" and try out various things.
Comments on Steve Akehurst's Discussion of Impact of JSO,XR actions on Public Opinion about Climate Action
Published 230202. Comments by Andrew Basden 230204.
1. Thank you Steve for this very useful research. Of great value. Very timely because, as someone involved in both XR and JSO, I have been pondering exactly Steve's question for some time.
2. You conclude that the XR19 action was surprisingly successful in getting Climate Action onto the agenda, and that three others had negative impact. You say you are surprised about the positive impact of the XR19 and offer a few possible reasons, including ordinary people and a Cabbie liking it. I think those were important but , I think there may be other reasons, some that are even more important.
# You conclude with 4 very helpful guidelines, one being not to inconvenience ordinary people, but target culprits better.
# (But, if that is the case why was JSO/XR oil terminals blockade not more positive, because it targeted the culprits, not ordinary people. I was one who was involved in that one, as (more marginally) with the XR19. I discuss that below.)
3. Now I will address two questions: Why was XR19 successful? Why have subsequent ones been less so? Since it is standard fare to blame the media (esp. anti-green media), I will not discuss that below, but will take it for granted that it has an effect. Instead, I suggest some other reasons that I have not heard much discussed in a systematic way.
Independent confirmation of the XR 2019 effects, in our manuscript recently submitted for peer review: https://psyarxiv.com/vs7p9 (main results infographic Table 4 on p. 17, direct link: https://imgur.com/a/7Z32UgT).
What our work mainly adds to your analysis (comprehensive and very interesting, thanks!) is the effects of different media sources on the viewer. Positive effects came from the BBC and direct activist messaging, not so the Daily Mail (not a readership effect, this is also a randomised experiment). We also looked into polarisation: the actions did increase polarisation, but for attitudes to activism, not the environment in general. That data was collected at the time in 2019 so confirms your hunch that the positive effects are not due to some kind of decay over time of negative response.
I'm not convinced by your argument that carnival atmosphere is what works. Our direct activist message was the most effective and it included little carnival atmosphere. My top hunch about what can be effective is large numbers of people expressing strong dedication (sacrificially) towards a clear cause that observers can relate to at least a little (the CREDs theory from social psych).
I'm confused.... This article talks about the popularity of the 2019 protests, and I am making the assumption here that that's referring to shutting the city down for 11 days.....
If that is what's being referred to; how do we conclude the guardrail 'avoid road blockages' advice? With 'confidence' even?
I think there is a wonky undercurrent here though, and maybe its because I'm not in the UK working on the 100 days campaign.
But why is there this undercurrent implication that actions being popular with the public equal success? I understand 3.5% needs to be mobilised; but I dont think the actions that the public 'approve' of equate to those people mobilising and joining in.
Also, if you genuinely acknowledge and understand the emergency we are in, someone stopping a road about it does not turn you away from seeking climate justice. So those people who were 'turned off' by the actions were probably never actually 'on'. Moreover, with the 3.5% rule; that still means 96.5% of the population have not moved into action and dont need to. So mainstream popularity isnt needed to get those changes we need.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on road blocks - it’s a fair point that the XR 2019 protests contained them but I also think it’s fair to say they were not the central focus but most importantly were not seen to cause significant disruption to ordinary people. Comparing them to the IB protests where activists got into fights with people trying to get to hospital etc.
As I wrote in the piece I also think it’s fine if one wants to say popularity isn’t needed, but could you link me to something substantive on the 3.5%? I hear it thrown around a lot but have struggled to find anything especially empirical on it. I’m open to it but I worry it’s another thing we tell ourselves to justify not having to persuade people at large. Happy to read anything you have on it though. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Steve
Although the XR Oct 2019 actions blocked roads it was focused on government with a ring of locations around Westminster. I think that was very different from blocking motorways, where motorists could be trapped for hours.
Which 2019 protests are we talking about?
April 2019 had - crucially - the novelty value and, as a result, largely positive or open-minded media coverage, plus the carnival atmosphere with loads of young people, a skate ramp on Waterloo Bridge, Massive Attack DJing on a stage in the road in Marble Arch near a freshly painted Banksy, the pink boat at Oxford Circus... but all of these things inconvenienced the public, and we did pretty much everything you have somehow concluded we shouldn't do, yet it's now clear this was the point at which XR was most impactful and most positively received.
October 2019 was different - attritional, somewhat repetitive, with the media starting to turn against us and the police starting to wise up. This time the target was Westminster but this didn't make the rebellion more impactful or make it be received more positively.
Comments on Steve Akehurst's Discussion of Impact of JSO,XR actions on Public Opinion about Climate Action, continued 2 of 3
5. Now, why have subsequent ones been less successful?
# I take as given Steve's reasons, and also the media impact, so will not discuss those.
# Everyone got used to them. The police now knew what to do. The politicians returned to their old thinking. Xr had 'done what it intended to do', had already had its impact (even though not enough). Law of diminishing returns.
# XR etc. did silly things - jumping on tube trains, and more zany things. Inconveniencing 'ordinary people' (as Steve says).
# What started with a self-sacrificing attitude became gradually more self-indulgent. ("We activists like protesting"; "we protest for sake of it"; "Exciting to go to prison"; etc.) No longer primarily sacrificial. Now, of course, it is not as simple as that. There will have been some self-indulgence in XR19 and some sacrificiality in later events.
# Timing: Oil terminal blockade occurred as people were alarmed at fuel price increases.
# First one called for 3 actions that seemed reasonable - which were easy to grant (in lip service if not in spirit).
# I do not believe XR's 'theory of disruption', which was one of XR's key elements alongside sacrificial giving, actually works, except for the first time. It does not work because it is a bit reducionist, seeing everything through the grey lens of power dynamics. For example the theory I heard was: keep disrupting and either 'those in power' will take notice or they will become so extremely intransigent that 'the people' will have the sense to chuck them out next election. But (a) there are many politicians who are genuinely wanting to to the right thing, (b) 'the people' include Yellow Vests etc. who take the opposite line to ours, (c) Most humans resist being bullied by the other, but are more willing to change their minds when the other shows love, concern, openness, vulnerability, generosity, etc. (c.f. why the element of Sacrifice was important, above.) Disruption does not work as ongoing strategy.
6. What we need. A widespread change of heart attitude. XR19 began towards that, but ... I have a possible solution to this, but which I will not share here because I suspect most would immediately reject, ignore, or try to rubbish it.
please share your solution - we need ideas!
[This was written at request of someone who asked what my 'solution' is in a response to strongmessagehere blog on disruption. Thanks to Stuart Basden for comments. A.B. last changed 20 June 2023]
This tries to set out, step by step, what I believe is the only viable solution to our current environmental and other crises. At least I cannot see any glimmer of any other. It could raise endless argument. But we do not have time for that. So I choose to work for this. If I am wrong, forgive me for not putting my effort elsewhere. If I am right, even to a little extent, I will be glad to have contributed. I set out brief statements that lead to it, with notes afterwards that have some detail.
1. Any solution must take full account of all people, not just environmentalists but also 'ordinary people', and even 'Yellow Vests' and similar. [1]
2. Humankind, though able in theory to fulfil a solution, will not and even cannot.
3. This is because the human heart (of all of us individually and as society) is corrupt / traumatised, so that the way we even see things is distorted and we cannot uncorrupt ourselves. [3]
4. It requires the Source of all Creation (all that is, all that Occurs, all Meaningfulness and all Good) to act. [4]
5. Source was, for long, held to be Great Mystery. For long, humans sought the Source, speculating about Source's nature and character. [5]
6. Source is not indifferent to Creation, but loves Creation, so Revealed the Self of Source, as loving, engaged, communicative, Good, Just, respectful of all Creation, promise-making, and so on. [6a]. Speaking for myself, I have taken the Bible to contain a unique record of this like no other [6b]. [6c]
7. In my view, the clearest and best revelation of Source was in Jesus the promised Messiah, through whom Source acts to bring humans back into intimate relation, and indwell humans to change their heart [7a] from the inside. Those humans who fully accept this represent Source and act in ways Source originally intended humans to do [7b]. Each such fully-indwelt human is like light, is like salt within their community.
8. This indwelling is a free offer, available to every single human. According to Jesus [8a], there are four types of response, (a) those who just ignore and reject it, (b) those who accept it enthusiastically at first but do not allow it to grow deep in them, so they fall away when trouble comes, (b) those who give the pleasures and cares of this life priority over representing Source, and do not allow it to become fruitful, (d) those who fully allow indwelling Source to bear fruit in their lives, keeping nothing back. [8b]
9. Those of type (d) are not yet perfect. To use another metaphor, they are on a journey, in which past traumas etc. might be addressed. Yet, they have a healing effect on the rest of Creation, both human and non-human, bringing joy and attracting others - even if only starting on a journey. [9]
10. When such people become numerous in a society or community, that society radically changes. [10a] This has occurred several times [10b].
11. It is Source that governs when and where such things occur. I believe that conditions might becoming ripe for this to occur now, because people are becoming increasingly desperate. I plead with Source to bring it about. [11a]
--- Notes
[1] I reject the 'us-versus-them' stance.
[2] (no note yet)
[3] We cannot take ourselves 'out'. Our very mindset, language and sets of concepts by which we understand are traumatised. So neither education nor economic incentives nor laws nor moral strictures nor moral examples, etc. can do it.
[4] Source is called "God" by many. Roy CLouser in 'The Myth of Religious Neutrality' uses the word "The Divine", and has a clear philosophical discussion about the relationship between Divine and Creation, in terms of dependence and self-dependence, which I found very helpful.
[5] e.g. the ancient Hindu sages, the animists, and there is evidence of very ancient belief in One Great Spirit or God, e.g. Shang Di in China, and likewise among the Karen, the liu, the Aztecs, and many more. These are set out for example in Don Richardson's 'Eternity in their Hearts', which impacted my thinking 30 years ago, but I don't remember the details.
[6a] By communicating with humans through the limited medium of language, by acting within Creation and thereby revealing character, by relating, by acting within history, by setting up subsets of Creation to represent Source: a nation among nations.
[6b] Not read as theological or doctrinal textbook, not theoretical treatise to think and argue about, but as an everyday account, able to be understood by all, at least to some extent.
[6c] To me, Source is no longer mystery when I take the stance of everyday life. There and then, knowing is personal and intuitive. However, when I try to theorize Source, and to know theoretically, either as theories or doctrinal statements, I find very Mystery beyond all theorizing. However, since I no longer treat theoretical thinking as superior to everyday thinking, rather, the other way round now, I would claim that "Great Mystery" is a misleading title for One Whom I Can Know intuitively.
[7a] Will, aspirations, expectations, assumptions, dispositions, etc. Change of heart means "without coercion"; coercion is an 'ought' from the outside whereas heart is inside, it is tied up with identity.
[7b] With self-giving love, etc. rather than self-centredness and self-protection.
[8a] Luke 8:1-15
[8b] Sadly, for most of the past 2000 years many of us who identify as Christians have been mainly of types (b) and (c) and few of type (d). However, Source still loves and is patient.
[9] Many individuals throughout history, e.g. Francis of Assissi, all flawed in various different ways but with a heart oriented humbly towards Source. We surely keep things back, even when we don't intend to. Sometimes our wounds are so deep we're not aware of them for years or decades, and so we play out harmful patterns, even while we're journeying towards Source. The difference between (a), (b), (c), (d) is not quantitative, as a degree or amount of perfection, but rather in which direction our hearts are pointed: to complete rejection, to shallowness, to keeping our own agendas, or fully towards Source. Prophet Micah: "What does Yahweh require of you: to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
[10a] Not because of law, strictures, etc. but because people change mindset, attitude, aspirations, dispositions, etc. freely; they want to do Good.
[10b] e.g. 1904 Welsh Revival, during which crime and violence almost ceased so that police and magistrates had nothing to do! Because people's hearts were changed and they no longer wanted to do damaging things.
[11a] Source is revealed as open to responding to humans with contrite hearts.
Although I'm a fan of Jesus, I'm not clear what you are proposing I'm afraid.
Nor am I yet. I'm still thinking it out and not yet ready with proposals. Maybe that is for others to help with.
Andrew
Comments on Steve Akehurst's Discussion of Impact of JSO,XR actions on Public Opinion about Climate Action. contd.
4. First, why was XR19 successful?
# I take as given Steve's reasons, and also the media impact, so will not discuss those.
# XR19 was new, not so much in its happening (police were told beforehand) but in its style. Took people, the police and even the government by surprise. It was also big, and well-organised.
# Timing: Coincidence of 4 things at that time: Greta's school strike, two Attenborough films that made an impact, and XR19 all gave the same message. [Personally I see God's hand in that - if you will allow me to say so.]
# Sacrificial. I think this was probably one of the most important, though least recognised. Humans respond positively towards genuine self-giving and sacrifice by others. One of the fundamental elements of XR strategy at this time was about people making, and being willing to make, personal sacrifices (e.g. willing to be imprisoned). Attitude of sacrificialness was then rare among protests. Being willing to sacrifice also showed that people take it very seriously.
# New attitude to police was demonstrated - which caused surprise to police and others, so they did not know how to react. Onlookers saw this different attitude as showing genuine concern for climate change, not just a liking of protest.
# The fundamental principles were well-thought-out beforehand. It was not just protest, but protest based on new kinds of principles. Subsequent ones seemed less well thought through.
# It was perhaps no wonder that XR people should ask "What now?" and try out various things.
Comments on Steve Akehurst's Discussion of Impact of JSO,XR actions on Public Opinion about Climate Action
Published 230202. Comments by Andrew Basden 230204.
1. Thank you Steve for this very useful research. Of great value. Very timely because, as someone involved in both XR and JSO, I have been pondering exactly Steve's question for some time.
2. You conclude that the XR19 action was surprisingly successful in getting Climate Action onto the agenda, and that three others had negative impact. You say you are surprised about the positive impact of the XR19 and offer a few possible reasons, including ordinary people and a Cabbie liking it. I think those were important but , I think there may be other reasons, some that are even more important.
# You conclude with 4 very helpful guidelines, one being not to inconvenience ordinary people, but target culprits better.
# (But, if that is the case why was JSO/XR oil terminals blockade not more positive, because it targeted the culprits, not ordinary people. I was one who was involved in that one, as (more marginally) with the XR19. I discuss that below.)
3. Now I will address two questions: Why was XR19 successful? Why have subsequent ones been less so? Since it is standard fare to blame the media (esp. anti-green media), I will not discuss that below, but will take it for granted that it has an effect. Instead, I suggest some other reasons that I have not heard much discussed in a systematic way.
Probably in separate comments.
Independent confirmation of the XR 2019 effects, in our manuscript recently submitted for peer review: https://psyarxiv.com/vs7p9 (main results infographic Table 4 on p. 17, direct link: https://imgur.com/a/7Z32UgT).
What our work mainly adds to your analysis (comprehensive and very interesting, thanks!) is the effects of different media sources on the viewer. Positive effects came from the BBC and direct activist messaging, not so the Daily Mail (not a readership effect, this is also a randomised experiment). We also looked into polarisation: the actions did increase polarisation, but for attitudes to activism, not the environment in general. That data was collected at the time in 2019 so confirms your hunch that the positive effects are not due to some kind of decay over time of negative response.
I'm not convinced by your argument that carnival atmosphere is what works. Our direct activist message was the most effective and it included little carnival atmosphere. My top hunch about what can be effective is large numbers of people expressing strong dedication (sacrificially) towards a clear cause that observers can relate to at least a little (the CREDs theory from social psych).