Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon ANALYSIS How social movements contribute to staying within the global carbon budget: Evidence from a qualitative meta-analysis of case studies May Aye Thiri a, *, Sergio Villamayor-Tomás a, d, Arnim Scheidel a, Federico Demaria a, b, c a Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain b Department of Economic History and Institutions (HISTECO), Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Spain c Humanities Centre for Advanced Studies "Futures of Sustainability: Modernization, Transformation, Control", University of Hamburg, Germany d Geosciences Institute and Department of Cartography, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG)Av. Pres. Antônio Carlos, 6627 - Pampulha, Belo Horizonte - MG, 31270-901, Brazil A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Despite renewed efforts to combat climate change, it remains uncertain how economies will achieve emission Social movements reduction by 2050. Among different decarbonisation strategies, knowledge about the potential role and con­ Environmental justice tributions of social movements to curbing carbon emissions has been limited. This study aims to shed light on the Climate change mitigation diverse contributions of social movements to staying within the global carbon budget, as well as on the specific Carbon emissions Carbon budget outcomes and strategies employed in protests against hydrocarbon activities. For this purpose, we conduct a Meta-analysis systematic literature review of 57 empirical cases of social movements contesting fossil fuel projects in 29 countries. Based on an exploratory approach, we identify a series of different movement strategies and a range of qualitative contributions that support staying within the carbon budget. These include raising awareness of risks and strategies, enhancing corporate responsibility, being informed about policy changes, laws and regulations, fostering just energy transitions, energy democracy, divestment, alternative market solutions, and forcing the postponement or cancellation of targeted hydrocarbon activities. While the institutional means are widely used and seem to support policy change and regulation, these strategies are not used to deliver awareness or post­ ponement outcomes. Similarly, while movements tend to rely on civil disobedience to stop hydrocarbon projects in the short term, they rely on multiple strategies to cancel them in the longer term. Our study also indicates significant knowledge gaps in the literature, particularly, cases in Africa and Central Asia, women’s participation in these movements, in addition to more quantitative assessments of the actual emissions reduced by social movements. 1. Introduction: social mobilisation towards decarbonisation extraction of fossil fuels and other minerals have become important actors for the transition to a more socially and environmentally just The levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere society (Martinez-Alier et al., 2016). continue to grow, despite a worldwide commitment to the Paris This study aims to improve the understanding of the role that Agreement (Friedlingstein et al., 2020). Even with emerging climate activism against hydrocarbon activities can play in climate change policies, regulations, and carbon-capture technologies, reaching the mitigation. The increased attention to social movements contesting Paris Agreement goal remains a challenge. Concurrently, climate ac­ fossil fuel use has resulted in a well-defined body of conceptual and tivists and environmental justice organisations continue to protest empirical studies examining these movements’ success and failure against extracting and processing fossil fuels as a strategy to achieve against hydrocarbon activities (Owen et al., 2018; Temper et al., 2020). climate change mitigation (Temper et al., 2020; Villamayor-Tomas and However, these studies are scattered across different disciplines, using García-López, 2018). As a result, activism towards decarbonisation is different focuses and approaches. Thus, there is a lack of systematic and becoming a potentially effective force for reducing CO2 emissions (Klein, generalised knowledge linking social movements to limiting or reducing 2015). Movements such as ‘Blockadia’ that mobilise to stop the carbon emissions as a decarbonisation strategy. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: mayaye.nawthiri@uab.cat (M.A. Thiri). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107356 Received 30 May 2021; Received in revised form 9 December 2021; Accepted 17 January 2022 Available online 2 February 2022 0921-8009/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 The establishment of carbon budgets has become a key strategy in extraction and processing projects and the capacity of grassroots combatting climate change. A carbon budget refers to the aggregate movements to jeopardise the economic returns of extractive industries amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions permissible between 1817 (Franks et al., 2014), and, at times, to delay or completely stop the and 2050 to hold global temperature increases to within 2 ◦ C above the projects (Klein, 2015; Temper et al., 2020). pre-industrial level (IPCC, 2014). According to the Intergovernmental In light of the knowledge gap concerning collective mobilisations Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is a 66% probability of limiting and climate change mitigation, this paper aims to address two research total human-induced warming (accounting for both CO2 and other questions: 1) What are the specific contributions of social movements to human influences on climate) to less than 2 ◦ C relative to the period staying within the carbon budget? 2) Which kind of strategies do 1850 to 1900. To stay well below 2 ◦ C, it would require total anthro­ movements employ to achieve different outcomes in protests against pogenic CO2 emissions since 1870 to be limited to approximately 2900 hydrocarbon activities? This paper systematically reviews academic gigatons of CO2 (Gt CO2) at 66% probability and 2250 Gt CO2 of CO2 for research papers and book chapters on social movements contesting fossil 1.5 ◦ C (IPCC, 2021; IPCC, 2018; IPCC, 2014). According to estimated fuel projects to answer these questions. A qualitative meta-analysis of 57 emissions for 2011 to 2017, only 118 Gt CO2 would remain from the empirical cases was undertaken after conducting an intensive review beginning of 2018 to limit global warming to 1.5 ◦ C (Hausfather, 2018). and filtering process. The scope of the analysis was limited to under­ The British Petroleum (BP) Statistical Review of World Energy (2018) standing the outcomes of social movements against specific hydrocar­ assessment of reserves indicates that the extensive production of refined bon projects at the supply side, particularly against the extraction, oil, gas, and coal reserves would produce respectively 630, 365, and processing, and transportation of fossil fuels by states and companies. 2037 Gt CO2 (3029 Gt CO2 in sum) (British Petroleum Company, 2018). Studies focusing on movements targeting citizens to achieve demand- These figures show that world carbon reserves are higher (of about 25 side changes, such as low carbon lifestyle movements and community- times for 1.5 ◦ C and 15 times for 2 ◦ C) than the combustible amount based energy consumption reforms initiatives and their contributions suggested by the carbon budget allowed to control the rise in global to emission reduction, are not considered here (see, for example, Biglan temperatures, even with international efforts to stay within the limit. et al., 2020; Büchs et al., 2015; Landholm et al., 2019). Based on an Both activists and scientists claim for ‘Leaving Fossil Fuels Underground’ exploratory approach, the paper identifies different movement strate­ (LFFU), which would be needed for most reserves. In a recent article in gies and diverse qualitative contributions relevant for supporting Nature, Welsby et al. (2021) found that to allow for a 50% probability of emissions reduction processes. The associations of different movement limiting warming to 1.5 ◦ C, by 2050, nearly 60% of oil and fossil strategies with the diverse qualitative outcome variables observed in the methane gas and 90% of coal must remain unextracted. Then, there is an study sample were evaluated using Pearson Chi-squared tests of urgent need for alternative strategies for limiting carbon emissions. The independence. carbon budget concept creates a pathway for linking sustainability sci­ Section 2 discusses the conceptual framework, exploring social ence with climate mitigation policymakers and grassroots movements. It movements against fossil fuel activities and strategies to achieve the enables to quantify the amount of carbon emitted in the atmosphere global carbon budget. Section 3 explains the methodology. Section 4 before the global temperature rises (Lahn, 2020). The target can, in turn, analyses the results and discusses how social mobilisations against fossil motivate grassroots environmental justice and resistance movements fuels can limit the global carbon budget. Section 5 concludes the analysis against fossil fuels to promote just and sustainable decarbonisation and proposes a future research agenda. pathways. However, while many studies analyse the effect of technol­ ogies, market mechanisms, and top-down policies to staying within the 2. Conceptual framework: social movements as forces for global carbon budget, there is a lack of systematic knowledge of the sustainability contributions of social movements to climate change mitigation. Studies on environmental justice movements that contest hydrocar­ From the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement, various approaches bon activities claim that such actions are crucial for a sustainable and have been advanced to reduce fossil fuels. Well-known examples are the just transformation of energy systems (Bradshaw, 2015; Martinez-Alier development of low-carbon technologies, the establishment of carbon et al., 2014; Pearse, 2016; Piggot, 2018; Roy and Schaffartzik, 2021; pricing and markets, and the promotion of lifestyle changes. Many of the Temper et al., 2020). An empirical study using several hundred cases of strategies favoured by governments target the demand side (Lazarus place-based energy-related mobilisations listed in the Environmental et al., 2015; Somanathan et al., 2014). However, the initiatives pursued Justice Atlas (EJAtlas.org) – the world largest inventory of environ­ have been insufficient to limit fossil fuel consumption to stay within the mental conflicts-found that, for 25% of the observations, conflictive global carbon budget (Covert et al., 2016; Erickson et al., 2018; God­ projects were either stopped or delayed (Temper et al., 2020). The surge inho, 2020; Piggot, 2018). Therefore, supply-side strategies are also in climate and environmental justice movements is frequently led by needed to help reach the emissions target. These strategies can be local environmental organisations, women in the Global South, and implemented through national and sub-national climate mitigation indigenous people who replant trees, chase away loggers, or block policy instruments to limit fossil fuel supplies through economic in­ mining linked to the extraction of fossil fuels (Federici, 2011; Temper struments, regulatory approaches, government provision of goods and et al., 2018; Villamayor-Tomás and García Lopez, 2021). services, information measures, and voluntary actions (Somanathan According to Pierrehumbert (Pierrehumbert, 2019; Pierrehumbert, et al., 2014). In this context, Piggot (2018) has explicitly argued for 2016), the global carbon budget target can be achieved by: 1) social exploring the role that activism and social mobilisations against hy­ mobilisation towards decarbonisation, 2) reducing carbon footprints drocarbon projects may have in influencing policies that constrain fossil through market-oriented policies and regulations, and 3) alternative fuel supply. energy technologies such as nuclear or carbon capture and storage. The The multiple ways through which social movements influence social success of the second and the third strategies are contingent on a broad transformations are complex. Social movements, referring broadly to the spectrum of social and institutional change. In contrast, social mobi­ diverse sets of actors engaging in processes of rational and purposeful lisation towards decarbonisation can be achieved by collective resis­ collective actions or resistance, may emerge for manifold reasons, for tance and proactive participation of local communities and civil society example, in reaction to an authoritative transformation in a society, or actors (Temper et al., 2018). While the climate-mitigation instruments over the conflicting interest of resources, values, and cultures (Della reported in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report address the general role of Porta and Diani, 2006; Tilly, 2004). Mobilisations tend to differ across NGOs as advocates, the specific actions and perspectives of grassroots geographical, social and political contexts. There can be broad alliances movements are not addressed. This contrasts with growing evidence among different stakeholder groups, such as between environmental about the emergence of social mobilisations against hydrocarbon justice organisations, local communities, indigenous people, minorities 2 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 and women’s groups (Tarrow, 2011) or coalitions of actors across sec­ following protocols used in similar studies (Villamayor-Tomas and tors, such as local governments, non-governmental organisations and García-López, 2018). Data collection and analysis included three stages. civil society (Bond and Dorsey, 2010), or a combination of strategies In stage 1, we ran an exploratory review of case studies. These case study known as “Repertoires of actions” (Tilly, 2004; Tarrow, 2011). Conse­ designs are helpful when there is little theory on the studied phenom­ quently, the motivations, framing, forms of protest, and effectiveness enon, such as the connection between social movements and carbon can vary across cases (Benford and Snow, 2000; Tilly, 2004). In this emissions (McDonough and McDonough, 1997; Yin, 1984). For study, we focus the systematic literature review on identifying specific example, the highest contributing factor to rising global temperatures movement strategies and their combinations, as reported in the empir­ are the emissions caused by burning coal, oil, and gas for power gen­ ical literature in relation to specific outcomes. eration in different sectors (Le Quéré et al., 2012).1 Thus, the most The idea that social mobilisations may play an essential role in relevant cases to study in this context are the environmental justice addressing environmental concerns and enhancing sustainability has movements around these fossil fuel commodities. Therefore, we been conceptualized in the growing literature on ecological distribution explored and screened studies broadly associated with social movements conflicts (for an overview, see Scheidel et al., 2018). This idea can be and hydrocarbon-related projects, searching for an appropriate initial traced back and related to various concepts discussing the struggles of list of ‘contribution’ variables. The search was carried out in Scopus and grassroots collectives for more just, and sustainable resource uses: Google Scholar, and studies were selected based on relevance, i.e., the environmental justice movements (Bullard, 1994); ecosystem people connection with our research questions. The operational questions used (Gadgiil and Guha, 1995), ecological resistance movements (Taylor, 1995), were: “What was the outcome of the case?” “What were the strategies eco-political movements (Goldman, 1996), the environmentalism of the poor used by the movement to achieve a specific outcome?” and “How often (Martinez-Alier, 2002), livelihood movements (Robbins, 2004), or politics does a type of outcome repeat across all reviewed studies?”. In the from below (Borras and Franco, 2013). A common denominator in all process of screening the studies, we also paid attention to ‘auxiliary’ these terms is the emphasis given to marginal grassroots groups that variables, i.e., variables that, although not directly connected with our fight against environmentally destructive activities that threaten their research questions, could be useful for contextualisation purposes (e.g., cultural values and livelihoods. They are primarily concerned about country, type of project). As a result of this non-systematic exploratory natural resources and ecosystem services rather than monetary matters review, we produced a ‘coding book’, including an initial list of variables delivered by the modern economic system (Martinez-Alier, 2002). Given and their definitions (See Table 1, and a series of keywords used in the the increasing frequency of environmental protests globally and their second stage. interconnection via networks, Martinez-Alier et al. (2016) label this In the second stage, we carried out a more systematic search and grassroots environmental activism as a “global movement for environ­ screening of studies in Scopus and Google Scholar through the combi­ mental justice”. Many civil society organisations, such as Global Witness nation of keywords. We combined pairs of words from two groups: one (Global Witness, 2020) and, recently, also the United Nations Environ­ related to the hydrocarbon resource (‘emission’ ‘fossil fuels’ ‘extraction’ mental Programme (UNEP, 2018), refer to environmental activists and ‘procession’ and ‘transportation’) and the other concerning social movements as environmental defenders. Their contentious actions that movements (‘social movement’, ‘environmental justice movement’ and frequently arise out of environmental conflicts in which they oppose ‘climate justice movement’). The publications displayed in the Scopus environmentally destructive and socially unjust projects have made search from the keyword combinations resulted in 1697 hits with significant contributions to the promotion of environmental sustain­ overlapping publications from each combination. We made selections ability and social justice regarding natural resource use and manage­ based on relevance to our research questions to filter this initial batch of ment (see, e.g. Escobar, 1998; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006; Scheidel et al., publications into a manageable set. First, we selected empirical studies 2018; UN, 2019; Villamayor-Tomas and García-López, 2018; Watts and published in English as academic journal articles and book chapters. We Peets, 2004). The specific question that we explore in this paper is how then screened the content of the studies and selected: 1) studies of social and through which contributions, grassroots movements may also pro­ movements that focused on at least one process of hydrocarbon mote and pave alternative paths for climate mitigation. extraction, processing, or transportation (mining, fracking, refineries, In studies of ecological distribution conflicts, the struggles of envi­ coal-fired power plant, pipelines, terminals and shipping) but did not ronmental justice movements are observed at different stages of com­ include end-user consumption, to narrow the scope of research; and 2) modity chains, including the extraction, transportation, production of studies that contained information about the actors that participated in goods, and waste disposal stages (Martinez-Alier et al., 2010; O’Connor the mobilisation, and explained both the strategies and the outcomes of and Martinez-Alier, 1998). The increase of environmental justice the mobilisation. Overall, the screening filtered down the initial list to struggles is related to the growth in the social metabolism, that is, the 78 publications. global economy’s growing demand for materials and energy that have In the third stage, we proceeded with extracting the data from the far-reaching social and ecological consequences, including climate studies, i.e., through the coding process. Again, some studies were dis­ change and environmental injustice (Muradian et al., 2012). Further­ carded here due to a lack of relevant information. Finally, we coded 45 more, even though industrialised countries have developed policies and studies, including 57 cases (some articles contained multiple cases), regulations for reducing carbon emissions domestically, energy and covering 2010 to 2020. The list of publications used is reported in emission-intensive activities are frequently outsourced to other coun­ Table C1 (Appendix C). Table 1 shows the variables set up for the studies tries, a process known as ‘leakage’ (Jakob et al., 2013; Lazarus et al., and their coding criteria. The coding book, outlined in the 2015; Somanathan et al., 2014). Therefore, understanding how and with what outcomes resistance to energy-intensive activities occurs across the different stages of commodity chains may provide essential insights for 1 understanding their potential to shape carbon emissions (Martínez-Alier The CO2 budget components include the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and Muradian, 2015). In this paper, we build on the hypothesis that combustion, land-use change and forestry; the growth rate of CO2 in the at­ social movements that contest fossil fuels across different commodity mosphere; and the uptake of CO2 by the ‘CO2 sinks”’in both ocean and land. The emission from fossil fuels is calculated from fossil fuel combustion, which chain stages contribute to reducing, constraining, and politicising car­ includes gas flaring and cement production. Such data are gathered from energy bon emissions. data on hydrocarbon fossil fuels archived by several organisations (Andres et al., 2012, Le Quéré et al., 2012). Even though the carbon budget does not 3. Methodology: a qualitative meta-analysis include gas flaring from coal mining, oil extraction, gas extraction and distri­ bution (Le Quéré et al., 2012), we examined activism against these extractive The study employs a qualitative meta-analysis of case studies activities since they still limit the supply of fossil fuels. 3 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table 1 Source: Authors. Initial variable list for coding. Codes Coding values and criteria supplementary material, provides a detailed explanation of the process. Projects & movements Finally, the cases are examined using a combination of qualitative 1: The case study reports on the actions of and quantitative analyses. First, we ran frequency tables that explore the a movement against fossil fuels, such as geographical distributions of the codified social movement cases. Sec­ coal, oil or gas, respectively. It can be all ‘1’s when the case does not mention a ond, we used frequency tables to analyse patterns of outcomes across particular type but generally refers to all movement strategies. Thirdly, Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests are fossil fuel types. used to determine non-random associations between two categorical 0: The study does not report on a fossil variables.2 A valid Chi-squared test should fulfil two assumptions: i) the fuel-related case. The variable should not observations are categorised into mutually exclusive variables, and ii) Types of Fossil Fuel: coal, oil and gas be all ‘0’s. 1: The case study examines a movement the calculated expected values should be greater than 5 in at least 80% of centred around a particular commodity the cells. We examined Fisher’s exact test for more reliable results in chain stage, such as extraction, cases where expected values are less than 5, possibly due to a low fre­ processing or transportation quency of a particular strategy and outcome pair in the sample. Subse­ 0: The research does not focus on a specific fossil fuel commodity-chain stage quently, we analyse the combinations that were statistically significant Commodity chain: extraction, but refers to general protests against to identify the strongest associations between strategies and outcomes. processing and transportation fossil fuels. The analysed sample has some inherent characteristics and limita­ 1: The case study examines an activity tions that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the related to fossil fuel extraction, reviewed empirical literature is composed of diverse case studies, which processing and transportation, such as mining, fracking, coal-fired power plant may include typical cases that exemplify more common movement dy­ (CFPP), refinery, pipelines and shipping, namics, as well as extreme or unique cases that include key events such as When the movement concerns reducing important movement successes (e.g. winning a case) or failures (e.g. carbon emissions in general and reducing killing of activists) (Bryman, 2012). Results on the frequency of hydrocarbon/fossil fuels, however, it does not specify the type of activity, the observed outcomes, therefore, reflects only the findings in the available coder selects all the criteria as ‘1’. literature, which is a limitation that applies more generally to systematic 0: The case study does not report any reviews of case studies. By adopting a qualitative exploratory approach activity related to fossil fuels, such as to said outcomes (e.g., identification and classification of “contribu­ mining, fracking, CFPP, refinery, tions” and “strategies”), we aimed to cover the diversity of outcomes pipelines and shipping. Local: The movement’s actions unfold at unveiled in the literature. Second, our sample covers only English aca­ the provincial, state, city or town level demic papers and book chapters indexed in Google Scholar and Scopus Regional: the movement’s actions unfold but does not cover ‘grey literature’ or studies published in other lan­ across provinces guages. Thus, our systematic review reflects state-of-the-art knowledge National: the movement’s actions unfold Type of activity: mining, fracking, coal- nation-wide available in English academic literature but not cases of resistance to fired power plant (CFPP), refinery, International: the movement’s actions fossil fuels that remain undocumented in the academic literature or are pipelines and shipping unfold across countries only documented in languages other than English. The scale of the movement Single: One protest event is mentioned in 4. Results and discussion: the strategies, actors and the study contributions of social movements to climate mitigation Multiple: the exact number of protest events is not mentioned, but it is more The number of protest events than one. First, this section presents an overview of the results regarding re­ sistances to fossil fuels across stages of the commodity chain and their Explain if the case study provides geographical coverage. Second, the contributions of social movements information about the movement’s to climate change mitigation and their strategies are reported and dis­ outcome contributing to climate change mitigation and carbon emission cussed based on the systematic literature review. Third, a discussion that reduction. There can be multiple draws on the results of our study to answer our research question on how contributions in one movement case. social movements contribute to staying within the global carbon budget Other outcomes that do not contribute as is presented. positive contributions are also added as Contributions ‘other outcomes’. : If the case study provides 4.1. Overview of results regarding resistance to fossil fuels information about the participation of different actors, continue to code its participation. There can be multiple Fig. 1 illustrates the geographical coverage of the literature about participation of actors in a single case of contestation against coal, oil and gas across different stages in the social movement. commodity chain. The extraction cases are under-represented in Asia “Unclear”: The case does not provide and Africa (Map A). Most are concentrated in North and South America, clear information on its network and other participants (but can still be South Africa, Europe and Australia. Within Asia, only India, the Actors and network coded). Philippines and Indonesia are covered. The only cases from Africa : If the case study provides correspond to the extraction stage. Most of the processing stage cases are information about the movement’s concentrated in western countries; hence coverage is lacking for African mobilisation strategies towards reducing carbon emission, continue to code the countries (Map B). However, unlike other stages, we see a limited rep­ strategies. There can be multiple resentation from China in the sample. Regarding the transportation strategies in one movement case. “Unclear”: The case does not provide a Strategies clear strategy (but can still be coded). 2 The Fisher’s exact test is appropriate when the sample size is too small and can give more reliable results (Macdonald, 2014). 4 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Fig. 1. Literature coverage on protests against fossil fuels across extraction, processing and transportation stages. Notes: Indicated numbers refer to the number of cases documented in the literature sample. In some cases, the movement against one commodity would target multiple chain stages. For instance, some movement against the oil commodity would involve extracting tar sands, the refinery facilities and the transportation through pipelines or shipping. That is why numbers in the graph add up to more than 57 (see, for example, that the total number of cases for the coal commodity equals 82). The different combinations of commodities and chain stages simultaneously contested in the case studies are presented in the appendix. Source: Authors. stage, no studies are available for Africa and very few for Asia (Map C). chain stages simultaneously contested in the case studies are presented These results highlight the considerable research gap of social move­ in Appendix A (A1 and A2). ment studies concerning fossil fuels in East Asia, Eastern Europe, and Based on the open-ended questions of the coding book (see ‘contri­ Africa. However, countries in East Asia, such as China, Japan and South butions’, ‘actors and networks’ and ‘strategies’ in Table 1), we created a Korea, are high-emitting countries, and mobilisations against fossil fuel series of categories of movement strategies, actors involved and out­ use could be expected to occur, despite the lack of coverage in the comes observed in the literature. Table 2 describes these categories and literature. shows their frequency. The discussions of these results are presented in Fig. 1 D reveals how the 57 cases of social mobilisations reported in the following section. We identified six different types of strategies, the literature did not equally target all the commodity chain stages. For three types of participation, and ten contributions among the 57 instance, out of the 34 cases against coal, 28 targeted extraction activ­ observed cases of social movements. One case commonly involves ities, 31 focused on the processing, and only 23 acted on transportation. multiple strategies, contributions, and forms of participation. This is In the case of oil, out of 33 total cases, 25 were against extraction, 28 because the social mobilisations were described not as a single event at a against processing and 25 against transportation activities. Again, out of single point in time but as a process over time that can involve various the 33 cases of contestation against gas, 30 focused on extraction, 20 on actors, places, forms of participation and outcomes. The specific com­ processing, and 16 on transportation activities. In the case of coal and binations of strategies and outcomes found in the literature are listed in oil, the highest number of movement cases was found in the processing Appendix A (Table A3 and A4). stage, while for gas, the highest number was against extraction. Some movements included in the study were reported to protest various types 4.2. Contributions to climate mitigation and limiting carbon emission of fossil fuels or were active at different stages of the commodity chain. For instance, some movements against oil were involved in protesting This section focuses on the relationship between mobilisation stra­ the extraction of tar sands, refinery facilities and transportation through tegies and contributions to limiting carbon emissions. Table 3 provides a pipelines or shipping. The different combinations of commodities and summary of these relationships. The following subsections review the 5 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table 2 Movement strategies, actor networks, and contributions of movements. Codes Description Frequency (n = Per cent 57) Strategiesa Protest: Street protests and demonstrations were used as a form of mobilisation by the movement in the case. 42 73.68% Campaign: Media campaigning was used as mobilisation, related events passing the same message or actions to achieve a goal. 35 61.40% Civil disobedience: Sit-ins, blockades and similar actions that may involve some degree of violation of the law were used as a form of 29 49.12% mobilisation by a movement in the case. Lobby: The movement in the case used to lobby, negotiation, and/or coalitions with governments and corporations. 21 36.84% Lawsuit: A civil lawsuit against fossil fuel corporations/governments was used as a form of mobilisation by the movement in 12 21.05% the case. Violence: Violence was used as a form of protest, including weapons and material damage. 3 5.26% Actors and network Participation of indigenous/ Indigenous people organising and representing minorities were involved in the movement 21 36.84% minorities Participation of women: Women organising and representing women’s activism were reported within the movement. 14 24.56% Participation in citizen The case study informs about the involvement of medical professionals, scientists, citizen science, or the formation of 5 8.77% science: study groups in the movement. Contributionsa Raised awareness: The movement contributed to disseminating information about the need to limit the supply and demand of fossil 34 59.64% fuels to individuals, organisations, corporations, or governmental agencies, and/or was regarded as a symbolic victory and/or resulted in influencing or mobilising other actors to become involved in the climate/decarbonisation movement. Postponed: The movement contributed to delaying the project from one month to several years, stopping the emission or 26 45.61% impacting future emission between these periods. Regulation and legislation: The movement contributed to enacting a set of rules or creating laws and regulations enforced by legal institutions. 24 42.11% Stopped for good: The movement stopped the project (whether ongoing or planned) completely. 16 28.07% Divestment The movement contributed to disinvesting from publicly traded fossil fuel companies. 16 28.07% Just transition The movement contributed to an alternative development path to challenge deepening poverty and inequality. The 13 22.80% movements are either led by or involved by the local communities and indigenous people who claim their rights and justice Policy Change: The movement contributed to creating a new policy, a change in a specific aspect of old/new policy related to 12 21.05% reducing carbon emission. (National policy such as environmental policy and energy policy, resource management policy) Corporate Social The movement contributed to achieving a change by corporations and companies to limit the over-exploitation of 11 19.29% Responsibility: resources or reduce their environmental and social impact. Energy democracy: The movement contributed to a more distributed locally-based energy system with a regionally appropriate mix of 8 14.03% renewable sources satisfying 100% of society’s energy needs through progressive social change resulting in the removal of fossil fuels used for energy at the local level. Providing a market solution: The movement contributed to forming a new market, proposing new renewable energy sources, technology, and 6 10.52% infrastructure to reduce fossil fuel demand. Emissions avoided: The case study mentioned a specific estimate of emissions from executing a fossil fuel project or projects. Coder fills 6 10.52% in the amount of carbon emission or CO2 emission/other expressions of measurements in the database. It is also acceptable to use barrels of oil and tons of coal. 0: No information on potential emissions avoided is reported Other outcomes Repression/violence Instances of criminalisation, death threats and murder of activists were reported concerning the movement activities. 14 24.56% Notes: The categories are ordered by frequency. One case can qualify for multiple strategies and contribution pathways; therefore, the sum of observations across categories can be higher than the total sample size (n=57). See frequency of cases for strategies and outcomes in Table A3 and A4 in Appendix A. All categories were coded as binary variables, whereby ‘1’ represents the presence of the characteristics described. Source: Authors. a One case can qualify for multiple strategies and contribution pathways; therefore, the sum of observations across categories can be higher than the total sample size (n = 57). All categories were coded as binary variables, whereby ‘1’ represents the presence of the characteristics described. Note: the categories are ordered by frequency. results for each of the contribution categories. Among the six different include when the movement contributed to disseminating the message, mobilisation strategies, up to five different strategies were employed in information, or knowledge about limiting fossil fuels and emissions to one protest case. Furthermore, the contributions observed within one individuals, organisations, corporations, and governmental agencies. It case can involve immediate changes at the project level, such as post­ is also categorised as such when the movement was presented success­ poning or stopping a project, as well as institutional changes, new reg­ fully as a symbolic victory, which means it does not produce the desired ulations, the promotion of energy democracy and just transitions. result, but the effort made was acknowledged or legitimised. Further­ Therefore, the contributions of social movements are not limited to more, a case was considered to raise awareness when it influenced or contesting hydrocarbon activities at the local level, but achieved out­ mobilised other actors in the climate justice and decarbonisation comes can be relevant to broader social transformation processes movement. An example of raised awareness includes two civil society occurring at different levels. campaigns in the Hunter region of Australia (Pearse, 2016): ‘Stop T4’ and ‘Groundswell’ mobilised in Newcastle and Gloucester. The Stop T4 4.2.1. Raised awareness coal terminal campaign focused on air quality, health impact and pre­ Out of the 34 cases that raised awareness, more than three-quarters serving the landscape from coal mines and port facilities. involved protests, and the large majority used multiple strategies. Only half implicated civil disobedience or campaigns, while very few used 4.2.2. Postponed lawsuits, lobbying, or violence. The coding criteria for raised awareness The literature includes 26 movements that delayed the targeted 6 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 activity for at least one month to several years, stopping the emission or Notes: The categories of outcomes and strategies are ordered by frequency as presented in Table 3. The cells indicate the frequency of movement strategies observed across the contribution categories. Proportions are calculated from the ‘contribution’ categories (columns). Please note that one case can qualify for multiple strategies and contribution pathways; therefore, the column percentages add more than 100%. Source: Authors. impacting future emissions between these periods. These movements Market solution overwhelmingly engaged in multiple strategies (92%). Eighty-five per cent had protested, while 62% and 58% used civil disobedience and 6(100%) 5(83%) 3(50%) 4(67%) 3(50%) 1(17%) (n = 6) 0 (0%) campaigns, respectively. A good example at hand is the Keystone XL pipeline case in the US. President Biden revoked the construction permit of this long-disputed project on his first day in office on 20th January 2021. This outcome was not yet reported in the observed samples. The Energy democracy XL pipeline in this study was considered as a postponement outcome due 8(100%) to the grassroots actions. In the project proposal, the pipeline would have delivered 830,000 barrels per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of 6(75%) 3(50%) 5(63%) 2(25%) (n = 8) 0(0%) 0(0%) the US. The processing of this amount of oil is equivalent to 147 to 168 million metric tons (MMTCO2) of emissions per year (Bradshaw, 2015). CSR (n = 10(91%) 4.2.3. Regulation 9(82%) 7(64%) 7(64%) 6(55%) 2(18%) 0(0%) Twenty-four cases contributed to the creation of new regulations. 11) The regulation category is selected when the movement contributed to enacting a set of rules or creating laws and regulations enforced by legal Policy change (n institutions. Compared to policy change, these cases involved a higher share of confrontations. One of the cases is Limity jsme my (“Limits are 9(75%) 8(67%) 6(50%) 6(50%) 8(67%) us!”), a grassroots social movement in the northern Czech Republic 1(8%) 0(0%) = 12) (Černoch et al., 2019) that emerged in response to the government’s initiatives which aimed to nullify coal mining limits by 2015. As a result of the resistance, the ČSA mine in Northern Bohemia had to keep the Just transition (n limits. The mining activities at the ČSA have gradually declined since then (Bradshaw, 2015; Černoch et al., 2019). Another example is the 11(85%) 11(85%) 10(77%) 8(62%) 4(31%) 3(23%) resistance to a set of legislative decrees known as “The Law of the 1(8%) = 13) Jungle”, which would allow 60% of the Peruvian Amazon forest to be granted to multinational corporations. After more than two weeks of protests by 1250 indigenous communities, Congress was forced to repeal Divestment (n = the legislative decrees. 11(69%) 11(69%) 11(69%) 7(44%) 7(44%) 3(19%) 1(6%) 4.2.4. Project cancellation 16) The study found sixteen cases of movements that stopped fossil fuel activities completely, either for an ongoing project or a project planned to operate in the future. They all used multiple strategies, the majority of Stopped for good which were protests, civil disobedience and campaigns. Interestingly, 38%of the cases involved lawsuits, the highest share of lawsuits among 16(100%) 14(88%) 10(63%) 10(63%) (n = 16) 6(38%) 6(38%) the different outcomes. Between 2012 and 2017, several coal-fired 1(6%) power plants (CFPPs) were shut down in the US, including the Salem Harbor, the Valmont, the Fisk, and the AES Redondo Beach power Regulation and legislation plants, built between the 1900s and 1960s (Grant and Vasi, 2016). These outcomes are related to activists’ efforts using direct action, legal con­ frontations and entering into coalitions with the local governments. Cancelled fossil fuel projects in one place do not necessarily translate into overall emission reductions because of leakage problems; for 19(79%) 17(71%) 13(54%) 12(50%) 13(54%) (n = 24) 5(21%) example, the cancellation of planned CFPP in one place leads to the 2(8%) opening of new ones in other places. However, social mobilizations, particularly those achieving cancellation of hydrocarbon projects, make their operation significantly more costly (Franks et al., 2014), arguably Postponed (n = incentivizing alternative energy sources. Moreover, in some cases, old Intersections between contributions and strategies. power plants were closed, and new CFPPs were being prevented. For 24(92%) 22(85%) 15(38%) 16(62%) 5(19%) 9(35%) 2(8%) example, in Germany by networks of environmental organisations, such 26) as Climate Alliance Germany (CAG) and Fossil Free Germany (FFG). Since 2008, CAG managed to successfully prevent 18 out of 30 planned Raised awareness (n German coal facilities, preventing 94.7 million tons of CO2 emissions (David, 2018). 29(85%) 27(79%) 22(65%) 18(53%) 9(26%) 8(24%) 4.2.5. Divestment 3(9%) = 34) There were sixteen cases in which movements contributed to fossil fuel divestment. Contrary to other outcomes, these cases showed the lowest share of multiple strategies (69%) and civil disobedience (44%). Lobby/coalition disobedience Contributions On the other hand, it had the highest share of campaigns (69%). Fossil litigation Campaign Strategies Lawsuit/ fuel divestment generally refers to “the act of disinvesting from pub­ Violence Multiple Protest Table 3 licly traded fossil fuel companies”, the largest fossil fuel companies Civil with proven reserves (Stephens et al., 2018, p.1). In the case of coal 7 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 mining in Kalimantan, Indonesia, local Indonesian activists and envi­ through the term ‘private politics’ coined by Baron (2003, 74). This ronmental organisations formed an alliance with UK based activists, form of strategy is a more coordinated and organised form of social performed theatrical protest events at the London headquarters to punishment. It includes ‘name and shame’ campaigns, cooperative make the GHP Billiton executives, shareholders, and UK media aware labelling schemes, social media shaming and certification systems of the social and environmental impact of coal mining in Kalimantan. (Thörn and Svenberg, 2016). For example, the case of the anti-fracking As a result, these awareness displays have pressured the investing movement in Ireland resulted in allowing fracking activities to proceed company to exit from the extraction projects (Brown and Spiegel, under self-regulation to eliminate the potential effects on groundwater 2017). resource pollution and community safety. Later, local authorities banned these activities (Hooper et al., 2016; Steger and Drehobl, 4.2.6. Just transition 2018). Examples of CSR used by movements include a Swedish case of Thirteen cases contributed to just transitions. Most used multiple shaming multinational corporations to change their exploitive behav­ strategies, mainly protest and civil disobedience, which was reported iours. The idea is to dismantle socially constructed barriers that sup­ most frequently in relation to this outcome (77%). The term ‘justice port incumbent fossil fuel providers, which are more deeply rooted and energy transition’ in the literature has several connotations. These than other market forces. movements aim to achieve justice by confronting hydrocarbon regimes from different perspectives: intergenerational justice, justice for 4.2.9. Energy democracy indigenous and tribal peoples, and justice for ethnic minorities. Just Energy democracy means achieving a more distributed, locally- transition thus requires the involvement of the local communities, local based energy system with a regionally appropriate mix of different workers and indigenous people directly affected by the projects. renewable sources satisfying 100% of society’s energy needs through Moreover, justice is pursuable when the activist’s values and responses progressive social change (Stephens, 2019). Interestingly, the eight towards the hydrocarbon regime are supported by the resistance cul­ cases that led to energy democracy showed protests without violence. ture of a particular group of people who were oppressed or negatively Out of eight cases, five engaged in civil disobedience. Additionally, affected by the hydrocarbon economy. One of the cases included in this they did not involve lawsuits. The outcome is classified as energy category is the case of Climate Camp Scottland action against the democracy when smaller administrations units such as states, villages, Mainshill open-cast coal mine, where climate activists were able to and cities achieve autonomy and control over energy production. One address the negative impacts on the surrounding community and were of the cases is the United States’ community choice aggregation (CCA) supported by the community (Scandrett, 2016). Two cases against industrial transition movement in California, which has contributed hydrocarbon policies in Ecuador and Bolivia also fell into this category to local, democratic control over electricity (Hess, 2019). Such out­ because these movements were heavily supported by the Amazonian comes and movements can also be found in cases from Thailand’s Indigenous people and the employees of the hydrocarbon industry who countryside (Pa Deng network) and the Philippines’ Palawan Province were directly affected by the oil and mining development (Perreault movements (Marquardt and Delina, 2019). These local communities and Valdivia, 2010). Moreover, studies based on the global Environ­ envisioned the future of energy supply, moving away from the mental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) (Pérez-Rincón et al., 2019; Scheidel dominant hydrocarbon regime to more sustainable renewable energy et al., 2020; Temper et al., 2020) have explored how mobilisations systems. around fossil fuel conflicts can positively contribute to more just and sustainable transitions. 4.2.10. Providing market solutions Only six cases led to market solution outcomes. They contributed to 4.2.7. Policy change forming a new market, proposing new renewable energy sources, tech­ Twelve cases resulted in creating a new policy or a change in a nology, and infrastructure to reduce fossil fuel demand. All involved specific aspect of an existing policy related to reducing carbon emis­ protests and none used violence. Interestingly, four of the six resulted in sion. In these cases, more institutional means were used than a market solution that involved civil disobedience as a strategy. Authors confrontation. These cases include the movement that resulted in categorised it as an outcome when the movement contributed to forming creating a new policy or a change in a specific aspect of the old or new a new market, proposing new renewable energy sources, technology, policy related to reducing carbon emission. The policy here means the and infrastructure to reduce fossil fuel demand. Some movements may national policies such as environmental, energy, and resource man­ bring solutions in the renewable market in drafting policies, but it is not agement policies that influence at a national or transnational level. always the case. An example is the climate change solution think-tank, Policy change sometimes, but not necessarily always, comes with “Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE)’s movement” in Australia, which estab­ concrete legislation or regulations that influence limiting emissions. lished a bottom-up, deliberative process with local communities to For example, one of the cases explored is the case of California’s envision ways to deploy renewable energy technologies locally (Pearse, climate policy shift in reducing hydrocarbon industries, particularly in 2016). Another example illustrates how the mobilisation of Chilean limiting permits for new oil wells. In this case, the shift towards supply- environmental organisations led to opportunities for renewables to enter side policy was steered by the public interests in fossil fuel extraction the electricity market in collaboration with experts from local univer­ and social movements towards a low-carbon society (Erickson et al., sities and renewable energy companies (Madariaga and Allain, 2018). 2018). The sample also includes the well-known cases in Colombia and Ecuador, “leave the oil in the soil” or leave the “unburnable fuels” 4.3. Strategies and contribution underground initiated by local indigenous communities, which became public policy for six years in Ecuador with the Yasuni ITT proposal, After exploring the different outcomes delivered by social move­ 2007–2013 (Vallejo et al., 2015). ments, we ran a Chi-squared test of independence to determine whether the sample’s outcomes and strategies variables are independent of or 4.2.8. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) associated with each other (Franke et al., 2012).3 Although only eleven cases led to CSR, it appears that most Table 4 shows the results of the Chi-squared tests with a P-value less involved multiple strategies, including protest, civil disobedience, campaign and lobby/coalitions. Conversely, only two used lawsuits and none engaged in violence. In recent years, the strategies pres­ 3 ∑ 2 The formula for the Chi-squared test is x2 = ni=1 (Oi −EiEi ) , where O is the suring corporations to stop exploiting human and natural resources observed (the actual count of cases in each cell of the table), E is the expected have changed from lobbying and coalitions to targeting firms directly value, and n refers to the number of cells in the table (Mchugh, 2013). 8 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 than P < 0.05, which allows rejecting the null hypothesis of indepen­ violence outcomes than otherwise. dence.4 The entire list of cross-tabs and test results is reported in Table B1 (Appendix B). Moreover, we included the Fisher’s exact test’s 4.4. Discussion: do social movements contribute to staying within the P-value for the categories with the expected value less than 5. The cases global carbon budget? are ordered by strategies (presence or absence) in rows and outcomes (presence or absence) in columns. The cells report the observed fre­ In January 2019, Special Report 1.5 revised the remaining GCB to quency and expected values (in parentheses) for each category. To un­ 420 GtCO2 to keep the global temperature within 1.5 degrees (Masson- derstand the differences between groups, we compared the observed and Delmotte et al., 2018). Even with increased emission cuts, nations are expected values (Mchugh, 2013). Firstly, we observe a difference in the likely to fail in reaching the goal of the GCB target. Therefore, it is occurrence of postponement and cancellation outcomes when crucial to understand and consider alternatives, including the role of comparing the movements that use multiple strategies and those that do social movements. The linkages between social movements and the not. As shown in the table, when movements rely on multiple strategies, reduction of carbon emissions can take many forms, making it difficult postponement outcomes tend to be more frequent (24) than expected to establish a causal relationship. Social movements are dynamic and (20.5), and cancellations too (16 as compared to 12.65). By the same form a chain of processes involving different mobilisation strategies, token, in the absence of multiple strategies, the postponement and actors and outcomes. Furthermore, the heterogeneous social, political, cancellation outcomes tend to be less frequent than expected. These and cultural contexts of the different movements make drawing one-to- findings align with previous studies suggesting that tactical diversity is one comparisons challenging (Della Porta and Diani, 2006; Tilly, 2004). an effective strategy of environmental movements to block specific Nevertheless, as shown in this study, it is still possible to identify and development projects (Scheidel et al., 2020). draw preliminary patterns about said strategies, actors and outcomes Civil disobedience also makes a difference. The results show a sig­ across contexts. nificant association between the civil disobedience strategy and the In this systematic review, we find that social movements can postponement outcome. The postponement outcome is more frequent contribute to staying within the global carbon budget in a variety of (17) than the expected value of (13.2) when the civil disobedience indirect and direct ways. These range from raising awareness of risks strategy is used. The same is true in the case of just transition and and strategies, promoting knowledge transfer, and pressuring corpora­ repression outcomes. Achieving a just transition outcome is more tions to engage in corporate social responsibility or divestment actions, frequent than expected when civil disobedience is employed as a strat­ to bringing policy changes, laws and regulations, fostering just energy egy. Also importantly, civil disobedience tends to be associated with transitions, energy democracy, and alternative market solutions, and violent repressions of activists compared to other strategies (Burkett, forcing the postponement or cancellation of hydrocarbon activities. 2018; Grant and Vasi, 2016). These findings complement previous knowledge on the watchdog role The lobby/coalition strategy is significantly associated with raised grassroots organisations and ENGOs monitor environmental conditions awareness, postponement, policy change and regulations outcomes. The and ensure that polluters do not violate standards (Grant and Vasi, 2016; outcomes of policy change and regulations occur more frequently than Madariaga and Allain, 2018; Steger and Drehobl, 2018). More broadly, expected when lobbying is used and vice-versa (Fisher’s exact P = the findings support and expand previous claims about the importance 0.022). The opposite occurs with the awareness raising and the post­ of ‘governance from below’ and the role of social movements as a rec­ ponement outcomes. These outcomes relatively less frequently occur ognisable challenge to transnational extractive corporations and ‘busi­ when lobbying is present. Also, the movements that use lawsuits/liti­ ness as usual’ in the climate change context (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006; gation have a statistically significant higher frequency of postponement Villamayor-Tomas and García-López, 2018; Scheidel et al., 2020). outcomes than expected. These associations can be explained by the Our findings also illustrate that the studied movements tend to rely nature of the lobby/coalition strategy, which relies on institutional on multiple mobilisation strategies. As pointed out by social movement “venue shopping” to the detriment of, e.g., the joint use of public spaces scholars, the use of multiple strategies at once or sequentially would be and public voicing strategies along with other non-governmental actors. explained by the need to fit a changing environment, e.g., in response to Also, we looked specifically at the participation of three different counter-measures implemented by governments and multinational civil society groups in the sample: women’s organisations, professionals corporations (Della Porta, 2013). Furthermore, and also shown in our in medical science, lawyers and scientists, and indigenous people and analysis of contributions, movements often pursue different goals, minority groups (Table 5). We did not find statistically significant as­ requiring different sets of strategies. While the institutional means of sociations between the participation of women and professionals in lobbying and coalition building are widely used and seem to support movements and any of the outcomes; however, the results indicate that policy change and regulation, these strategies are not used to deliver movements that are participated by indigenous people are more awareness or postponement outcomes. Similarly, while movements tend frequently associated with awareness-raising and just transition out­ to rely on civil disobedience to stop hydrocarbon projects in the short comes than otherwise.6 Last but not least, indigenous group-participated term, they rely on multiple strategies to cancel them in the longer term. movements were also more frequently associated with repression and Last but not least, our study shows that mobilisation also comes at the price of increased violent repression and criminalisation against activ­ ists, despite the absence of violence from the protestors, which warns us 4 We decided to include only statistically significant associations in our about the dramatic trade-offs that involved movements face between analysis as an attempt to digest the results for the reader. Thus, we used sta­ promoting change and maintaining well-being and safety in their com­ tistical significance as a proxy, or rule of thumb, to identify the strongest as­ munities (Del Bene et al., 2018; Scheidel et al., 2020). sociations between strategies and outcomes. Generally speaking, stronger Also, our findings show that outcomes of mobilisation against fossil associations are more likely to be statistically significant. To be sure, although fuels are not independent of each other. The cases in the sample (Bur­ some strategies did not have a significant association with the outcomes, they kett, 2018; Martinez-Alier et al., 2016; Pearse, 2016) reveal that raised are still relevant strategies (the movements employed these strategies and au­ awareness, CSR and divestments can be linked together. At the same thors of the reviewed studies pointed out to them for a reason); however, our time, while postponement is a contribution on its own, vis a vis limiting sample did not contain sufficient evidence about their relative stronger asso­ ciations with outcomes as compared to other strategies. See Appendix B1 for the carbon emissions, they can also pave the way to cancellation. For entire list of cross-tabs and test results. example, the postponement of the XL pipeline projects contributed to 5 Based on Fisher’s exact test (Fisher’s exact P = 0.013) (given that the ex­ years of delaying emissions from the project until its recent official pected value is lower than 5) cancellation. In the meantime, similar mobilisations in Chile, Australia, 6 Fisher’s exact test was conducted given expected value less than 5. and the US achieved the outcome of policy-making and market solutions 9 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table 4 Chi-squared test for outcomes and strategies (observed value (expected value)). Strategies Outcomes Chi2 Fisher’s exact P-value Multiple Strategies No Postponed Postponed 5.13** No 10(6.5) 2(5.5) Yes 21(24.5) 24(20.5) Multiple Strategies No Cancelled Cancelled 5.93** 0.013 No 12(8.6) 0(3.4) Yes 29(32.4) 16(12.6) Civil Disobedience No Postponed Postponed 4.03** No 19(15.2) 9(12.8) Yes 12(15.8) 17(13.2) Civil Disobedience No Just Transition Just Transition 4.57** No 25(21.6) 3(6.4) Yes 19(22.4) 10(6.6) Civil Disobedience No Repression/Criminalisation Repression/Criminalisation 5.69** No 25(21.1) 3 (6.9) Yes 18(21.9) 11(7.1) Lobby/Coalition No Raised Awareness Raised Awareness 3.90** No 11(14.5) 25(21.5) Yes 12(8.5) 9(12.5) Lobby/Coalition No Policy Change Policy Change 5.81** 0.022 No 32(28.4) 4(7.6) Yes 13(16.6) 8(4.4) Lobby/Coalition No Regulation Regulation 5.34** No 25(20.8) 11(15.2) Yes 8(12.2) 13(8.8) Lobby/Coalition No Postponed Postponed 6.37** No 15(19.6) 21(16.4) Yes 16(11.4) 5(9.6) Lawsuit/Litigation No Postponed Postponed 5.29** No 28(24.5) 17(20.5) Yes 3(6.5) 9 (5.5) Obs. 57 Notes: **, and *** refer to 5% and 1% significance levels, respectively. Here only shown the associations that turned out statistically significant. See all cross-tabs in Appendix. Source: Authors. Table 5 research should explore our data from this perspective. Chi-squared test for outcomes and participations. Last but not least, our findings suggest that indigenous communities, Participation Outcomes Chi2 Fisher’s scientists and women’s groups play non-deniable roles within the exact P- movements against hydrocarbon activities. A recent report by Oil value Change International and Indigenous Environmental Network claimed Indigenous No raised Raised 6.26** that more than 700 million metric tons of annual Co2 emissions were people awareness awareness prevented by indigenous resistance in the US and Canada (Oil Change No 19(14.5) 17(21.5) International, 2021). This research also indicates the critical role of Yes 4(8.5) 17(21.5) indigenous people in shaping a future with low carbon emissions. In Indigenous No Just Just Transition 7.59*** 0.009 addition to their role featuring resistance actions, our study illustrates People Transition their role as inspirational actors that raise awareness about climate No 32(27.8) 4(8.2) Yes 12(16.2) 9(4.8) change and justice. Indigenous No Repression Repression and 9.54*** As a limitation, it is essential to note that our search of studies People and violence violence resulted in limited cases from East Asia and African countries. However, No 32(27) 4 (8.8) the Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas, n.d.) has documented globally Yes 11(15.8) 10 (5.2) Obs. 57 hundreds of cases of protests against fossil fuels and for climate justice (Africa 141, Asia 142), suggesting that there is a substantial lack of Note: **, and *** refer to 5% and 1% significance levels respectively. Source: peer-reviewed articles in the areas identified in this study. Authors. 5. Conclusions: social movements constrain fossil fuel supplies (Grant and Vasi, 2016; Madariaga and Allain, 2018; Pearse, 2016). and potentially avoid emissions Likewise, in several cases in the United States, Argentina, Algeria, and cross-countries studies (Hess, 2019; Hess, 2018; Martinez-Alier et al., The study aimed to understand the diverse contributions of social 2016; Riffo, 2017), the exhibited regulation and energy democracy were movements to staying within the global carbon budget by systematically also interconnected. These findings illustrate the interest of applying a reviewing academic research papers on activism against fossil fuel ‘cycles’ lens to mobilisation strategies, the co-evolution of social extraction, processing, and transportation. After conducting an intensive movements and their impact (Oliver and Myers, 2006; Snow and Ben­ preliminary review, a qualitative meta-analysis of 57 selected cases of ford, 1992; Tarrow, 1989; Tilly, 1978; Traugott, 1995).7 Further anti-fossil fuel movements was undertaken. The results showed that social movements constrain fossil fuel supplies, support social and po­ litical processes needed for climate change mitigation, and potentially 7 ‘Cycles’ refers to protest cycle dynamics, which entails shifts in the types of avoid emissions through at least ten different contributions. The findings actions/strategies and shifts in the combination of actions across time. These further identified how the specific contributions to staying within the actions can be varied as confrontational protests, mass demonstrations, insti­ global carbon budget were associated with the different movement tutionalized politics and violence (Oliver and Myers, 2006; Tilly, 1978). 10 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 strategies and the participation of specific actors, such as indigenous climate justice perspective, participation from vulnerable groups, people involved in mobilisations. In this context, scientists, science- indigenous people, and movements from the Global South is vital in policy interface institutions, notably the IPCC, and policymakers, shaping more just energy transition pathways and climate change should pay more attention to the contributions of social movements to mitigation (Campion, 2021). staying within the global carbon budget. Additionally, the analysis in­ Finally, the analysis reveals research gaps that can inform a future dicates that indigenous participation in movements significantly con­ research agenda at the intersection of ecological economics, political tributes to limiting fossil fuels; however, the possibility of violent ecology and social movement studies. For instance, women’s partici­ repression is undeniably high. Therefore, the protection of indigenous pation in these movements is under-researched in the academic litera­ people’s right to defend their traditional way of life and ancestral lands ture. Similarly, Africa and Asia are severely under-represented in social should be highlighted in climate change mitigation frameworks and movement studies looking at protests against fossil fuels. Therefore, we pathways to achieve global carbon budget goals. expect future studies on movements against fossil fuels to address these The findings from our study confirm several arguments in the gaps by including the types of under-represented populations and existing literature and add systematic evidence to the body of research. geographical areas identified in this paper. Furthermore, this study Firstly, our findings support existing arguments claiming that fossil fuel revealed that postponement and cancellation of hydrocarbon activities resistance movements create viable pathways and important political are crucial outcomes of social mobilisations, suggesting that social spaces to achieve climate mitigation targets. Moreover, the results yield movements may have a tangible impact on limiting the global carbon new evidence that nuances popular assumptions regarding how social budget. However, based on the information available in the surveyed movements contribute to decarbonisation. According to our findings literature, it has not been possible to estimate the actual amount of and qualifying previous studies (Biglan et al., 2020; Büchs et al., 2015; carbon emissions reduced by these actions. This remains to be further Landholm et al., 2019), there is a different approach to mobilisation explored in future research. between the lifestyle changes movements and movements that target hydrocarbon supplies. While both types of movements share the objec­ Declaration of Competing Interest tive of limiting emissions, the former tend to use a non-confrontational approach directed to a broader audience (i.e., consumers) (Büchs et al., The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 2015), while the latter frequently employs more confrontational and interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence direct actions. the work reported in this paper. Also, our analysis extends the argument on movements as forces of sustainability (Temper et al., 2020) by providing evidence on the di­ Acknowledgements versity of mobilisation strategies and contributions and identifying as­ sociations between both. We found the use of multiple strategies to be The project that gave rise to these results received the support of a particularly effective for achieving the postponement of projects, in fellowship from the “La Caixa” Foundation (ID 100010434). The addition to lawsuits and civil disobedience. While the sample considered fellowship code is “LCF/BQ/DI19/11730058”. We also acknowledge the reveals more confrontational, direct action than the institutional lobby/ EnvJustice ERC project (GA 695446), particularly its members and Joan coalition approach in the movements, the results firmly suggest that Martinez Alier and Joyeeta Gupta, for comments on a draft of this paper. direct action and confrontation can effectively delay emissions. This article also contributes to the Maria de Maeztu Unit of Excellence Secondly, the study provides further evidence for the existing claims ICTA UAB (CEX2019-0940-M). A. Scheidel acknowledges funding from that marginalised people, in alliance with other segments of society, the Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral programme supported by the Gov­ contribute to global environmental and climate justice through collec­ ernment of Catalonia’s Secretariat for Universities and Research of the tive resistance against unsustainable resource use, such as hydrocarbon Ministry of Economy and Knowledge (2017 BP 00023). Lastly, Demaria activities. These alliances are identified in various grassroots movements acknowledges the Serra Hunter Programme and the PROSPERA ERC that include women, indigenous people and minorities, and professional project (GA947713). The authors would like to thank two anonymous communities to form partnerships across the social spectrum. From a reviewers for their helpful comments in improving this paper. Appendix A. Combination of categories identified in the study The study identified cases of social movements targeted at multiple fossil fuel commodities simutainaously. Furthermore, a single type of fossil fuels can have overlapping commodity chain stages. These overlapping combinations are shown in Tables A1 and A2. Furthermore, we also identified multiple strategies and multiple contributions in a single case study. Few cases were identified using single strategies, while protest is most likely to be an overlapping strategy among the combinations. These combination of strategies identified in the sample of the study are listed in A3, and the contributions in A4. Table A1 Different combinations of commodities. Type of FF Frequency Coal 12 Oil 8 Gas 13 Coal, Oil 3 Coal, Gas 0 Oil, Gas 2 19 Coal, Oil, Gas 57 11 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table A2 Combintions of commodity and chain stages. Fossil fuel and commodity chain Frequency Coal, Extraction 3 Coal, Processing 3 Coal, E,P 3 Coal, P, T 1 Coal, E,P,T 3 Coal, Oil, E,P,T 3 Oil, Extraction 1 Oil, Transportation 1 Oil, processing 2 Oil, E,P,T 4 Gas, Extraction 13 Oil, Gas, P 1 Coal, Oil, Gas, P 3 Coal,Oil, Gas E,P,T 16 Total 57 Table A3 Frequency of cases informing about single (level = 1) and multiple (level≥1) strategies. Levels Strategy Frequencies 1 Protest 3 1 Campaign 3 1 Lobby 5 2 Protest, CD 6 2 Protest, Campaign 4 2 Protest, Lobby 1 2 Protest, Lawsuit 2 2 CD,Campaign 1 2 Campaign,Lawsuit 1 2 Campaign, lobby 3 3 Protest, Campaign, Lobby 5 3 Protest,CD, Lawsuit 2 3 Protest,Campaign,Lawsuit 1 3 Protest,CD, Campaign 8 3 Protest, CD, Lobby 1 3 Campaign,Lawsuit,lobby 1 4 Protest, CD, Campaign, Lobby 4 4 Protest,CD, Campaign,Lawsuit 2 4 Protest,CD,Violence,lawsuit 1 4 Protest,CD,Violence,lobby 1 5 Protest,CD,Campaign,lawsuit,lobby 1 5 Protest,CD,Violence,Campaign,lawsuit 1 Total 57 Source: Authors. Table A4 Frequency of cases informing about single (level = 1) and multiple (level ≥ 1) outcomes. Levels Outcome Frequencies 1 Raised Awareness 5 1 CSR 1 1 Regulation 2 1 Postponed 4 2 Raised Awareness,CSR 1 2 Raised Awareness, Policy Change 1 2 Raised Awareness, Postponed 3 2 Raised Awareness, Divestment 2 2 CSR,Divestment 1 2 Regulation, Just Transition 1 2 Postponed, Stopped 1 2 Stopped, Just Transition 1 3 Raised Awareness, CSR, Policy Change 1 3 Raised Awareness, Policy Change, Divestment 1 3 Raised Awareness, Regulation, Just transition 2 3 Raised Awareness, Energy Democracy, Postponed 1 3 Raised Awareness, Postponed, Just transition 2 (continued on next page) 12 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table A4 (continued ) Levels Outcome Frequencies 3 Raised Awareness, Postponed, Stopped 1 3 Raised Awareness, Postponed, Divestment 2 3 Policy Change, Regulation, Divestment 2 3 Policy Change, Regulation, Market solution 1 3 Regulation, Market Policy, Energy Democracy 1 3 Regulation, Postponed, Stopped 2 3 Regulation, Just Transition, Divestment 1 3 Postponed, Stopped, Just Transition 1 4 Raised Awareness, Regulation, Postponed 3 4 Raised Awareness, Policy Change, Postpone, Stopped 1 4 Raised Awareness, Regulation, Energy Democracy, Stopped 1 4 Raised Awareness, CSR, Postponed, Stopped 1 4 Raised Awareness, Energy Democracy, Just Transition, Divestment 1 4 Regulation, Energy Democracy, Postponed, Stopped 1 5 Raised Awareness, CSR, Policy Change, Regulation, Divestment 1 5 Raised Awareness, Market Solution, stopped, Just Transition, Divestment 1 5 CSR, Policy Change, Regulation, Market Solution, stopped 1 5 CSR, Policy Change, Regulation, Just Transition, Divestment 1 5 CSR, Regulation, Market Solution, Energy Democracy, Postponed 1 5 Regulation, Energy Democracy, postponed, Stopped, Divestment 1 7 Raised Awareness, CSR, Regulation, Energy Democracy, Postponed, Just Transition, Divestment 1 8 Raised Awareness, CSR, Regulation, Market Solution, Postponed, Just Transition, Divestment 1 Total 57 Source: Authors. Appendix B. Examining the association between strategies and contribution Table B1 Chi-squared test of independence between outcomes and strategies (observed value (expected value)). Outcomes Strategies Chi2 Raised Awareness No Protest Protest 1.43 No 8 (6.1) 15(7) Yes 7 (16.9) 27(25.1) CSR No Protest Protest 0.47 No 13 (12.1) 33(33.9) Yes 2 (2.9) 9(8.1) Policy Change No Protest Protest 0.39 No 11(11.8) 34(33.2) Yes 4(3.2) 8(8.8) Regulation No Protest Protest 0.04 No 9(8.7) 24(24.3) Yes 6(6.3) 18(17.7) Market Solution No Protest Protest 2.40 No 15(13.4) 36(37) Yes 0(1.6) 6(4.4) Energy Democracy No Protest Protest 3.32 No 15(12.9) 34(36.1) Yes 0(2.1) 8(5.9) Postpone No Protest Protest 2.95 No 11(8.2) 20(22.8) Yes 4(6.8) 22(19.2) Cancellation No Protest Protest 2.19 No 13(10.8) 28(30.2) Yes 2(4.2) 14(11.8) Just Transition No Protest Protest 1.04 No 13(11.6) 31(32.4) Yes 2(3.4) 11(9.6) Divestment No Protest Protest 0.28 No 10(10.8) 31(30.2) Yes 5(4.2) 11(11.8) Repression No Protest Protest 3.51 No 14(11.3) 29(31.7) (continued on next page) 13 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table B1 (continued ) Outcomes Strategies Chi2 Yes 1(3.7) 13(10.3) Raised Awareness No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 0.84 No 13 (11.3) 10 (11.7) Yes 15(16.7) 19 (17.3) CSR No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 089 No 24(22.6) 22(23.4) Yes 4(5.4) 7(5.6) Policy Change No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 0.00 No 22(22.1) 23(22.9) Yes 6(5.9) 6(6.1) Regulation No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 0.18 No 17(16.2) 16(16.8) Yes 11(11.8) 13(12.2) Market Solution No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 0.67 No 26(25.1) 25(25.9) Yes 2(2.9) 4(3.1) Energy Democracy No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 0.50 No 25(24.1) 24(24.9) Yes 3(3.9) 5(4.1) Postpone No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 4.03** No 19(15.2) 12(15.8) Yes 9(12.8) 17(13.2) Cancellation No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 1.20 No 22(20.1) 19(20.9) Yes 6(7.9) 10(8.1) Just Transition No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 4.57** No 25(21.6) 19(22.4) Yes 3(6.4) 10(6.6) Divestment No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 0.00 No 20(20.1) 8(7.8) Yes 8(7.9) 8(8.1) Repression No Civil Disobedience Civil Disobedience 5.69** No 25(21.1) 18(21.9) Yes 3(6.9) 11(7.1) Raised Awareness No violence Violence 2.14 No 23(21.8) 0(1.2) Yes 31(32.2) 3(1.8) CSR No violence Violence 0.76 No 43(43.6) 3(2.4) Yes 11 (10.4) 0(0.6) Policy Change No violence Violence 0.84 No 42(42.6) 3(2.4) Yes 12(11.4) 0(0.6) Regulation No violence Violence 0.78 No 32(31.3) 1(1.7) Yes 22(22.7) 2(1.3) Market Solution No violence Violence 0.37 No 48(48.3) 3(2.7) Yes 6(5.7) 0(0.3) Energy Democracy No violence Violence 0.51 No 46(46.4) 3(2.6) Yes 8(7.6) 0(0.4) Postpone No violence Violence 0.57 No 30(29.4) 1(1.6) Yes 24(24.6) 2(1.4) Cancellation No violence Violence 0.04 No 39(38.8) 2(2.2) Yes 15(15.2) 1(0.8) Just Transition No violence Violence 0.20 No 42(41.7) 2(2.3) Yes 12(12.3) 1(0.7) Divestment No violence Violence 0.04 No 39(38.8) 2(2.2) Yes 15(15.2) 1(0.8) Repression No violence Violence 0.04 No 41(40.7) 2(2.3) Yes 13(13.3) 1(0.7) Raised Awareness No Campaign Campaign 1.38 No 10(8.1) 13(14.9) Yes 10(11.9) 24(22.1) CSR No Campaign Campaign 0.01 No 16(16.1) 30(29.9) Yes 4(3.9) 7(7.1) Policy Change No Campaign Campaign 0.06 No 15(15.8) 30(29.2) Yes 5(4.2) 7(7.8) (continued on next page) 14 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table B1 (continued ) Outcomes Strategies Chi2 Regulation No Campaign Campaign 0.91 No 9(11.6) 24(21.4) Yes 11(8.4) 13(15.6) Market Solution No Campaign Campaign 0.37 No 17(17.9) 34(33.1) Yes 3(2.1) 3(3.9) Energy Democracy No Campaign Campaign 3.07 No 15(17.2) 34(31.8) Yes 5(2.8) 3(5.2) Postpone No Campaign Campaign 0.39 No 12(10.9) 19(20.1) Yes 8(9.1) 18(16.9) Cancellation No Campaign Campaign 0.50 No 15(14.4) 26(26.6) Yes 5(5.6) 11(10.4) Just Transition No Campaign Campaign 0.90 No 14(15.4) 30(28.6) Yes 6(4.6) 7(8.4) Divestment No Campaign Campaign 0.05 No 14(14.4) 27(26.6) Yes 6(5.6) 10(10.4) Repression No Campaign Campaign 0.34 No 16(15.1) 27(27.9) Yes 4(4.9) 10(9.1) Raised Awareness No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 0.31 No 19 (18.2) 4 (4.8) Yes 26 (26.8) 8 (7.2) CSR No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 0.07 No 36 (36.3) 10 (9.7) Yes 9(8.7) 2 (2.3) Policy Change No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 1.48 No 34 (35.5) 11 (9.5) Yes 11 (9.5) 1 (2.5) Regulation No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 0.00 No 26 (26.1) 7 (6.9) Yes 19 (18.9) 5 (5.1) Market Solution No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 0.08 No 40 (40.3) 11(10.7) Yes 5 (4.7) 1(1.3) Energy Democracy No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 2.48 No 37(38.7) 12(10.3) Yes 8(6.3) 0(1.7) Postpone No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 5.29** No 28 (24.5) 3 (6.5) Yes 17 (20.5) 9 (5.5) Cancellation No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 3.62 No 35(32.4) 6(8.6) Yes 10(12.6) 6(3.4) Just Transition No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 0.04 No 35(34.7) 9(9.3) Yes 10(10.3) 3()2.7 Divestment No Lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 0.07 No 32(32.4) 9(8.6) Yes 13(12.6) 3(3.4) Repression No lawsuit/Litigation Lawsuit/Litigation 0.00 No 34(33) 9(9.1) Yes 11(11.1) 3(2.9) Raised Awareness No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 3.90** No 11(14.5) 12(8.5) Yes 25(21.5) 9(12.5) CSR No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 1.84 No 31(29.1) 15(16.9) Yes 5(6.9) 6(4.1) Policy Change No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 5.81** No 32(28.4) 13(16.6) Yes 4(7.6) 8(4.4) Regulation No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 5.35** No 25(20.8) 8(12.2) Yes 11(15.2) 13(8.8) Market Solution No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 0.50 No 33(32.2) 18(18.8) Yes 3(3.8) 3(2.2) Energy Democracy No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 0.56 No 30(30.9) 19(18.1) Yes 6(5.1) 2(2.9) Postpone No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 6.37** (continued on next page) 15 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table B1 (continued ) Outcomes Strategies Chi2 No 15()19.6 16(11.4) Yes 21(16.4) 5(9.6) Cancellation No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 1.34 No 24(25.9) 17(15.1) Yes 12(10.1) 4(5.9) Just Transition No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 0.27 No 27(27.8) 17(16.2) Yes 9(8.2) 4(4.8) Divestment No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 0.46 No 27(25.9) 14(15.1) Yes 9(10.1) 7(5.9) Repression No Lobby/Coalition Lobby/Coalition 1.90 No 25(27.2) 18(15.8) Yes 11(8.8) 3(5.2) Raised Awareness Single Multiple 2.04 No 5(4.8) 18(18.2) Yes 7(7.2) 27(26.8) CSR Single Multiple 1.17 No 11(9.7) 35(36.3) Yes 1(2.3) 10(8.7) Policy Change Single Multiple 0.14 No 8(9.5) 37(35.5) Yes 4(2.5) 8(9.5) Regulation Single Multiple 0.48 No 9(6.9) 25(26.1) Yes 3(5.1) 21(18.9) Market Solution Single Multiple 0.08 No 12(10.7) 39(40.3) Yes 0(1.3) 6(4.7) Energy Democracy Single Multiple 0.09 No 10(10.3) 39(38.7) Yes 2(1.7) 6(6.3) Postpone Single Multiple 5.13** No 10(6.5) 21(24.5) Yes 2(5.5) 24(20.5) Cancellation Single Multiple 5.93** No 12(8.6) 29(32.4) Yes 0(3.4) 16(12.6) Just Transition Single Multiple 0.95 No 8(9.3) 36(34.7) Yes 4(2.7) 9(10.3) Divestment Single Multiple 1.39 No 6(8.6) 35(32.4) Yes 6(3.4) 10(12.6) Repression Single Multiple 0.0016 No 9(9.1) 34(33.9) Yes 3(2.9) 11(11.1) Raised Awareness No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 6.27** No 19(14.5) 4(8.5) Yes 17(21.5) 17(12.5) CSR No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 0.54 No 28(29.1) 18(16.9) Yes 8(6.9) 3(4.1) Policy Change No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 091 No 27(28.4) 18(16.6) Yes 9(7.6) 3(4.4) Regulation No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 2.50 No 18(20.8) 15(12.2) Yes 18(15.2) 6(8.8) Market Solution No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 3.91** No 30(32.2) 21(18.8) Yes 6(3.8) 0(2.2) Energy Democracy No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 0.00 No 31(30.9) 18(18.1) Yes 5(5.1) 3(2.9) Postpone No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 1.78 No 22(19.6) 9(11.4) Yes 14(16.4) 12(9.6) Cancellation No Participation IP/RM Postponed 0.30 No 25(25.9) 16(15.1) Yes 11(10.1) 5(5.9) Just Transition No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 7.59*** No 32(27.8) 12(16.2) Yes 4(8.2) 9(4.8) Divestment No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 0.30 No 25(25.9) 16(15.1) (continued on next page) 16 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table B1 (continued ) Outcomes Strategies Chi2 Yes 11(10.1) 5(5.9) Repression No Participation IP/RM Participation IP/RM 9.54*** No 32(27.2) 11(15.8) Yes 4(8.8) 10(5.2) Raised Awareness No Citizen Science Citizen Science 0.94 No 22(21) 1(2) Yes 30(31) 4(3) CSR No Citizen Science Citizen Science 0.00 No 42(42) 4(4) Yes 10(10) 1(1) Policy Change No Citizen Science Citizen Science 1.46 No 40(41.1) 5(3.9) Yes 12(10.9) 0(1.1) Regulation No Citizen Science Citizen Science 3.99** No 28(30.1) 5(2.9) Yes 24(21.9) 0(2.1) Market Solution No Citizen Science Citizen Science 0.52 No 47(46.5) 4(4.5) Yes 5(5.5) 1(0.5) Energy Democracy No Citizen Science Citizen Science 0.89 No 44(44.7) 5(4.3) Yes 8(7.3) 0(0.7) Postpone No Citizen Science Citizen Science 0.46 No 29(28.3) 2(2.7) Yes 23(23.7) 3(2.3) Cancellation No Citizen Science Citizen Science 5.29** No 39(37.4) 13(14.6) Yes 2(3.6) 3(1.4) Just Transition No Citizen Science Citizen Science 0.92 No 41(40.1) 3(3.9) Yes 11(11.9) 2(1.1) Divestment No Citizen Science Citizen Science 2.76 No 39(37.4) 2(3.6) 0.06 Yes 13(14.6) 3(1.4) Repression No Citizen Science Citizen Science No 39(39.2) 4(3.8) Yes 13(12.8) 1(1.2) Raised Awareness No Women Women 0.04 No 17(17.4) 6(5.6) Yes 26(25.6) 8(8.4) CSR No Women Women 0.05 No 35(34.7) 11(11.3) Yes 8(8.3) 3(2.7) Policy Change No Women Women 0.51 No 33(33.9) 12(11.1) Yes 10(9.1) 2(2.9) Regulation No Women Women 0.00 No 25(24.9) 8(8.1) Yes 18(18.1) 6(5.6) Market Solution No Women Women 2.18 No 37(38.5) 14(12.5) Yes 6(4.5) 0(1.5) Energy Democracy No Women Women 0.84 No 38(37) 11(12) Yes 5(6) 3(2) Postpone No Women Women 0.14 No 24(23.4) 7(7.6) Yes 19(19.6) 7(6.4) Cancellation No Women Women 2.00 No 33(30.9) 8(10.1) Yes 10(12.1) 6(3.9) Just Transition No Women Women 0.35 No 34(33.2) 9(9.8) Yes 10(10.8) 4(3.2) Divestment No Women Women 5.40 No 30(30.9) 11(10.1) Yes 13(12.1) 3(3.9) Obs. 57 Note: **, and *** refer to 5% and 1% significance, respectively. Source: Authors. 17 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Appendix C. Publications Table C1 List of publications used in this study. Author Title Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Year Journal name Document type 1 Thörn, Håkan; ‘We feel the responsibility Swedish 2016 Social Movement Journal Svenberg, that you shirk’: movement Environmental Studies Article Sebastian institutionalisation, the Movement politics of responsibility and the case of the Swedish environmental movement 2 Widener, A protracted age of oil: the Keystone XL Oil sands 2013 Local Environment Journal Patricia pipelines, refineries and Pipeline a refinery, the Article quiet conflict Hyperion Energy Center 3 Černoch, Filip; Anti-fossil frames: Brown Coal 2019 Energy Research Journal Lehotský, Examining narratives of Mining in the and Social Science Article Lukáš; Ocelík, the opposition to brown Czech Republic Petr; Osička, coal mining in the Czech Jan; Republic Vencourová, Žaneta 4 Bradshaw, Blockadia Rising: Rowdy the Keystone XL 2015 Critical Criminology Journal Elizabeth A. Greens, Direct Action and Pipeline b Article the Keystone XL Pipeline 5 Nulman, Climate Change Social Climate change the Green 2015 PALGRAVE Book Eugene Movements Act Investment MACMILLAN Bank 6 Grant, Don; Civil Society in an Age of ENGOs on U.S. 2016 Sociological Forum Journal Vasi, Ion Environmental power plants’ Article Bogdan Accountability: How CO2 emissions Local Environmental Nongovernmental Organisations Reduce U. S. Power Plants’ Carbon Dioxide Emissions 7 Marquardt, Reimagining energy Palawan Thailand 2019 Energy Research & Journal Jens; Delina, futures: Contributions resistance community- Social Science Article Laurence L from community against coal driven sustainable energy power sustainable transitions in Thailand energy access and the Philippines 8 Burkett, Climate Disobedience Civil 2018 Duke Environmental Journal Maxine Disobedience in Law and Policy Article the US Forum 9 Almeida, Paul Climate justice and Climate justice 2019 Journal of World- Journal sustained transnational mobilisation Systems Research Article mobilisation 10 Brown, Coal, climate justice, and Coal, Climate 2019 Global Journal Benjamin; the cultural politics of Justice Environmental Article Spiegel, Samuel energy transition Politics J 11 Hess, David J Coalitions, framing, and CCA in 2019 Energy Research & Journal the politics of energy California Social Science Article transitions: Local democracy and community choice in California 12 Madariaga, Contingent Coalitions in Chilean 2018 Policy Studies Journal Aldo; Allain, Environmental Renewable Journal Article Mathilde Policymaking: How Civil Energy Society Organisations Influenced the Chilean Renewable Energy Boom 13 Hall, Nina L.; Empowerment of Australia 2010 Action Research Journal Taplin, Ros; individuals and Climate Action Article Goldstein, realisation of community Coogee Wendy agency: Applying action research to climate change responses in Australia 14 Hess, David J Energy democracy and Green jobs and Moratoria on The regional The REV 2018 Energy Research & Journal social movements: A on-bill financing natural gas greenhouse implementation Social Science Article multi-coalition infrastructure gas initiative coalition (continued on next page) 18 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table C1 (continued ) Author Title Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Year Journal name Document type perspective on the politics and of sustainability development transitions 15 Macpherson- Energy solution or future Coal seam gas in 2020 Australian Journal Rice, Breana; pollution? Applying an New South Geographer Article Munro, Paul G.; energy justice perspective Wales de Rijke, Kim to coal seam gas in New South Wales 16 Ladd, Anthony Environmental disputes Haynesville 2014 Social Currents Journal E. and opportunity-threat Shale region Article impacts surrounding natural gas fracking in Louisiana 17 Veltmeyer, Extractivist resistance: the Enbridge oil 2014 Extractive Industries Journal Henry; Bowles, The case of the Enbridge pipeline project and Society Article Paul oil pipeline project in Northern British Columbia 18 Riffo, Lorena Fracking and Resistance Northern 2017 NACLA Report on Journal in the Land of Fire Patagonia, the Americas Article Argentina 19 Nyberg, Daniel Fracking the future: Fracking in the 2017 Unassigned Journal temporality, framing and UK Article the politics of unconventional fossil fuels 20 Lawlor, Framing trans-border the Keystone XL 2018 Environmental Journal Andrea; energy-transportation: the Pipeline c Politics Article Gravelle, case of Keystone XL Timothy B. 21 Turner, Terisa From Cochabamba, a new Cochabamba, 2010 Capitalism, Nature, Journal E. international and Bolivia Socialism Article manifesto for Mother Earth 22 Boudet, Hilary From NIMBY to NIABY: Northeast The Gulf Coast West Coast 2011 Environmental Journal Schaffer Regional mobilisation Politics Article against liquefied natural gas in the United States 23 Smith, Jackie Counter-hegemonic activist 2014 Global Discourse: Journal networks and the ‘spillover’ An Interdisciplinary Article transformation of global Journal of Current climate politics: Affairs and Applied rethinking movement- Contemporary state relations Thought 24 Simonelli, Home rule and natural gas Hydraulic 2014 Journal of Political Journal Jeanne development in New fracturing in Ecology Article York: Civil fracking rights New York State 25 Schlembach, How do radical climate Camp for 2011 Critical Social Policy Journal Raphael movements negotiate Climate Action Article their environmental and their social agendas? A study of debates within the camp for climate action (UK) 26 Scandrett, Climate justice: contested Climate justice 2016 International Journal Eurig discourse and social movement Journal of Climate Article transformation Change Strategies and Management 27 Kinniburgh, From Zuccotti Park to New York, anti- Algeria shale global revolt 2015 Dissent Journal Colin z•urawlów: The global fracking gas Article revolt against fracking 28 Perreault, Tom; Hydrocarbons, popular Hydrocarbon in Hydrocarbon in 2010 Geoforum Journal Valdivia, protest and national Ecuador Bolivia Article Gabriela imaginaries: Ecuador and Bolivia in comparative context 29 Martinez-alier, Is there a global Ejatlas 2016 Journal of Peasant Journal Joan; Temper, environmental justice Studies Article Leah; Bene, movement? Daniela Del; Scheidel, Arnim 30 Erickson, Peter; Limiting fossil fuel Us State of 2018 Nature Climate Journal Lazarus, production as the next big California Change Article Michael; step in climate policy Piggot, Georgia (continued on next page) 19 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Table C1 (continued ) Author Title Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Year Journal name Document type 31 Pérez-Rincón, Mapping and Analysing Andean 2019 Ecological Journal Mario; Vargas- Ecological Distribution countries Economics Article Morales, Conflicts in Andean Julieth; Countries Martinez-Alier, Joan 32 Pearse, Rebecca Moving targets: Carbon social 2016 Environmental Journal pricing, energy markets, movements in Politics Article and social movements in Australia Australia 33 Feng, Jeff Power beyond Central 2020 Energy Research Journal powerlessness: Miners, Appalachia and and Social Science Article activists, and bridging the Coal River difference in the Valley Appalachian coalfields 34 Cock, Jacklyn Resistance to coal just transition in 2017 Development Journal inequalities and the South Africa Southern Africa Article possibilities of a just transition in South Africa* 35 Brown, Resisting coal: end coal now Kalimantan, 2020 Geoforum Journal Benjamin; Hydrocarbon politics and south wales, UK Indonesia Article Spiegel, Samuel assemblages of protest in J. the UK and Indonesia 36 Colvin, R. M. Social identity in the Stop Adani 2017 Energy Research Journal energy transition: an Convoy and Social Science Article analysis of the “Stop Adani Convoy” to explore social-political conflict in Australia 37 Ethan, B Social Movements and CSRmovement 2019 International Journal Market Transformations: Studies Quarterly Article Lessons From HIV/AIDS and Climate Change 38 Black, Sara SOLIDARITY IN climate 2014 International Journal Thomas; CLIMATE/IMMIGRANT immigrant Journal Of Urban Article Milligan, JUSTICE DIRECT justice, USA And Regional Richard ACTION: Lessons from Research Anthony; Movements in the US Heynen, Nik South 39 Allen, Maggie; Stronger together: Pacific 2014 Marine Policy Journal Bird, Stoney; Strategies to protect local Northwest, USA Article Breslow, Sara; sovereignty, ecosystems, Dol, Nives and place-based communities from the global fossil fuel trade 40 Steger, Tamara; The Anti-Fracking Anti-Fracking 2018 Environmental Journal Drehobl, Ariel Movement in Ireland: Movement in Communication Article Perspectives from the Ireland Media and Activists 41 Faruque, M. The politics of extractive company- 2018 Extractive Industries Journal Omar industry corporate community and Society Article practices: An anatomy of a conflict in company-community Bangladesh conflict in Bangladesh 42 Stephens, The role of college and fossil fuel 2018 Elementa Journal Jennie C; university faculty in the divestment Article Frumhoff, Peter fossil fuel divestment movement C; Yona, Leehi movement 43 David, Martin The role of organised CAGandFFG, 2013 Applied Energy Journal publics in articulating the Germany Article exnovation of fossil-fuel technologies for intra- and intergenerational energy justice in energy transitions 44 Evans, Geoff; Transition to a post- Coal mining in 2016 Energy Policy Journal Phelan, Liam carbon society: Linking Hunter Valley Article environmental justice and just transition discourses 45 Hopke, Jill E. Translocal anti-fracking anti-fracking 2013 Environmental Journal activism: An exploration movement Communication Article of network structure and translocal tie content Source: Authors. 20 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 References Goldman, B.A., 1996. What is the future of environmental justice?*. Antipode 28, 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1996.tb00518.x. Grant, D., Vasi, I.B., 2016. Civil Society in an Age of Environmental Accountability: How Baron, D.P., 2003. Private politics. J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 12, 31–66. https://doi.org/ Local Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations Reduce U.S. Power Plants’ 10.1111/j.1430-9134.2003.00031.x. Carbon Dioxide Emissions. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12318. Benford, R.D., Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview Hausfather, Z., 2018. Analysis: how much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. to 1.5C? [WWW Document]. Carbon Brief. URL, Carbon Brief. https://www. soc.26.1.611. carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-carbon-budget-is-left-to-limit-global-warming- Biglan, A., Bonner, A.C., Johansson, M., Ghai, J.L., Van Ryzin, M.J., Dubuc, T.L., to-1-5c. (Accessed 9 December 2021). Seniuk, H.A., Fiebig, J.H., Coyne, L.W., 2020. The state of experimental research on Hess, D.J., 2018. Energy research & social science energy democracy and social community interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions-a systematic review. movements: a multi-coalition perspective on the politics of sustainability transitions. Sustain. 12, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187593. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.003. Bond, P., Dorsey, M.K., 2010. Anatomies of environmental knowledge & resistance: Hess, D.J., 2019. Energy research & social science coalitions, framing, and the politics of diverse climate justice movements and waning eco-neoliberalism. J. Aust. Polit. energy transitions: local democracy and community choice in California. Energy Res. Econ. 66, 286–316. Soc. Sci. 50, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.013. Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., 2013. Global land grabbing and political reactions ‘from Hooper, A., Keating, D., Olsen, R., 2016. Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction below’. Third World Q. 34, 1723–1747. https://doi.org/10.1080/ (UGEE) Joint Research Programme - Integrated Synthesis Report. 01436597.2013.843845. IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary Chapter for Policymakers. Bradshaw, E.A., 2015. Blockadia rising: rowdy greens, direct action and the keystone XL IPCC, p. 31. pipeline. Crit. Criminol. 23, 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9289-0. IPCC, 2018. IPCC - SR1.5C Chapter 2 Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5◦ C in the British Petroleum Company, 2018. BP statistical review of world energy, statistical Context of Sustainable Development. review of world. Energy. 67, 1–40. In press. IPCC, 2021. Assessment Report 6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Brown, B., Spiegel, S.J., 2017. Resisting coal: hydrocarbon politics and assemblages of Jakob, M., Marschinski, R., Hübler, M., 2013. Between a rock and a hard place: a trade- protest in the UK and Indonesia. Geoforum 85, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. theory analysis of leakage under production- and consumption-based policies. geoforum.2017.07.015. Environ. Resour. Econ. 56, 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9638-y. Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, New York. Klein, N., 2015. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Simon & Schuster Büchs, M., Saunders, C., Wallbridge, R., Smith, G., Bardsley, N., 2015. Identifying and (Reprint edition). explaining framing strategies of low carbon lifestyle movement organisations. Glob. Lahn, B., 2020. A history of the global carbon budget. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Environ. Chang. 35, 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.009. Chang. 11, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.636. Bullard, R.D., 1994. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Landholm, D.M., Holsten, A., Martellozzo, F., Reusser, D.E., Kropp, J.P., 2019. Climate Color. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. https://doi.org/10.1177/ change mitigation potential of community-based initiatives in Europe. Reg. Environ. 027046769501500454. Chang. 19, 927–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1428-1. Burkett, M., 2018. Climate Disobedience. Lazarus, M., Erickson, P., Tempest, K., 2015. Supply-Side Climate Policy: The Road Less Campion, J., 2021. Chapter 11 Transformation through Translation: Sustainable Energy Taken Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper 2015–13. Stockholm. Democracy, Indigenous Values and the Challenge of Transforming the Energy Sector. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1754.4402. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 240–262. https://doi.org/10.1163/ Le Quéré, C., Andres, R.J., Boden, T., Conway, T., Houghton, R.A., House, J.I., 9789004465442_012. Marland, G., Peters, G.P., van der Werf, G., Ahlström, A., Andrew, R.M., Bopp, L., Černoch, F., Lehotský, L., Ocelík, P., Osička, J., Vencourová, Ž., 2019. Anti-fossil frames: Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Doney, S.C., Enright, C., Friedlingstein, P., Huntingford, C., examining narratives of the opposition to brown coal mining in the Czech Republic. Jain, A.K., Jourdain, C., Kato, E., Keeling, R.F., Klein Goldewijk, K., Levis, S., Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 54, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.011. Levy, P., Lomas, M., Poulter, B., Raupach, M.R., Schwinger, J., Sitch, S., Stocker, B. Covert, T., Greenstone, M., Knittel, C.R., 2016. Will we ever stop using fossil fuels? D., Viovy, N., Zaehle, S., Zeng, N., 2012. The global carbon budget 1959-2011. Earth J. Econ. Perspect. 30, 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.1.117. Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. 5, 1107–1157. https://doi.org/10.5194/essdd-5-1107-2012. David, M., 2018. The role of organized publics in articulating the exnovation of fossil- Lemos, M.C., Agrawal, A., 2006. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. fuel technologies for intra- and intergenerational energy justice in energy transitions. Resour. 31, 297–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621. Appl. Energy 228, 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.080. Macdonald, J., 2014. Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd ed. Sparky House Publishing, Del Bene, D., Scheidel, A., Temper, L., 2018. More dams, more violence? A global Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. analysis on resistances and repression around conflictive dams through co-produced Madariaga, A., Allain, M., 2018. Contingent Coalitions in Environmental Policymaking: knowledge. Sustain. Sci. 13, 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0558-1. How Civil Society Organizations Influenced the Chilean Renewable Energy Boom, Della Porta, D., 2013. Repertoires of Contention. Wiley-Blackwell Encycl. Soc. Polit. pp. 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12298. Movements, Major Reference Works. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871. Marquardt, J., Delina, L.L., 2019. Energy research & social science reimagining energy wbespm178. futures: contributions from community sustainable energy transitions in Thailand Della Porta, D., Diani, M., 2006. Social Movements, 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing, MA. and the Philippines. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 49, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. EJAtlas. EJAtlas - Global Atlas of Environmental Justice. (Accessed 9 November 2021). erss.2018.10.028. Erickson, P., Lazarus, M., Piggot, G., 2018. Limiting fossil fuel production as the next big Martinez-Alier, J., 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological step in climate policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 1037–1043. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Conflicts and Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limite, Northampton. s41558-018-0337-0. Martínez-Alier, J., Muradian, R., 2015. Handbook of Ecological Economics, Handbook of Escobar, A., 1998. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471416. political ecology of social movements. J. Polit. Ecol. 5, 53. https://doi.org/10.2458/ Martinez-Alier, J., Kallis, G., Veuthey, S., Walter, M., Temper, L., 2010. Social v5i1.21397. metabolism, ecological distribution conflicts, and valuation languages. Ecol. Econ. Federici, S., 2011. Feminism and the Politics of the Commons * Introduction: Why 70, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.024. Commons. Common. Martinez-Alier, J., Anguelovski, I., Bond, P., Del Bene, D., Demaria, F., Gerber, J.F., Franke, T.M., Ho, T., Christie, C.A., 2012. The Chi-Square test: often used and more often Greyl, L., Haas, W., Healy, H., Marín-Burgos, V., Ojo, G., Porto, M., Rijnhout, L., misinterpreted. Am. J. Eval. 33, 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Spangenberg, J., Temper, L., Warlenius, R., Yánez, I., 2014. 1098214011426594. Between activism and science: grassroots concepts for sustainability coined by Franks, D.M., Davis, R., Bebbington, A.J., Ali, S.H., Kemp, D., Scurrah, M., 2014. Conflict environmental justice organizations. J. Polit. Ecol. 21, 19–60. https://doi.org/ translates environmental and social risk into business costs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. 10.2458/v21i1.21124. S. A. 111, 7576–7581. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405135111. Martinez-Alier, J., Temper, L., Del Bene, D., Scheidel, A., 2016. Is there a global Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M., Andrew, R., Hauck, J., Olsen, A., Peters, G., environmental justice movement? J. Peasant Stud. 43, 731–755. https://doi.org/ Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Canadell, J., Ciais, P., Jackson, R., 10.1080/03066150.2016.1141198. Alin, S., Aragão, L., Arneth, A., Arora, V., Bates, N., Becker, M., Benoit-Cattin, A., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Bittig, H., Bopp, L., Bultan, S., Chandra, N., Chevallier, F., Chini, L., Evans, W., Pirani, A., 2018. IPCC report global warming of 1.5◦ C. IPCC Sr15 2, 17–20. Florentie, L., Forster, P., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gilfillan, D., Gkritzalis, T., McDonough, J., McDonough, S., 1997. Research Methods for English Language Teachers. Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Harris, I., Hartung, K., Haverd, V., Houghton, R., Ilyina, T., Arnold, Great Britain. Jain, A., Joetzjer, E., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kitidis, V., Korsbakken, J.I., Mchugh, M.L., 2013. The chi-square test of independence lessons in biostatistics. Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D., Biochem. Medica 23, 143–149. Marland, G., Metzl, N., Munro, D., Nabel, J., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O’Brien, K., Muradian, R., Walter, M., Martinez-Alier, J., 2012. Hegemonic transitions and global Ono, T., Palmer, P., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., shifts in social metabolism: implications for resource-rich countries. Introduction to Rödenbeck, C., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Smith, A., Sutton, A., the special section. Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 559–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Tanhua, T., Tans, P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Werf, G., Vuichard, N., gloenvcha.2012.03.004. Walker, A., Wanninkhof, R., Watson, A., Willis, D., Wiltshire, A., Yuan, W., Yue, X., O’Connor, M., Martinez-Alier, J., 1998. Ecological Distribution and Distributed Zaehle, S., 2020. Global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. 1–3 Sustainability, pp. 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3188-1_3. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-286. Oil Change International, 2021. Indigenous Resistance Against Carbon | Indigenous Gadgiil, M., Guha, R., 1995. Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in Environmental Network. Contemporary India, 1st ed. Routledge. Oliver, P., Myers, D., 2006. The coevolution of social movements. Mobiliz. An Int. Q. 8, Global Witness, 2020. Defending Tomorrow: The Climate Crisis and Threats against Land 1–24. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.8.1.d618751h524473u7. and Environmental Defenders. Godinho, C., 2020. Clim. Transp. Rep. 2020. 21 M.A. Thiri et al. Ecological Economics 195 (2022) 107356 Owen, A., Roy, B., Bene, D.D.E.L., Rivin, D., 2018. Blockadia: movimientos de base Stephens, J.C., 2019. Energy democracy: redistributing power to the people through contra los combustibles fósiles y a favor de la justicia climática. Anu. Int. CIDOB 0, renewable transformation. Environment 61, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 41–49. 00139157.2019.1564212. Pearse, R., 2016. Moving targets: carbon pricing, energy markets, and social movements Stephens, J.C., Frumhoff, P.C., Yona, L., 2018. The Role of College and University Faculty in Australia. Env. Polit. 25, 1079–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/ in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement. 09644016.2016.1196969. Tarrow, S., 1989. Democracy and Disorder: Protest and Politics in Italy, 1965–1975. Pérez-Rincón, M., Vargas-Morales, J., Martinez-Alier, J., 2019. Mapping and analyzing Oxford University Press, Oxford. ecological distribution conflicts in Andean countries. Ecol. Econ. 157, 80–91. Tarrow, S., 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 3rd https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.11.004. ed. Cambridge University Press. Perreault, T., Valdivia, G., 2010. Hydrocarbons, popular protest and national Taylor, R., 1995. Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global Emergence of Radical imaginaries: Ecuador and Bolivia in comparative context. Geoforum 41, 689–699. and Popular Environmentalism. SUNY Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.04.004. Temper, L., Walter, M., Rodriguez, I., Kothari, A., Turhan, E., 2018. A perspective on Pierrehumbert, R., 2016. How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden. Bull. At. Sci. 72, radical transformations to sustainability: resistances, movements and alternatives. 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145908. Sustain. Sci. 13, 747–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0543-8. Pierrehumbert, R., 2019. There is no plan B for dealing with the climate crisis. Bull. At. Temper, L., Avila, S., Del Bene, D., Gobby, J., Kosoy, N., Le Billon, P., Martinez-Alier, J., Sci. 75, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654255. Perkins, P., Roy, B., Scheidel, A., Walter, M., 2020. Movements shaping climate Piggot, G., 2018. The influence of social movements on policies that constrain fossil fuel futures: a systematic mapping of protests against fossil fuel and low-carbon energy supply. Clim. Pol. 18, 942–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1394255. projects. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc197. Riffo, L., 2017. Fracking and resistance in the land of fire. NACLA Rep. Am. 49, 470–475. Thörn, H., Svenberg, S., 2016. ‘We feel the responsibility that you shirk’: movement https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2017.1409376. institutionalization, the politics of responsibility and the case of the Swedish Robbins, P., 2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Blackwell. environmental movement. Soc. Mov. Stud. 15, 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Roy, B., Schaffartzik, A., 2021. Talk renewables, walk coal: the paradox of India’s energy 14742837.2016.1213162. transition. Ecol. Econ. 180, 106871 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Tilly, C., 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Newbery Award Records, Inc. ecolecon.2020.106871. Tilly, C., 2004. Social Movement, 1768–2004. Scandrett, E., 2016. Climate justice: Contested discourse and social transformation. Traugott, M., 1995. Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action. Duke University Press. International journal of climate change strategies and management article UN, 2019. Human Rights Council resolution 40/L.22. In: Recognizing the Contribution of information 8 (4), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2015-0060. In Environmental Human Rights Defenders to the Enjoyment of Human Rights, press. Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development. Scheidel, A., Temper, L., Demaria, F., Martínez-Alier, J., 2018. Ecological distribution UNEP, 2018. Promoting Greater Protection for Environmental Defenders Policy. conflicts as forces for sustainability: an overview and conceptual framework. Vallejo, M.C., Burbano, R., Falconí, F., Larrea, C., 2015. Leaving oil underground in Sustain. Sci. 13, 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0519-0. Ecuador: the Yasuní-ITT initiative from a multi-criteria perspective. Ecol. Econ. 109, Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., Juan, L., Grettel, N., Sara, M., Federico, D., Sofia, A., 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.013. Brototi, R., Leah, T., Joan, M.-A., 2020. Environmental conflicts and defenders. Glob. Villamayor-Tomás, S., García Lopez, G., 2021. Decommonization-Commonization Environ. Chang. 63, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102104. Dynamics and Social Movements: Insights from a meta-Analysis of Case Studies. Snow, D.A., Benford, R., 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In: Morris, A., Mak. Commons Dyn. Underst. Chang. through Commonization Decommonization (in Mueller, C.M. (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Yale University Press, press). New Haven. Villamayor-Tomas, S., García-López, G., 2018. Social movements as key actors in Somanathan, E., Sterner, T., Sugiyama, D., Chimanikire, N.K., Dubash, J., Essandoh- governing the commons: evidence from community-based resource management Yeddu, S., Fifita, L.G., Jaffe, A.X., Labandeira, S., Managi, C., Mitchell, J.P., cases across the world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 53, 114–126. https://doi.org/ Montero, F., Teng Zylicz, T., 2014. National and sub-national policies and 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.005. institutions. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Watts, M., Peets, R., 2004. Liberation ecologies: environment, development, social Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on movements. In: Peet, R., Watts, M. (Eds.), Liberation Ecologies, Second edition. Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New Routledge, London, p. 464. York, NY, USA. Welsby, D., Price, J., Pye, S., Ekins, P., 2021. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 ◦ C world. Steger, T., Drehobl, A., 2018. The anti-fracking movement in Ireland: perspectives from Nature 597, 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03821-8. the media and activists. Environ. Commun. 12, 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Yin, R., 1984. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research 17524032.2017.1392333. Methods). 22