They’re now called Climate Liberation Aotearoa and the new name signals a new focus that is as likely to see them attempting to stop a new motorway or airport being built as disrupting rush hour traffic.

Spokesperson James Cockle says decarbonising transport - which makes up about 40% of New Zealand’s CO2 emissions – remains the group’s key priority.

“The four main principles are: travel less, travel active, travel public and then travel electric. And that’s the priority order.”

Cockle says the cruise ship industry will be an initial target and that could include “adventurous participation in council meetings.”

Last month the group disrupted a Christchurch City Council meeting considering a bid for the Commonwealth games.

He says the actions have three main goals: to influence the public, to add to the cost of climate damaging initiatives, and influencing politicians.

“We’re very conscious for each action we’re doing which one of those we’re trying to achieve. In some cases, it’s the public and trying to get lots of them to sign up and get involved. Other times it’s more towards decision-makers and having conversations with them and showing them, we have the power to stand in the way if they make the wrong decision. And absolutely it’s about causing monetary damage to organisations involved in what amount to crimes against the environment.”

Greenpeace gearing up for increased action

Greenpeace is currently advertising for a Senior Actions Coordinator.

The gig pays $90k a year and requires the successful applicant to:

• Lead epic actions!
• Prepare, plan and coordinate all aspects of non-violent creative confrontations.
• Train up the next generation of activists and play a key role in the development of Greenpeace's capacity to be innovative, confrontational and inspirational.

So, are Greenpeace planning to step up their direct actions with the election of a National-led government that’s already committed to resuming fossil fuel exploration, scrapping the ute tax and more besides?

“That is how we roll,” Amanda Larsson, Greenpeace Aoteaora head of campaigns says. “We seldom go into specifics about our plans ahead of time, but non-violent direct action is a core part of how Greenpeace creates change, and preventing harm to the environment is why we exist. 

“So it’s safe to say that we will oppose many of the Government’s planned environmental rollbacks and that our opposition will be vigorous and impossible to ignore.”

And Larsson says increasing the cost of climate damaging developments is part of the strategy.

“With legal challenges, public mobilisation and cost and delay tactics, we were able to fend off a host of oil companies following the previous National government’s move to open up New Zealand to offshore oil exploration until the Ardern government got on board and put the exploration ban in place.”

She says there’s a growing number of people, both in New Zealand and internationally, willing to break the law “to protect citizens from the polluting companies driving climate change.”

And those willing to break the law aren’t just the young.

“Anecdotally, there seems to be a trend of grandparents and young people in particular getting more involved in climate action. In a high profile case recently, grandmother Rosemary Penwarden risked jail time for sending a satirical letter postponing an oil industry conference due to the climate crisis. 

“But we have also seen young people turn out in record numbers recently, like members of the school strike movement.”

Larrson says peaceful, non-violent direct action has always been at the heart of Greenpeace’s work starting with its campaigns against nuclear weapons. 

“Guiding all of our actions, always, is a commitment to nonviolence and personal responsibility.”

If hitting the bottom line of companies making an outsize contribution to climate change is the aim, then long-time environmentalist Mike Smith’s long-running attempt to have his day in court against six of the country’s biggest emitters must have already been a success.

As we heard yesterday, the countries seven biggest polluters – which include Fonterra, Z Energy, and Genesis Energy – have lawyered up with KCs.

The protest Smith is best known for his taking a chainsaw to the sole tree on Auckland’s Maungakiekie, better known as One Tree Hill in, 1994.

The aim was to draw attention to the unjustness of the then government’s fiscal envelope which tried to put a $1 billion cap on Treaty settlements.

So, Smith’s no stranger to direct action and he tells Carbon News there’s definitely a strong case for it now as we hurtle towards climate catastrophe.

“The more direct action the better,” he says.

And does he expect an uptick in protests?

“I expect so. Analyse, organise, mobilise -  action.”

Long-term activist and writer on political issues, Sam Buchanan, is also predicting more people will be prepared to break the law as temperatures rise.

“There's growing interest in direct action as the failure of mainstream politics to deliver results becomes apparent. Younger people have a sense that political processes are in the hands of the wealthy and aged, and are incapable of addressing environmental issues with any degree of urgency,” he says.

Buchanan says direct action snowballs when the target – whether a corporation or government – is vilified by many.

“Looking at history, such things as blockading harbours during the anti-nuclear campaign, or being arrested protesting apartheid, became acceptable to a large chunk of the public. That they were technically criminal didn't bother people, in fact, judicial actions against activists back fired and resulted in increased public support.”

During the Vietnam war radical activists set off bombs in New Zealand and then in 1983 Neil Roberts exploded a bomb outside the Wanganui computer – blowing himself in the process. 

Does Buchanan – a friend of Neil Roberts – think we could see a return to those sorts of actions.

“It's possible, but not so likely. That was a result of particular thinking at the time. Popular culture tends to be fixated on explosives, which was demonstrated in the recent movie 'How to Blow up a Pipeline', but most politically-motivated sabotage over the years has been relatively low-key.

“There’s also an understanding that there's many ways to create costs for companies that don't involve property destruction. Polluting companies are going to face losing their 'social license' and be treated as pariahs – in the same way that any contacts with tobacco companies, once perfectly respectable – are now seen as suspicious and likely to signify corruption. Attitudes to fossil fuel companies and, to some extent, forestry companies, seem to be heading in this direction. Once widespread antipathy is established, support for direct action follows, and it becomes almost impossible for a company to regain public trust,” Buchanan says.

Part 1. Wave of civil disobedience could upset corporate balance sheets