Last year Andreas Malm published the book How to Blow Up A Pipeline, which argued that property damage and sabotage were legitimate and necessary tactics for a climate activist movement trying to stop irreversible ecological damage. “The ruling classes really will not be talked into action,” Malm wrote. “They are not amenable to persuasion; the louder the sirens wail, the more material they rush to the fire, and so a change in direction will have to be forced upon them. The movement must learn to disrupt business as usual.”

This year’s eponymous feature film, directed by Daniel Goldhaber, explores the political themes in Malm’s book by way of a heist thriller. In the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline a group of eight, united in opposition to unfolding climate catastrophe, undertake to sabotage an oil pipeline in West Texas. They’re guided by the motto: “If the law will not punish you, then we will.”

The fictional movie is based on Malm’s idea that widespread and constant destruction of carbon-emitting structures is the most effective way to make fossil fuels unprofitable, with pipelines being an especially vulnerable target. The film is at least partially an endorsement of Malm’s perspective, but it also raises a critical question about his approach: What are its implications for mass climate politics? The climate emergency can’t be addressed by small groups of vigilante actors alone; the movement must develop a popular character to truly succeed. Are disruptive tactics more likely to attract or repel the public?