Climate activists have recently engaged in widely publicized acts of politically motivated lawbreaking. This article identifies and critically analyzes two seemingly overlapping but in fact diverging approaches among present-day activists. Though their illegal acts (e.g., blockades, occupations, and selective property damage) sometimes appear equivalent, the rival approaches place them in contrasting lights; the resulting differences are normatively and politically consequential. The first and now predominant approach favors nonviolent civil disobedience, understood in conventional terms as civil, conscientious, nonviolent, public lawbreaking. Though this approach exhibits many strengths, its proponents sometimes rely on problematic usages of recent political science scholarship that cannot withstand critical scrutiny. The second approach views nonviolent civil disobedience as insufficiently militant and instead aims primarily to block and disrupt our fossil fuel-driven political economy. Its preferred mode of political illegality is sabotage. Less concerned than the first approach with altering public opinion, it generally writes off the prospect of meaningful political reform. Though both approaches rely on the idea of a “climate emergency” to justify their activities, the second approach provides a vivid warning of its possible dangers. Although the momentous threats posed by global warming are undeniable, the idea of a climate emergency risks opening the door to political avant-gardism and, potentially, authoritarianism.

气候活动家最近参与了广泛宣传的出于政治动机的违法行为。本文确定并批判性地分析了当今活动家中两种看似重叠但实际上不同的方法。尽管他们的非法行为（例如，封锁、占领和选择性的财产损失）有时看起来是相同的，但竞争对手的做法却将他们置于对比之下；由此产生的差异在规范和政治上具有重要意义。第一种也是现在占主导地位的方法支持非暴力公民不服从，在传统术语中理解为公民、良心、非暴力、公共违法。尽管这种方法表现出许多优势，但其支持者有时依赖于近期政治学学术研究的问题用法，这些用法经不起批判性审查。第二种方法认为非暴力公民不服从不够好战，主要目的是阻止和破坏我们以化石燃料为驱动的政治经济。它首选的政治非法模式是蓄意破坏。与改变公众舆论的第一种方法相比，它不太关心，它通常会否定有意义的政治改革的前景。尽管这两种方法都依赖于“气候紧急情况”的想法来证明其活动的合理性，但第二种方法提供了对其可能危险的生动警告。尽管全球变暖带来的重大威胁是不可否认的，但气候紧急情况的想法有可能为政治前卫主义和可能的威权主义打开大门。