Doesn't necessarily have to kill anyone, but should have substantial shock value through destruction of property or similar (i.e. significantly above the current gluing-to-things protests).
Shorter-term version:
Terrorism is notoriously ill-defined. For this market I define it as the intentional use of violence to achieve a political goal, in this case a goal related to climate change. So actually blowing up a refinery is violence and counts, but sabotaging by drilling a hole in a pipe is not.
Related questions
@mariopasquato no, it has to be an intentional form of violence, though not necessarily causing deaths.
Terrorism is usually against innocent civilians; a strong-arming tactic. I reckon for example blowing up oil refineries and gas intakes is simply classic sabotage. It doesn't cause terror except in the wallets of the corporations.
Basically, I am curious how widely you define terrorism for this market. In the classic trying to blow iup civilians sense, or in the hyperbolic politician sense, i.e., any protest action we dislike we label terrorism.
@GazDownright the way I would define it is the intentional use of violence to achieve a political goal, in this case a goal related to climate change. So actually blowing up a refinery is violence with shock value and counts, but sabotaging by drilling a hole in a pipe is not.