In the 1930's the radicalized labor movement addressed the capitalist crisis of overproduction/underconsumption by temporarily seizing control of the tools and implements of production, taking advantage of their indispensable position in the labor process to leverage concessions from the bourgeois state. There was an inherent match between the form of power they exercised (their crucial role as surplus value producers), what compromise they got out of the struggle (a fairer share of surplus value produced), and the system-rationalizing aspects of the compromise (high-speed Keynesian growth less prone to wild business cycles). In the 2000's the radicalized ecology movement addressed the capitalist crisis of climate catastrophe (and peak oil if you buy the concept) by temporarily seizing control of the XXXX, taking advantage of their indispensable position in the XXXX to leverage XXXX concessions from the bourgeois state. (And make sure the XXXX's feature corresponding matches...)'
[...]
......
It's my opinion that the first "XXXX" worth tackling is energy production.
Using your words, let's plug a value in:
*In the 2000's the radicalized ecology movement addressed the capitalist crisis of climate catastrophe (and peak oil if you buy the concept) by temporarily seizing control of coal fired power plants, taking advantage of their indispensable position in the [your guess is as good as mine] to leverage carbon mitigation concessions from the bourgeois state.*
Of course, occupying coal fired plants -- one of the most robust sources of C02 -- has a few drawbacks. An inevitable session with head-hammering police being one of them. There's also the danger that non-movementarians, aka 'ordinary people', worried about their supply of electricity and maybe even a bit pissed that outside activists are do-gooding it up in their backyard, would cheer on the hammering.
Alternatively, you could occupy ground set aside for new plant construction as was done at the site for Kingsnorth 2 (the link at the end of this blurb is to a Guardian article about 'Climate Camp' activists at Kingsnorth 2: <http://tinyurl.com/6f5tdq> ).
Realizing these problems, some 'radical', though not necessarily red (or even the least bit socialist) ecologists have decided to cut out the middle man by going off the grid, or at least, imagining what life off the grid might be like. Eco design thinkers such as John Thackara (doorsofperception.com) are designing post 'peak oil', 'peak protein', 'catabolic collapse', 'resilient community' objects, methods and systems which assume a future without centralized power production. Or centralized anything else, for that matter.
In the meantime, until the multiple peaks sweep away the world as it is, this school of 'radical ecologists' describe various 'sustainability' projects -- for example, the City Ecolab event held last year in St Etienne, France <http://tinyurl.com/clw9mo> -- as inherently radical acts. In this instance, the radicalism is manifested in the supposed rejection of 'materialism' and creation of farming, energy and transport sectors that purportedly bypass existing infrastructures.
I've found there are contending camps of 'radical ecologists' with, on the one hand, politically minded red ecos arguing from Marxian causes and effects while, on the other hand, futurist think tank, small is beautiful green capitalist informed ecos like Thackara imagine themselves to be Fukuyamaian post politics, post history world builders. Come to think of it, there are, Shiva-like, third, forth and fifth hands: the compost toilet partisans, the return to earth worship spiritualarians, the green technocrats, the happy apocalyptarian peakists, the neo farming pastorlists, etc, etc.
These people often pretend to get along 'for the sake of the planet' but clashing catechisms, declarations of incompatible theses and schisms are clearly visible if you pay close attention.
.d.