The question of what counts as violence, and who gets to define it, is never neutral. Anger, disobedience and confrontation are frequently dismissed in the name of non-violence, while public debate often focuses on the most visible forms of harm, equating damage to property with violence against people. This framing risks obscuring more pervasive forms of violence, including the destruction of living conditions, the exploitation of territories and unequal exposure to climate disasters. What kinds of political responses are possible in a social order shaped by these overlapping forms of violence, and capable of meeting the scale of the climate emergency?