T
he Climate movement threw the nation into uproar again in October, when Just Stop Oil activists were filmed throwing Heinz soup onto Van Gogh’s painting ‘Sunflowers’ in London’s National Gallery. In front of shocked spectators, activist Phoebe Plummer asked,‘What is worth more: art, or life? … Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?’ The connection between the painting and climate change may seem like a stretch, but the message is crucial. Regardless of our individual feelings about chucking soup at a Van Gogh, what this act did was secure a global platform, creating a valuable opportunity to demand change. Radical disruptive activity has become increasingly frequent in the UK: from controversial road-blockings to orange spray paint on buildings. The relentlessness of these activists is justified; the last eight years have been the hottest on record and devastating floods in Pakistan are demonstrating that the climate crisis is already here. However, this method of environmental action is not without its problems. Twenty-one-year-old Plummer later explained the stunt, stating that they intended to get ‘the conversation going’, to ask the questions that really matter. This makes sense, the activists turn heads by doing outrageous things and use the attention to create mass conversation about fossil fuel licensing. Just Stop Oil’s statement asserted that this was a deliberate act of cultural transgression, posing the question, ‘you are outraged about this, where is your outrage of 33 million people in Pakistan losing their livelihoods’ and other devastating effects of climate change? When anger at damaged property is louder than anger at environmental injustice, we are forced to confront our own hypocrisy. We are pushed to ask ourselves where our priorities lie. Unfortunately, the public response does not align with this reasoning. The numerous articles and the tweets made after the act weren’t talking about the cost-of-living crisis or the climate emergency. They largely discussed art or property damage, and trivial preconceptions about the activists in the video. The stunt might have gone viral, but how many people stayed to listen to the words? Some may argue that current methods of climate groups direct the conversation wrongly, distracting people from what matters rather than drawing their attention to it. Most people just don’t seem to be listening. Those who are unsympathetic to environmental activism responded with the usual outrage and mockery, even though the painting was undamaged. Many others also responded negatively and, almost immediately, conspiracy theories began to float around social media. Their claim? That Just Stop Oil is funded by ‘Big Oil,’ pulling ridiculous stunts to make climate activists look bad. This is pretty outlandish. Yes, oil heiress Aileen Getty has publicly made donations to the organisation. However, receiving around a million dollars from an oil tycoon’s granddaughter
hardly equates to being a puppet of the oil industry, or a masterful psy-op undermining anti-oil activism. Getty most likely feels a bit guilty for the source of her family’s fortune, and there’s not much else to it. What this theory really displays is the lack of support from both sides of the political spectrum, suggesting that Just Stop Oil has failed to win over the public. Following a series of blocked roads and angry motorists hurling abuse, the Met had to urge the public not to ‘directly intervene with Just Stop Oil protesters.’ I recognise that blocking roads can create genuinely serious repercussions, but the outrage at the soup stunt – which endangered nobody – shows that these activists just can’t win. It looks like the general population has made climate activists its enemy, but this isn’t just a result of flawed methods. Though surveys suggest that over 80% of people in Britain are concerned about climate change, the British media actively stirs up hostility towards environmental activists which limits the support they receive. There seems to be a general reluctance among people to support groups like Just Stop Oil. The popular image of the modern-day climate movement is one of privileged, out-of-touch teenagers, an image that is used against the cause to attack its credibility. Extinction Rebellion, Greta Thunberg and now Just Stop Oil are routinely mocked and dismissed; people focus on the specifics of their actions rather than their larger message. In this case, many comments focused on trivialities, like the accusations of ‘wasting soup’. People – especially in mainstream media – are on a constant search for a satisfying ‘gotcha’ moment, aiming to expose these crazy hippies as hypocrites. Greta Thunberg flew on a plane somewhere, maybe. The activists blocking the road have hair dye and plastic jewelry and shoes imported on smog-exuding ships, so we can dismiss their words, return to our comfortable lives, and ignore this huge existential threat that impacts every last one of us. Only when people get past this discomfort about climate activism and confront the crisis will real change occur. Finding a solution to these problems isn’t easy. The approach of UN summits is ineffective, too concerned with the interests of transnational corporations and economic development. On the other hand, radical civil disobedience seems to just make the public seethe with anger. It seems almost impossible to find a viable way forward, to mobilise the population to act against oil licensing and pollution. But I don’t want to encourage climate doom and pessimism—there is still hope. Action to protect our planet is on the rise. Look at Brazil, where indigenous activists like Txai Suruí fight to defend their land against deforestation, and the President who pledges to protect the Amazon. At this point in time it is essential to redirect anger and frustration, not at damaged property or disruptive activists, but at our government’s lack of meaningful action against climate change.
[Lauren McLauren - she/her]
27