Table of Contents¹

• Part I: Introduction

• Part II: The Limits of Policy

• Part III: What to Do?

On October 14th, two protestors approached Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” in the National Gallery of London. Their intention was not just to simply admire the work, but to throw tomato soup onto the oil painting, shortly before gluing themselves to the wall. But, in what must be devastating news to any Van Gogh haters out there, the painting was protected from any harm by a sheet of glass.

On October 23rd, the day I’m writing this, German protestors had similar intentions for Monet’s “Les Meules”. Once again, they didn’t bother to escape the law, just took to gluing their hands to the wall. And once again, the glass stopped the potatoes from embedding themselves in art history.

1. What Happened?

The whole thing is pretty bizarre. First question any rational person would like to ask is why? It pretty obviously is a symbolic gesture, after all, they did it in the open, going as far as to glue themselves to the wall right next to the scene of the crime. Not to mention who these protestors are. The Londoners are affiliated with “Just Stop Oil!”, a climate activist group. Whereas the Germans belong to Last Generation… a climate activist group. Hmm.

Well, there’s not much mystery here. Not to mention that the German protestors were kind enough to provide a speech outlining their intentions:

So, yeah. To put two and two together, the stunts were intended to raise awareness about climate issues, by sparking controversy and thus giving the protestors a platform to talk about whatever. They were banking on outrage towards their actions as a way to demonstrate how little seriousness with which the public approaches climate issues. In that sense, they got what they wanted. The videos have gone viral, and now there is discussion on the urgency of the climate issue and whether or not a painting matters more than the planet.

It’s a debate as old as time. One man will say “how dare they try and destroy something so prized over such a petty stunt”, another will say “our planet matters far more than a stupid painting, do you not see these people are simply scared”. Another may respond with “yes, we need to do something, but this will only turn people away from our cause”. The whole thing is comical, you’d be excused for mistaking this for a parody of the discourse that goes on every time there’s a riot or wave of crime.

I have no plans to join in the mud-fight for this one. Instead I think there’s value in discussing the pointlessness of it all, and segue that into a larger discussion about how really, the impotency of political action and how nobody is serious.

Impotency? Didn’t I say that the protestors got what they wanted? Well sure, in the sense that they wanted to put attention on their message and the message got attention. But what I want to focus on is what they want that attention towards and why specifically attention.

2. Explaining the Debate

Well, before we get into any of that, let’s start with the basics of the situation. As mentioned before, both incidents are tied to environmental organizations. Just Stop Oil, the organization behind the soup incident, seeks to pressure the UK government into blocking fossil fuel projects. They often do this by disrupting high profile events, in the hopes of getting coverage. Last Generation, the German group, employs similar tactics, but has a slightly different focus: they pitch themselves as part of the last generation who can stop climate change, and the generation who will suffer from its effects. That’s why in the clip earlier, you see them make such a big deal about starving in the year 2050.

Climate change is a rather popular topic, even the King of England has made it his pet issue. But to these groups, the efforts by mainstream politicians such as King Charles or Barack Obama are unserious. But how is that, when they have so much clout? Right away, this highlights a key divide in environmental activism.

A common criticism leveled at the protestors was that by vandalizing these paintings, all you’re doing is turning off people from environmental causes. But, while this is an obvious response, I’d argue it’s less striking than you’d think. It takes for granted this idea of political respectability necessarily being something good or conducive towards advancing a cause. Seems like common sense, especially given how this sort of negotiation and persuasion is part and parcel of liberal politics. Is that necessarily the case, though? Climate change isn’t exactly an obscure issue, it has some of the most famous and beloved figures speaking out about it.

It’s constantly relayed to us through our television, our politics, our press. Companies have begun selling “sustainable” products, politicians promise green energy and carbon taxes, YouTubers pledge to plant trees. Yet, why do the projections presented to us seem so bleak? Why are we, after more than 50 years of activism, being told that all hell is going to break loose within less than 50 years from now?

Why is it that when even liberals speak of the prospects of saving the planet, they do so with a latent anxiety, that even with all the clout they have, that it may just not happen? Why is it that when they celebrate their political victories as the salvation of our planet, they return again the next election to plead the public with the same urgency?

One can blame the climate change deniers, saying that they’re too stupid, that their obstruction and conspiracies are going to kill us all, but I don’t think that’s a valid excuse. The whole point of any sort of political approach, whether we’re talking about pitching environmentalism as something respectable and non-disruptive, or throwing soup on a painting, is to influence human behavior. If human behavior is not being changed, that implies an issue with your approach. If human behavior cannot be changed, that implies the futility of the effort to begin with.

These protestors belong to a camp of environmental activists who reject that sort of respectability. To them, treating climate policy as another horse to be traded undermines its importance, that stressing the non-disruption of climate policy allows it to be brushed under the rug easier, to allow people and institutions to change their behavior only in trivial ways. It might give high approval for “environmentalism” in nominal surveys: not because it adjusted the public towards environmentalism, but because it adjusted the meaning of the word “environmentalism” towards what is palatable.

But putting aside this debate, what’s really interesting is actually what both of these groups have in common: they base their perspective on this aforementioned axiom that politics is about influencing human behavior. Both of them identify a problem, and in order to solve that problem they see it necessary to win support and then funnel that support into an institution which will solve the problem for them.

Someone like Barack Obama believes that by addressing the public and crafting legislation through the proper venues, that this will provide the cause with enough favorability to win over voters, and in turn, legislators. Meanwhile the protestors believe that their actions will spark not acceptance, but anger and discussion to the point that the UK will eventually feel more pressure to take more drastic steps.