As temperatures rise and cases of extreme weather become more common, conversations on global warming and how to save the planet need to happen. Peaceful protests are ways to start these conversations. However, in some cases, these protests hurt the cause rather than help it.
In October, two women from the protest group Just Stop Oil threw soup on the celebrated Van Gogh painting, “Sunflower,” and then glued their hands to the wall. In a video of the demonstration, one of the protesters said: “What is worth more, art or life? Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?” Although the actual painting was not damaged, the protesters were arrested. Just Stop Oil and these two protestors have received much backlash from other environmental groups, politicians, and many others via social media.
This raises the question: what does Just Stop Oil want? The group originates from England, mainly protesting against the overuse of oil and fossil fuels by British companies and the government that allows them to continue this. Just Stop Oil also wants the British government to invest in renewable energy to lower emission rates. Although claiming to protest in a civil manner, the group is known for its disrupting forms of protests with a man tying himself to a goalpost during an soccer game and several disturbances at oil terminals.
Soon after the protest, videos and pictures of the women were shared over the media, and millions were understandably outraged. However, many articles forced the protest into a bad light as many refused to mention, or mentioned later in the article, that the painting was not even damaged. Even prominent papers like The New York Times, only briefly referenced this fact towards the end of the article.
Many such as Micael E. Mann, an American climatologist, have expressed their distaste for protests similar to this one. “And as someone who also studies what makes for effective climate communication,” he writes, “I worry that events like this could harm the cause to which I (and so many) have devoted my life.” Mann and many other activists worry that the choice of such a prized painting (estimated it is worth $81 million) will place a negative frame on all climate protests.
What causes this situation to be even worse is the fact that the message of this protest is unclear. The actions of the protesters are focused more on shock rather than meaning. Although the women did wear shirts with the organization’s name in bold, the crowd focused more on their actions. Of course, not all of the negativity is caused by the protesters. The majority of people read the headlines or notifications on their phones and form their own opinions on the topic without ever learning the fact that the painting was not even damaged itself.
As climate change becomes more of an immediate issue, it is important to raise awareness; however, the destruction of a famous painting will only cause scrutiny for the cause as many already spread lies and doubts about global warming and whether it is even veritable.
