They believe they will win support for climate change by gluing themselves to walls of museums, disrupting traffic by having a sit-in or storming the field of the annual congressional baseball game.
One does have to wonder what rock slabs fashioned together by Neolithic people and those of the Bronze Age 5,000 years ago has to do with the message of the “stop oil” movement. Or what the mysterious smile of “Mona Lisa” possibly conveys about the effects of fossil fuels in a modern-day world.
A recent poll found that this brand of ecoactivism usually backfires on the cause of promoting action to combat climate change and it matters little to those surveyed if the “Mona Lisa” was covered by a barrier, thus reportedly avoiding permanent damage. For those polled, it is an affront to what a civilized world holds dear. The lack of a direct link between the offensive action and the cause itself underscores the repugnant nature — and criminality — of the vandalism or other acts. The examples of this brand of ecoterrorism abound:
- Three people were arrested in connection with the Just Stop Oil climate protest that involved throwing orange powder paint on Stonehenge in England on June 19. While the paint washed off, the act of removing it could erode the fragile stone and damage the lichen, authorities said. The act was connected with the movement’s demand that the United Kingdom end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030, the BBC reported.
- In January, a pair of activists threw soup on the “Mona” Lisa painting at the Louvre Museum in Paris. The liquid splattered across bullet-proof glass protecting the art work. “What is more important? Art or the right to have a healthy and sustainable food system?” they said in French before museum security guards led them away. “Our agricultural system is sick.”
- Claude Monet’s “Poppy Field” painting was defaced with a sticker that covered half the painting with an apocalyptic vision of the same scene. The protester was from French environmental activist group Riposte Alimentaire (”Food Counterattack”). The group is part of the A22 movement, a coalition of climate activism organizations, such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, known for similar stunts, according to the Daily Mail.
Although these climate activists are drawing attention with their brash acts, a poll says the vandalism is not effective and even backfires.
Damaging the cause by damaging cherished art, places
The Center for Science, Sustainability & The Media at Penn University conducted two surveys examining public opinion around these types of vandalism.
“Overall, we find that the public disapproves of non-violent, disruptive climate protests. A plurality of respondents (46%) report that these tactics decrease their support for efforts to address climate change. Only 13% report increasing support,” it said.
The polls did find variations of support depending on ethnic and political affiliation.
“White respondents and Republicans were both more likely to report that these efforts decrease their support compared with Black or Hispanic and Democratic respondents,” the university noted.
And while potentially sympathetic supporters or the media may be quick to point out a lack of lasting damage with some of these acts of vandalism, that fact did not dissuade public opinion.
“We find no difference in support for these efforts when we vary whether respondents are asked about ‘damaging pieces of art’ or ‘pretending to damage pieces of art,’ it said. The resulting disapproval was basically the same, according to the survey.
When drilling down into the numbers, the university looked at political affiliations when it comes to approval or disapproval of these acts of eco terrorism.
“Sixty-nine percent of Republicans report that these non-violent, disruptive protests decrease their support for climate action, compared to only 27% among Democrats. It is noteworthy, however, that even Democrats are more likely to report a decrease (27%) than an increase (21%) in support. Moreover, independents, who might be critical in establishing majority support for aggressive climate policies, express strong disapproval of the tactics, with 43% reporting a decrease in support and only 11% reporting an increase,” the university said.
From art to infrastructure
In April of this year, a trio of GOP lawmakers opened a probe into potential threats against critical domestic energy infrastructure after a spike in calls for violence by “radical” ecoterrorists on U.S. college campuses and across the globe.
In information provided on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability’s website, it said that last year, it was reported that the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate issued a bulletin to federal, state and local authorities warning that the film adaptation of the book “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” could spark ecoterrorism against U.S. energy infrastructure. “In addition to the FBI’s warnings, 23 other government entities, including a Canadian energy regulator, also issued warnings relating to the impacts of the film and the threat it might create in the context of environmental violent extremism,” the website said.
FBI director Christopher Wray was noted as saying the book is required reading at multiple universities and “totally” unacceptable. Harvard University, in fact, showcased the movie on its campus in March last year and described the movie this way: “Part revenge thriller, part political fable of what could be an act of ‘productive terrorism,’ ‘How to Blow Up a Pipeline’ is a timely exploration of the energy of young bodies when they are set for political action, and its possible cinematographic forms.”
In their letter to Wray, the lawmakers noted: “The director, the writer, and the editor of the film adaptation of the book appeared on a podcast justifying ecoterrorism against infrastructure, arguing that destroying energy infrastructure should be construed legally as ‘self-defense’ and that the definition of terrorism doesn’t include acts against infrastructure.”
In a similar fashion, Just Stop Oil justifies its actions against art whether it be cake or tomato soup directed at priceless works.
“I think is interesting because that artwork was not vandalized, it had a sheet of glass on it. So really what everyone was becoming so outraged about was a bit of soup thrown on a piece of glass,” Emma Brown, spokesperson for Just Stop Oil told PBS. “And unfortunately, there’s no pane of glass protecting the life support systems that we need to survive, you know. There’s no pane of glass protecting the people in Pakistan from the devastating flooding. There’s no pane of glass protecting the 146 million people in Africa that are suffering like drought related starvation.”
Some scholars, too, have argued ecoterrorism or sabotage has a defense in terms of protecting human rights in the face of human-caused climate change.
Government leaders, Musk and others respond
In reaction to acts of vandalism, Italy’s parliament passed tough new laws strengthening the penalties, including the assessment of a fine that could exceed more than $60,000 for someone who engages in defacing art or heritage objects.
Last year, the French government de-legalized a climate change organization after it had targeted projects such as reservoirs, highways, and industrial agriculture to raise awareness about climate change and environmental protection. The group was called Earth Uprising and had been involved in violent clashes with police that left hundreds injured.
An arson fire this year at Berlin’s Tesla factory halted production and was targeted by a far-left group over the amount of resources and labor it uses.
NPR reported that police confirmed they are investigating a confession posted online by the far-left “Volcano Group,” which called for the “complete destruction of the Gigafactory” because the group alleged Tesla “eats up earth, resources, people and labor” and “spits out 6,000 SUVs, killer machines and monster trucks a week.”
The outlet also reported: “(Elon) Musk wrote on X, formerly Twitter, ‘These are either the dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth or they’re puppets of those who don’t have good environmental goals.’ Using the German words for ‘extremely stupid,’ he added that ‘stopping production of electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, ist extrem dumm.’”
Rikki Hrenko-Browning, president of the Utah Petroleum Association, wryly noted that the Just Stop Oil group used orange paint powder made of petrochemicals to get its point across at Stonehenge.
“I do think it’s a symptom of the lack of willingness to have discourse, to have an honest discussion and to listen to the concerns of the other side. And that goes both ways. People just aren’t willing to engage in discussions with people that have differing views with them, and I think it’s just pushed the fringe to be more and more aggressive and undertake bizarre things like this,” she said.
Logan Mitchell, a climate scientist and energy analyst with Utah Clean Energy, is an ardent supporter for clean energy and the transition away from fossil fuels who is dismayed at the ecoterrorism acts targeting cultural landmarks and works of art.
“Their theory is that it raises awareness. But quite honestly, I think it’s counterproductive. I think they say like, ‘Oh, we’re not permanently damaging these things,’ but it creates a permission structure, or it’s trying to normalize these damaging or defacing acts of these things that have real cultural importance,” he said.
Mitchell added he is worried that groups will take it to the next level and do actual damage by using real paint or other means to destroy treasures. And like Hrenko-Browning, he said thoughtful discussions need to take place — not acts like this.
“It’s just a colossal waste of human ingenuity to spend time focused on that. I think if they spent half of the amount of time they planned for that event and actually went and talked to people and tried to reduce emissions, tried to engage with policymakers, they would be so much more wildly effective than creating a big controversy and generating a bunch of bad will.”
Mitchell noted he has a doctorate in geology, studying the planet and its endurance through time.
“The reason I care about climate change is because I see it as something that can cause suffering and I think it is a threat,” he said. “I’m used to looking at climate changes over millions of years, and like the Earth is going to be here. No matter what we do, Earth is going to be fine. I think life will persist,” he said. " But what’s beautiful about this world that we live in is the humanity in our civilization — the amount of creative works and art and the flourishing that we’ve been able to create. It is worth protecting and it is very special.”