What do tomato soup, flatbed trailers, and spilled milk all have in common? They are all connected to different climate change-related protests that garnered negative press. It’s not necessarily surprising though; humans have always influenced the world in drastic ways.
Unfortunately, one of the ways in which we have drastically shifted life on Earth is by impacting our environment through reckless activities. One of these impacts is climate change. It is an undeniable reality that climate change exists: Over 100 billion tons of ice melt each year in Antarctica alone, the average global temperature is increasing, and countless species go extinct every day.
Many of these changes are largely due to the presence of excessive human consumption, which is why a fair number of individuals have a compelling need to try and make environmental impacts wherever they go. Whether it is simply picking up trash on the sidewalk or protesting political decisions that affect the climate, there are a sizable amount of people around the world who are so passionate about this issue that they would be willing to do anything about it. But when does anything become too much?
Case in point: last October, two protesters threw tomato soup at Van Gogh’s painting “Sunflowers” in London. Upon receiving an extreme response, they glued themselves to the wall and asked the distraught onlookers what they valued more: the soup-covered painting, or the planet. Eventually, the situation was quelled, and the story —as the protesters were hoping— went viral. So yes, their goal was definitely achieved: by publicly doing something drastic, news of the incident spread, which would then be associated with climate activism.
However, the desired outcome came with major backlash. Many saw the protest as not only negative, but counterintuitive to its intent, with one individual present during the scene saying that they “may be trying to get people to think about the issues but all they end up doing is getting people really annoyed and angry.” A simple google search of the event shows the painting doused in soup, with news headlines like “Oil Protesters Appear in Court,” “Vincent Van Gogh Painting Targeted,” and “Van Gogh is Crying, but Heinz is Happy!” to name a few. Very much a negative connotation to an issue that cannot afford bad press, especially after an incident that occurred just months before in the high-end retailer Harrods, when another climate activist group spilled milk all over the store floor and were heavily criticized for food waste.
Additionally, recent polling revealed that a plurality of individuals have decreased support for climate change efforts when exposed to disruptive demonstrative tactics, whether it be in person or hearing about it via the media. Conclusion? The general public does not respond well to these types of protests.
Yet, despite all this, it is interesting to note that if looked into further, what actually happened was not at all the defacement of a priceless artwork, but a well thought-out demonstration that was meant to be nonviolent. In fact, a skimming of most articles on the incident mention that there was no way the painting could have been damaged since it was fully shielded by protective glass the entire time.
This poses the inquiry that perhaps the reason why most people have a more negative view of these events isn’t because of what actually happened, but because of what they immediately saw on the news when first hearing about it. This makes sense: news and media outlets are known to severely shape public opinion, but nevertheless, these types of protests would be much more effective if the way in which the media presented them was less geared towards a flash headline and more towards actual coverage of the story. The probability of that happening is quite low, however, so doing protests of this nature —regardless of how harmless it may be— will still have a negative effect on the general populace, making these tactics unhelpful towards the actual need to spread awareness about climate change.
It is not only the actions of the media that need to be taken into account, however. An excellent example of the role of police in these situations happened on August 27 of this year, when activists directly caused miles of backup traffic by parking a flatbed trailer on the singular road that thousands of vehicles used to get to the Burning Man Festival in Nevada. Less than a minute after law enforcement arrived, a ranger drove straight through the blockade, nearly hitting four of the protesters. Despite them being nonviolent, one officer pulled out a firearm and said that he “was going to take all of (them) out.” This ordeal is yet another example of how climate-related demonstrations are linked with several factors that are counterintuitive to the desired outcome, which is positive feedback and press.
It could be argued that protests of this nature will always receive negative press of some sort, and while that much is true, protests need to make sense in order to bring about real and substantial change instead of outright havoc. Take, for instance, the bus boycotts of 1955, sparked by Rosa Parks’s refusal to move seats. This nonviolent protest made sense, because it was directly linked to the issue, which was a motion to desegregate public transit. Throwing soup at paintings or wasting gallons of milk by pouring it out on the floor does not have as much of a direct link, causing more confusion and not as strong of an impact. If climate change activists want to truly shift public opinion, strides need to be made to tackle and protest a specific issue, not to simply get people’s attention by doing outlandish things.
Humans have always influenced the world in drastic ways. and with this comes great responsibility. We have the ability to change things for the better, and it is up to us whether or not we change things intelligently.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.