Words by:  Hilma Halil 
Art by:  Jasper Kidman

Climate change activism is necessary. But, as controversial as it may be to ask, is there a point where it becomes too much?

Just Stop Oil, a UK-based environmental protest group, has gained notoriety for its disruptive stunts in the name of protecting the planet. But do these actions galvanise the public or alienate them? Do we need louder, bolder protests, or is there a risk that extreme defiance becomes counterproductive, even when the cause is just?

As someone who deeply cares about the environment, I find myself conflicted. We do need urgent and systemic change and sometimes that requires disruption. Yet I wonder, when does defiance stop making a difference and start working against its own message?

Let me be clear, Just Stop Oil’s mission is rooted in urgent truth. The continued use of oil, gas and coal is accelerating our climate crisis. Scientists, activists and even some world leaders agree we are running out of time. If business continues as usual, the next generation will face consequences we can barely imagine.

But does splattering soup across The Mona Lisa or throwing paint at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers move people to act, or does it desensitise the public and derail the conversation? 

Just Stop Oil would argue yes (obviously, as they were the group that did this). They believe peaceful protests have been ignored for too long.
Their solution?
Disruption. Force the conversation. Make people uncomfortable. Get attention at any cost.

To be fair, they have succeeded in turning their stunts into headline magnets. Their extreme methods reignited climate change conversation back on the front page, cutting through a media cycle flooded with celebrity gossip and viral trends. That kind of visibility is a powerful accomplishment.

In a world of activism, there are typically two ways to elevate a cause. Firstly, by building mass support through awareness and unity.
Secondly, by pressuring those in power through disruption.
Just Stop Oil successfully falls into the latter. However, I struggle to agree with their methods. 

Inconvenience does not equal impact. 

For instance, gluing yourself to a busy intersection and potentially preventing people from getting to work, or worse, delaying an ambulance from getting to the hospital does not cause empathy. It doesn’t make a point. Instead, it endangers lives and fuels resentment and cynicism among the public, the very people you need on your side. 

While The Mona Lisa and Van Gogh’s Sunflowers remain unharmed, the shock value of Just Stop Oil’s stunt still overshadows their intended message. They unintentionally allow people to remember it as a vandalism act instead of something noble, changing their narrative from climate change to public nuisance. 

If their end goal is to garner attention and support from more people, why does it seem like they’re yearning for people to oppose them? 

There’s a fine line between courageous defiance and alienation. 

When that line is crossed, protest becomes counterproductive. 

So, can defiance inspire? Absolutely. Some of history’s most powerful movements relied on strategic disruption to shift public consciousness. However, this only works if urgency is balanced with empathy. 

Protests should start conversations and encourage more people to join them, not shut them down. While outrage can be a catalyst, it shouldn’t be the whole strategy. 

There is no doubt that climate change demands bold, urgent action. But bold doesn’t always have to mean chaotic. Sometimes the loudest message is one that invites people in, rather than pushes them away.

Just Stop Oil made us look. But now the question is, will we truly listen?

Perhaps more importantly, what kind of activism will inspire the world to act, not out of guilt or shock, but out of hope?