Calling out Climate Activists
Since the beginning of May 2022, climate change protesters have been throwing soup on famous works of art and gluing themselves to museum walls to protest fossil fuel extraction and other actions that damage the planet. “Mona Lisa” by Leonardo da Vinci, “The Scream” by Edvard Munch and “Sunflowers” by Vincent van Gogh are all artworks that have been targeted. Fortunately, reports say that the historical paintings have not been permanently damaged due to their protective glass casing (USA Today). Despite the motive behind the protests, the activists’ tactics were drastic but ineffective; defacing famous works of art does not contribute to the effort of mitigating climate change.
“[Throwing soup at famous works of art] serves for shock value and shock value only,” sophomore Neekta Bahoolizadeh said. “Seeing someone defacing important cultural symbols is not going to give climate activism any better a name.”
That is not to say that climate change is not an issue. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), record-high temperatures have been recorded in the past decade. Reports mention concern about how the high temperatures have led to drought in many places, including the western U.S. and Mexico. The droughts have increased the risk of wildfire, an impact that California has felt greatly. In 2022 alone, 104 buildings in CA were damaged and 722 were destroyed completely because of wildfires. To prevent further harm being done to the planet, people must bring attention to the problem and protest the inaction.
The activists that threw soup over famous artworks were right in calling attention to the problem of global warming. But despite their intentions, the activists’ protests were fruitless and hurt the movement to decrease global warming more than it helped. Paintings such as the “Mona Lisa” have long been a part of a country’s cultural history, and their countries’ people are proud to boast about such achievements. By defacing their paintings, the activists were essentially insulting the culture’s achievements and pride. Additionally, it is not as if damaging artwork does anything to benefit the planet; they are unrelated to the declining health of Earth, which is what made the protest futile.
“The soup did nothing besides creating a negative view on [the activists],” sophomore Suhani Parekh said. “It is the little things like [recycling and reducing food waste] that matter [instead]. If everyone does their part it adds up.”
Rather than protest in disrespectful and unproductive methods, individuals can work toward improving the environment by monitoring their carbon and water footprint — the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere and the amount of water used on a day to day basis. Some easy ways to do this include cutting down on food waste and recycling. By reducing food waste, less crops and meat are wasted, leading to a decrease in the amount produced. Recent studies show that the average U.S. citizen throws away 40% of the food they buy; by purchasing less, carbon emissions would be reduced. Recycling is another huge factor in reducing carbon emissions as reusing resources lessens the amount taken from the environment. Additionally, demonstrations go a long way to bringing attention to the problem. However, defacing priceless art and culture does not encourage people to support a cause because it insults different cultures and has the adverse effect of giving a negative reputation to the cause. Instead, petitions and organized protests can bring positive awareness to the problem of climate change.
“I think [the activists] give out more hatred and negativity by drawing attention to themselves in the media instead of protesting in a civil and nonviolent way that educates people to join their cause,” junior Vayuna Pradhan said. “Ultimately, [they] hurt people [that] cherished the irreplaceable artwork.”
