Climate Activists Who Threw Soup at van Gogh Painting Are Changing Tactics
The group said on Thursday that it had achieved its primary goal of preventing new oil and gas licensing in Britain, and would soon be regrouping to plan its next phase of actions.
'We achieved what we set out to achieve,' James Skeet, a spokesman for the group, said in an interview.
Here's what to know.
The activists are known for attention-grabbing protests.
Just Stop Oil activists made headlines beginning in 2022 for: throwing tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh's 'Sunflowers,' gluing themselves to John Constable's 'The Hay Wain,' and smashing the glass that protected Diego Velázquez's 'Rokeby Venus.'
The group has said that it used the tactics to convey the urgency of the climate crisis, and draw attention to the political and social changes needed to tackle it. The group has noted that its actions have not damaged the masterpieces, and that the works were specifically chosen because they were protected by glass. But critics have argued that some of the works' centuries-old frames were harmed.
A wave of similar protest actions began in Paris when a man smeared cake on the Mona Lisa, and others occurred in Germany, Italy and the United States.
Just Stop Oil, which also disrupted sporting events, awards shows and live theater, as well as spraying the monoliths at Stonehenge with orange powder, grew out of Extinction Rebellion, a British environmentalist group that promoted nonviolent protests to push governments to address the climate crisis.
Officials condemned the stunts, and some activists got jail time.
Politicians, museum managers and many others on social media have condemned the group's actions. In Britain, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called Just Stop Oil 'a disgrace,' and Keir Starmer, the current leader, called the group 'pathetic' after its Stonehenge protest.
Many of the activists who participated in the 2022 protests at the National Gallery in London were arrested, and some were sentenced to jail time. A judge sentenced two of the activists who threw soup at the 'Sunflowers' painting to about two years in jail in 2024, and a protester who glued himself to the frame of another van Gogh work was sentenced to three weeks in prison in 2022. The case of the activists involved in the Stonehenge protests is ongoing.
The activists who threw soup at 'Sunflowers' had their sentences upheld this month. But six activists who were convicted of conspiracy for blocking a major highway near London in 2022 during a Just Stop Oil protest had their sentences reduced.
Mr. Skeet said 15 people were currently in prison related to Just Stop Oil protests and 16 others were facing sentencing in the coming months.
The museum campaign also had its defenders. They argued that the actions drew needed attention to the climate crisis. It also sparked a debate about whether vandalizing art should be a vehicle for protest.
They met their goal: a ban on new licenses for oil and gas.
Mr. Skeet, the group's spokesman, said Just Stop Oil was narrowly focused on pushing for an end to new oil and gas licensing in Britain. The Labour Party, which swept into power last year, committed to a ban on new licensees for oil and gas, and doubled down on its pledge this month.
The group's final action will take place in London on April 26, but the organization made clear on its website that it will be 'a lower-risk action, and we won't be pushing for arrest.'
Mr. Skeet added: 'The idea around the strategy was to aim for a winnable demand and basically sort of prove the effectiveness of the tactics, essentially. We've done so. So now it's on to moving on to the next thing.'
What's next for the group?
'My first priority is to take a break,' Mr. Skeet said. He said the last few years have exhausted many of the members.
Mr. Skeet also said that the group's style of protesting has become increasingly criminalized since the organization first began. In 2023, a new law, the Public Order Act, gave the police in England and Wales more power to detain and charge protesters. Mr. Skeet said the group would need to 'assess the lay of the land' before regrouping for further action.
'Obviously the work isn't done yet,' Mr. Skeet said, noting that average global temperatures have continued to climb in recent years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Column: History shows that summits are unpredictable
Alaska carries a lot of symbolism, especially for Americans. The phrase 'North to Alaska' is the title of a popular song performed by Johnny Horton, a rockabilly singer of the 1950s, and a 1960 film starring John Wayne. Both song and film are earthy and gritty, emphasizing the uncertainty of life. That sentiment is appropriate to open a discussion about the Alaska summit between Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Donald Trump of the United States. At a minimum, talking is preferable to fighting. As Winston Churchill observed, 'To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.' The great British leader made that statement in 1954, when the Soviet-U.S. Cold War was intense. He knew what he was talking about. Churchill had participated in five separate wars on four continents before he was 42 years old. He is also credited with coining the term 'summit' to describe consequential meetings between leaders. During World War II, the first encounter was between him and President Franklin D. Roosevelt in August of 1941, off the coast of Newfoundland, four months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of the last of the war was held in Yalta, on the southern coast of Crimea, early in 1945. Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union was at Yalta and others. The Newfoundland summit resulted in the Atlantic Charter, confirmation of human rights that laid the foundation for the United Nations. The Yalta summit acknowledged Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, and later fed intense partisan criticism and recriminations in the U.S. as Republicans attacked FDR for allegedly 'selling out' to communists. In short, summits are unpredictable, and results are dependent on many factors, including the personalities of the leaders involved. Regarding the Alaska summit, potentially important mixed symbolic history is involved. Putin is meeting on U.S. soil rather than on more traditional neutral ground, such as Geneva, Switzerland. The venue also implies Trump's publicly stated fascination with northern latitudes, including specifically his fantasies about annexing both Canada and Greenland, the latter a territory of Denmark. Leaders in neither Ottawa nor Copenhagen have concurred with these suggestions. Alaska was a territory of Imperial Russia before purchase by the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million. Secretary of State William Seward, who initiated the deal, was severely criticized at the time and afterwards. Acquiring the territory was widely referred to as 'Seward's Folly.' The purchase did head off Alaska's acquisition by Great Britain. Seward carried the day thanks to impressive political skill and general prestige. A powerful Republican leader from New York, he was a rival of Abraham Lincoln for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination. He joined Lincoln's Cabinet, and became a close ally and friend during the Civil War. Events of later years, including especially the discovery of gold in Alaska, led to belated appreciation of his territorial acquisition. Before the summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was adamant about not surrendering territory, while Putin has demanded such concessions. Either way, two-way or three-way discussions could lay the foundation for later agreement. President Trump stresses the importance of effective negotiation, and he should relish this opportunity. Soviet economic weakness led to eventual collapse; Russia's economy remains weak. Trump's threat of increased sanctions doubtless led Putin to agree to meet in Alaska.
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
Russia Has 'Strong Incentive' To Deploy More Destructive Nukes: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Russia has a "strong incentive" to use more destructive nuclear weapons as Western militaries build up their missile arsenals and improve their air defenses, according to a new report. "Russian nuclear strategy appears to be at an inflection point," said an analysis published on Tuesday by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British defense think tank. Newsweek has contacted the Russian Ministry of Defense for comment via email. Why It Matters The U.S. provides the vast majority of NATO's nuclear deterrent. Together, Russia and the U.S. have a grip on about 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. Nuclear rhetoric and threats have limned the almost three and a half years of full-scale war in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin put Russia's nuclear deterrence forces on high alert as Moscow's forces poured into Ukraine in early 2022, and the Kremlin's veteran foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said a few months later that the risks of nuclear conflict had become "considerable." Russian officials have repeatedly said this month that the Kremlin does not consider itself bound any more by previous restrictions on short-range and intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles. The Knyaz Pozharsky nuclear-powered Borei-A class submarine is moored at a pier in Severodvinsk, Russia, on July 24. The Knyaz Pozharsky nuclear-powered Borei-A class submarine is moored at a pier in Severodvinsk, Russia, on July 24. Alexander Kazakov, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP What To Know Moscow believes Washington can more easily take out its ability to launch a nuclear strike, according to RUSI's report. The Kremlin also assesses that improvements to NATO's air defenses could interfere with any strategy where Russia would use nuclear weapons "in a calibrated or dosed way, as part of a regional war," the report said. This "creates a strong incentive to employ nuclear weapons at a larger scale than is consistent with dosing," it continued. Strategic nuclear weapons are deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and those fired from bomber aircraft. They are thought of as the missiles that could level entire cities and threaten major global superpowers. They are limited under the New START Treaty that is due to expire in early 2026. Unlike strategic weapons, tactical nuclear weapons—or nonstrategic weapons—have a smaller yield and are designed for use on the battlefield or in what is known as a specific theater. Western estimates typically put Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal at somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 warheads. The U.S. has an estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons, with about half deployed at European bases. In 1987, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed an agreement known as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which banned nuclear and conventional missiles able to strike between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310 and 3,400 miles). The treaty is no longer in effect and does not bind either state. The U.S. formally pulled out of the INF Treaty in mid-2019, during President Donald Trump's first term in office. Washington had accused Moscow of breaching the terms of the agreement by developing the SSC-8, also known as the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile. NATO also accused Russia of violating the treaty, which Moscow denied. Both sides had suspended participation months earlier. Russia then said it would not deploy missiles banned under this treaty "until U.S.-manufactured missiles of similar classes" were rolled out, known as the INF moratorium. The U.S. has deployed its Mid-Range Capability missile system, which can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of about 1,000 miles, to the northern Philippines. Putin said on August 1 that Moscow would deliver Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missiles to Belarus by the end of 2025. Russia fired the experimental missile at central Ukraine in November 2024. That month, Moscow updated its nuclear doctrine to justify a nuclear strike in response to an attack on Russia by a nonnuclear country if it is backed by a nuclear-armed nation. U.S. nuclear strategy during Trump's previous term in office steered Washington toward "flexibility and range" with its nuclear weapons, including by modifying some Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads to be lower-yield. The U.S. first deployed the low-yield Trident warheads in early 2020. What People Are Saying Jon Wolfsthal, Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda, from the Federation of American Scientists, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in June: "Many of the most dangerous ideas from the Cold War are being resurrected: lower-yield weapons to fight 'limited' nuclear wars; blockbuster missiles that could destroy multiple targets at once; the redeployment of a whole class of missiles once banned and destroyed by treaty."
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: It's safe for oil tankers to go back to B.C.'s north coast
In 2017, the Trudeau government introduced Bill C-48, which imposed an oil tanker moratorium on British Columbia's north coast, replacing the voluntary 'tanker exclusion zone' in place since 1985. Public discourse about such measures has been partly guided by the fear of a massive oil spill similar to the one caused by the Exxon Valdez in 1989. The Exxon Valdez was a single-hulled tanker with an inexperienced hand at the wheel, a captain below deck and a broken collision-avoidance radar system. The accident spilled 37,000 tonnes of oil into Alaskan waters, resulting in a major environmental disaster. Supporters of the tanker moratorium believe nothing has changed since 1989. But it has. The Exxon Valdez spill instigated major changes in the international regulation of global shipping and in measures to minimize accidents, design tankers and contain and clean up spills when they occur. Single-hull tankers have been completely phased out. For more than 10 years now all new vessels have had to be double-hulled. The measures taken have resulted in global seaborne oil spills declining from an annual average of 2,340 barrels per day in the 1980s to about 100 barrels per day since 2010 — even as tanker shipments have doubled to about 60 million barrels per day. The annual number of spills exceeding seven tonnes has declined by 90 per cent since the 1970s. Canada's performance in avoiding and reducing oil spills has been even better. In recent years, spills of crude oil and refined products in Canadian waters have been so small they are now measured in litres, not tonnes. In 2024, the Canadian National Aerial Surveillance Program, which monitors marine spills, reported 19 greater than 10 litres in volume, for a total estimated volume of 739 litres — less than one tonne. Not only are spills much less common but Canada's ability to respond quickly and clean them up is much improved. The federal government has established a national ship-source oil spill regime involving prevention, preparedness, response, liability and compensation. The Canadian Coast Guard is the on-water operator to ensure that responses to marine incidents are 'effective, efficient and appropriate.' It works closely with regional response organizations such as the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC), which operates off the Pacific coast. These organizations are responsible for responding to spills up to 10,000 tonnes. Why 10,000 tonnes? Because that is equivalent to the largest spill in Canadian history, which occurred off the Nova Scotia coast over 50 years ago. The worst spill off Canada's Pacific coast was 240 tonnes, caused by the sinking of B.C. Ferries' Queen of the North in 2006. In 2013, the WCMRC said it had the capacity to quickly recover about 26,000 tonnes and was continuing to grow. It has doubled its fleet of response vessels from 44 to 88 and increased its workforce from about 30 to over 200 full-time employees. In 2010, Det Norske Veritas, an international certification body and classification society, performed a risk analysis of the marine shipping component of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. It estimated the risks in terms of 'return periods,' i.e., the average number of years expected between spills. It concluded that with proper mitigation measures an oil spill of up to 5,000 cubic metres (31,400 barrels) would occur every 350 years and a spill exceeding 20,000 cubic metres (126,000 barrels) every 550 years. Terence Corcoran: Finally, maybe, a real climate science debate Jack Mintz: Is Canada the most European non-EU country? Let's hope not! In sum, Canada's ability to respond to and clean up oil spills has improved substantially while the actual number of spills and risk of future spills has declined sharply. By any reasonable standard, the public policy rationale for a moratorium on tanker traffic off the northern British Columbia coast has essentially disappeared. Decisions on new energy infrastructure should be based on facts, not fear. Continuing the tanker moratorium effectively blocks approval and construction of an oil pipeline from Alberta to the northern B.C. coast from where crude would be shipped by tanker to Pacific markets, thus expanding Canada's market access to countries other than the United States and achieving the energy resurgence the federal government claims to support. Robert Lyman is a retired energy economist. Sign in to access your portfolio
