In a bold and controversial move, climate activists from the group Just Stop Oil have recently drawn significant attention to their cause by turning Stonehenge orange. Reporting on the incident, David Doel of The Rational National highlighted the activists’ use of cornstarch-based coloring, which they claim is washable and will not cause permanent damage to the ancient monument. This act has sparked a heated debate about the methods and effectiveness of such protests in raising awareness for climate issues. Let’s take a look at what happened.
The Incident
On the summer solstice, Just Stop Oil activists threw orange cornstarch on Stonehenge. David Doel reported their tweet: “Breaking: Just Stop Oil spray Stonehenge orange. Two people took action today for summer solstice demanding the incoming government sign up to a legally binding treaty to phase out fossil fuels by 2030.” The group chose Stonehenge, an iconic and highly visible location, to maximize the impact of their message.
The Response
The reaction to this act has been mixed. As Doel notes, while some onlookers were initially shocked, others, including some site workers, appeared relatively unperturbed. The activists reassured the public that the cornstarch-based coloring would wash away with the rain, posing no long-term threat to Stonehenge.
Effectiveness of Dramatic Demonstrations
Despite this, the incident has ignited a fierce debate over the appropriateness and effectiveness of such dramatic demonstrations. Personally, I think the debate is unnecessary because while they are fighting for a good cause, their methods only make people turn against them. It feels like they won’t achieve much because people will focus on what they did and not their goals.
Raising Funds and Awareness
Doel pointed out that the primary goal of the protest was to raise funds for Just Stop Oil’s ongoing campaign. The tactic seems to have worked, as the group reported nearing their fundraising goal within 12 hours of the incident. The funds are intended to support training, safe houses, and preparations for future actions. This approach underscores a broader strategy: using high-visibility stunts to drive donations and maintain public attention on climate issues.
Public Perception and Political Will
One of the main criticisms of such protests is that they might alienate potential supporters of the climate cause. Critics argue that defacing cultural landmarks could turn people against environmental activism. However, Doel counters this by emphasizing that public awareness and support for climate action are already high. The real challenge, he argues, lies in overcoming the political influence of fossil fuel companies and garnering the political will to enact meaningful change.
The Larger Context
In his discussion, Doel also referenced a report by the UN Environment Programme and UNESCO, which lists Stonehenge among 31 natural and cultural World Heritage sites vulnerable to climate change. The threats include rising temperatures, melting glaciers, and extreme weather events. This context highlights the irony of condemning the activists’ actions while ignoring the broader environmental threats to such sites.
Reactions from Authorities
Political figures like UK Labour leader Keir Starmer have condemned the protest, calling it “outrageous” and demanding that those responsible face the full force of the law. Doel finds this level of outrage disproportionate, especially when compared to the relative lack of response to more significant issues, such as the UK government’s approval of the Stonehenge Tunnel project, which could potentially strip the site of its World Heritage status.
“Doesn’t Help the Cause”
People in the comments shared their thoughts: “I hate to say it, but sh*t isn’t going to change until we ‘lose a generation or two!’ They don’t care. They’re not going to be here to deal with climate change. I’m in my 50’s, and I am very concerned about what things are going to be like for my grandkids in the future. But, sadly, we live in a world Of selfish, aholes. This younger generation gives me hope.”
Another commenter said: “If these stones have survived thousands of years’ worth of bird shit, I think they can withstand a little cornstarch…”
One person concluded: “That doesn’t help the cause. It just makes people hate those that fight the cause. No amount of historical art or monuments being damaged is going to move people to do what you want. This could cause a reverse effect. This is going to give power to those who want to make things worse.”
A Larger Trend
The incident at Stonehenge is part of a larger trend of climate activism aimed at drawing urgent attention to the climate crisis. Doel argues that such acts, while controversial, are designed to provoke thought and discussion. The activists aim to disrupt the status quo and force people to confront the realities of climate change and the urgent need for action. The debate about the effectiveness is still ongoing, but I think there are better ways to draw attention to serious issues.
Are Dramatic Acts of Protest Effective?
What do you think? Do you believe that dramatic acts of protest, like the one at Stonehenge, are effective in raising awareness and driving change for climate issues? Why or why not? What are the ethical implications of using cultural and historical landmarks in climate protests? How should activists balance the need for visibility with respect for heritage sites?
For an in-depth look, view the complete video on The Rational National’s YouTube channel here.
