Finding Common Ground: Climate Activism
For our second edition of the column Tala and Gabe discussed climate activism, hoping to find some common ground.
Last October saw activists from Just Stop Oil throw tomato soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers before glueing themselves to the wall. Similar methods have been employed by activists supporting environmental causes and the impact of vandalism has proved controversial following much media discussion of this form of climate activism.
Considering the polarising nature of recent climate activism, for this edition of ‘Finding Common Ground’ we sat down with Tala Al-Kamil and Gabe Morrissey-Limb, both students at Leeds, to discuss their opinions. While Gabe was supportive of the activists’ methods, Tala has some doubts. We hoped they could find some common ground in their outlooks.
For Tala, there is a concern that vandalism of artwork was not the most effective tactic. “You’re getting media attention but at what cost? The cost of culture and the cost of people supporting the cause”. She expresses apprehension that this method threatens to isolate the public from environmental activism. This leads to a questioning of what the activists hope to achieve. Tala argues that if their goal is simply to gain media attention for their cause then they are proving successful. Yet, if they wish to increase widespread public support their approach is questionable. Instead, she stresses her faith in the use of law and litigation to achieve change and apply pressure to support environmental justice.
On the other hand, Gabe highlights how the Just Stop Oil protests have been effective in fuelling a conversation about climate change, raising awareness of the issue. He questions what other forms of activism will work, pointing to marches and motorway occupations as examples of unsuccessful approaches. “Right now, [activism is] the most efficient immediate action”. He accepts that the point of a protest is to disrupt and that an inevitable consequence of this is that some people will always be isolated from the cause.
The conversation briefly turns to the role that social media plays in forming people’s opinions on climate change. There had been much discussion on social media regarding the possibility that Just Stop Oil had been partly funded by an oil heiress. Gabe believes that misinformation around climate change on social media needs to face more regulation. Agreeing with this, Tala contends that social media has played a role in polarising the climate debate when, as a platform, it has the potential to make a significant difference.
As the conversation drew to a close, it was clear that Tala and Gabe share ‘common ground’ in their environmental worries and concern for the threat of climate change. Both are keen to stress that while no methods are perfect, taking action to support environmental justice is most important. In their discussion, Tala draws attention to rising sea levels in Tuvalu, an island in the Pacific Ocean, while Gabe mentions the UK’s heat waves last summer. Both agree that achieving change should not rest on the shoulders of activists as rich, powerful companies and countries are the main contributors to emissions damaging the climate.
Tala’s Post-Debate Reflections
What were you hoping to gain from this debate?
“I was hoping to hear another point of view. To hear another perspective and really consider it. You can always learn more about this topic”.
Strongest Argument?
“Whatever you can say about the protests, they are urgent. Although they are disruptive, they are like that for a reason. Considering that these protests are non-violent, I think that he’s right about how necessary they are”.
Has your opinion changed?
“Yes, I think going forward I will be more sympathetic. I have recently looked at the climate protests with scepticism. I will consider them more with Gabe’s positive perspective, he sees the good it can do in terms of galvanising support”.
Do you think the conversation was productive?
“I think it was productive. I don’t know that it was uplifting as it’s hard to have a conversation about the environment that does leave you feeling positive about the future. We were both listening to each other’s points and reacting to each other’s points with a lot of care and attention”.
Was there something that you would have wanted to discuss that was not raised?
“We could have spoken about COP27 more, but I feel like it’s almost good we didn’t get too technical because then it’s almost not an accessible conversation anymore. I’m glad with what we spoke about”.
Gabe’s Post-Debate Reflections
What were you hoping to gain from the debate?
“I was hoping to gain some insight into a different viewpoint on this topic and put my idea out there”.
Strongest argument?
“Tala’s point about using litigation to tackle climate change is very interesting. I agree with her that the goal of activists should be to change existing laws on this subject in order to achieve long-lasting change”.
Has your opinion changed?
“Yes, my opinion on the importance of litigation has changed. I neglected the significance of legal reform prior to this conversation and mainly focused on other methods of pressure politics”.
Do you think the conversation was productive?
“Yes, I think it was productive and interesting to talk to someone who does not necessarily have the same opinion as you especially on such a contentious issue”.
Was there something that you would have wanted to discuss that was not raised?
“I think we covered every topic that I wanted to cover”.
Image Credit: The Gryphon
