Is Targeting Expensive Artwork a Valid Climate Change Protest?

A recent string of climate protests have targeted acclaimed works of art to draw attention to ongoing ecological damage stemming from fossil fuels. Are they effective, or too outlandish?

For Context: Earlier this month, two individuals affiliated with the climate activist group Just Stop Oil threw cans of tomato soup at the glass casing of Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting at the London National Gallery. The protest drew major attention, criticism, and discussion on the efficacy of the demonstration and the broader movement of climate activism. The protestors were aware the painting was protected by a glass shield, and it was back on display six hours after the demonstration.

Key Quotes: "What is worth more, art or life?", said one of the protesters. "Is it worth more than food, worth more than justice?"

How the Media Covered It: A writer for Vox argued that the prospect of losing a valuable artwork "allows us to seriously confront the degree to which we as a society collectively dismiss and downplay climate change." Other voices across the spectrum were skeptical or outright critical of the protest, with one Washington Examiner writer stating that "just as some climate skeptics are stuck in climate skepticism bubbles, climate activists are often stuck in alarmist bubbles. Breaking out of these respective groups is crucial if we’re going to make real environmental progress."