Vanity Advocacy: The Detrimental Irony of Eco-Inspired Disruption

During the late Summer months of 2022, it proved difficult to ignore the feel of slightly warmer temperatures. And with Summer 2023 only six weeks away, a repeat is likely on its way. That Summer followed in the wake of multiple heat records across the northern hemisphere. Accompanying those shattered heat records were numerous instances of environmental “advocacy.” Among the most noteworthy of the demonstrations were two key performances: traffic stalling and vandalism of historic art pieces. The idea behind the methods was a simple one. Disrupt major traffic routes and deface historic art in order to direct attention to the climate’s rising temperatures. But do these eco-advocates have it right? Do their methods prove effective against the evil they seek to combat? I will make the case arguing in the negative. In the past two weeks alone, viral videos of climate activists employing these same methods have re-emerged. It would seem that such performances will seep into this upcoming Summer as well.

Let’s begin with the first of the two key performances. Throughout the Summer of 2022, headlines broke surrounding major highways and inner-city commutes. Rush hour commutes are already difficult enough to endure. Add packs of environmentalists sprawled across major highways and the result manifested in hours added on to worker’s commutes. Their purpose was clear enough. Delay people from arriving at work to earn a living in a four-decades high inflation to compel climate change action. Ironically, these demonstrations further degraded the environment. The very ecosystem these advocates seek to protect. With hours added on thousands of commuter’s travels, far more car exhaust seeped into the atmosphere than had there been no disruption. In those Summer months, the record-breaking heat often woke before commuters themselves. It’s doubtless AC’s ran, engines rumbled longer than expected, and greater levels of exhaust rose into the atmosphere then it would’ve originally had. Even with the rising popularity of EV vehicles, these environmentalists couldn’t have been so naive as to think the commuters all drove electric. However, that didn’t stop them from neglecting their critical thinking skills. What could’ve been a commuter whose hour long commute seeped only 60 minutes worth of propane emissions now turned to thrice that amount. Even more concerning for the climate’s deteriorating state, surveys showed this caused people to heed less caution for our earth’s climate. But the disruptions of the outside would soon infiltrate the inside. Namely, densely-trafficked art museums and galleries.

As October arrived and seasonal temperatures began to decline, advocates took their advocacy to a new venue: art museums. I suppose the righteous advocacy of traffic stalling wilts in cooler temperatures just as the leaves do. Multiple headlines broke concerning environmentalists defacing historic art pieces in galleries throughout Europe. Their venue changed, but their motive remained the same. These acts as confessed by the vandals were in support of rallying greater action to our warming climate. Cake was smeared, tomato soup cast like water on a forrest fire, and advocate’s hands glued to the walls next to the artwork they defaced. Proceeding their vandalism and prior to their removal, speeches regaled the consequences of inaction made to a supposedly unaware public. Can someone tell the 16 year old “advocate” that the couple in their 50’s is well aware of the climate emergency they were lectured on? But this revived phenomena begs the question: why do these environmentalists target the millions of people, who, collectively contribute ~10% of climate change? Wouldn’t the 100 global corporations that contribute the remaining 90% prove a smarter target? This is not meant to mitigate the fact that any action that contributes to climate change isn’t noteworthy, however, there seems to be a twisted logic here. When an action is taken to deliberately disrupt an intended activity of a person (e.g. driving to work or admiring historic art), such person’s attitude will result in a knee-jerk, adverse reaction to the distraction that was employed. Like the traffic stalling acts that came before, the vandalism of these art pieces sadly resulted in weakened initiative to combat climate change. Of course, these acts of art vandalism didn’t actually destroy the historic pieces. Like all historic, high value artwork, they were sheathed behind tempered glass. A fact well-known to the eco-advocates. However, this fact is besides the point of their motive, and doesn’t mitigate the misguidedness of their “advocacy.”

With this in mind, I’d like to propose an ulterior motive to these alleged advocate’s motive: notoriety. It is my sincere belief these environmentalists understood their actions would fail to compel their spectator’s desired response. So what’s left without their desired reaction? Vanity and Notoriety. It’s doubtless this is a suspicion that many have formed in light of these environmentalists actions. So, when these advocates stall traffic or deface notorious art works, is it not reasonable for the public to not only be unmoved by their performances, but reject them? This adverse reaction results in a deterrent concerning people’s initiative to combat climate change. Ideally, anyone who wishes to see climate change’s devastating effects be alleviated wouldn’t let angsty teens shatter their resolve. These environmentalist performances while disruptive, do stem (deeply) from a good place. I truly believe that. But their methods reduce collective action, not encourage it. Vanity “advocacy” is a price our delicate ecosystem cannot afford. Whole nation’s populaces must rally together now more than ever. The cost of ignoring climate change is too great for anyone to afford, especially for those not privileged enough to reside in the affluent, urban metropolises these environmentalist often reside in.

Poorer, less affluent islands nations are particularly bearing the brunt of climate change. The Economist produced a great YouTube segment back in October 2021 that highlights this sad fact. It featured the ongoing climate-refugee crisis taking nations like Bangladesh by storm, as tens of thousands flee to the capital, Dhaka, from the countryside. These climate-refugees have lost their agricultural-rich livelihoods in the once fertile regions of their nation’s coastlines. In lieu of vain demonstrations of supposed environmental advocacy, I’d be reassured to see more calls for global aid to impoverished, island nations with low coastal barriers, and international environmental relief funds. That’d be more persuasive than middle and upper-class Liberal teens throwing soup on treasured art pieces in nations that have the wealth to inure (to an extent) themselves to climate change. Start aligning your actions with support for those who are on the front lines instead the lines of posh galleries, and your protests can count on my support. Because when combating climate change requires the collective action of millions, the more the merrier…