THE CLIMATE ACTIVIST group Just Stop Oil (JSO) has announced the end of its campaign of direct action. Many will read the group’s legacy through the lens of public hostility: the frustration caused, the angry headlines, the outrage at its tactics. Not only have JSO activists been spat at, physically assaulted and run over by angry car drivers, but 15 members are also currently serving jail sentences following arrests and charges.

But the intense backlash directed at JSO is not evidence that its campaign faltered. It is a sign that these activists succeeded in emotionally charging the public debate about climate change. They gave the public something to argue about, react to, even mock — and in doing so, made the climate crisis impossible to ignore.

The alternative, an apathetic consensus, would entail passively accepting the dominant approach to address the climate crisis. That means market-based solutions, a faith in technological innovation, and incremental policy reforms within existing political and economic systems. These have arguably to date failed, as global temperatures continue to skyrocket.

Through my own research on climate activism, I have studied how environmental protest influences policy, corporate behaviour and financial markets. Activists can stimulate change, but not through rational arguments alone.

Change happens by making an emotional splash. It creates antagonism, dissent and tension, which are all needed to enliven public debate. Emotions, including anger, fear and guilt, play a key role in the ability of activists to create moral urgency and force issues into the spotlight.

Advertisement

JSO harnessed this emotional logic not only from supporters but from critics. Those who dragged protesters off roads, raged in comment sections and

© TheJournal