Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Hours After the Protesters Who Threw Soup at a van Gogh Were Sentenced, Three More Activists Repeated the Stunt

News Feed
Friday, September 27, 2024

Three activists threw soup on two more van Gogh paintings hours after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were sentenced to prison time. Just Stop Oil In late 2022, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland entered London’s National Gallery and hurled tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers. The duo wore shirts displaying the logo for Just Stop Oil, a controversial environmental activism group known for its nonviolent demonstrations in protest of fossil fuels. “What is worth more—art or life?” Plummer asked museumgoers. “Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting, or the protection of our planet and people?” The soup didn’t harm the painting—which was protected behind glass—but it did cause an estimated $13,400 worth of damage to its 17th-century frame. When the two protesters were found guilty of criminal damage in July, Judge Christopher Hehir told them to be “prepared, in practical and emotional terms, to go to prison.” Now, he has sentenced Plummer, 23, to two years behind bars. Holland, 22, received 20 months. In 2022, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland glued their hands to the wall of the gallery after throwing soup on Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers. Just Stop Oil “The action you took was extreme, disproportionate and criminally idiotic,” Hehir said in court, per Politico’s Karl Mathiesen. “You came within the width of a pane of glass of irreparably damaging or destroying the painting.” During the trial, the activists insisted that the sentence would not hinder their efforts to fight climate change, as the Washington Post’s Shannon Osaka reports. “I made my choices and I’m happy with them,” Plummer said at the sentencing on September 27. “I’ve found peace in acting on my conscience.” A few hours later, three more climate activists arrived at the National Gallery. They entered the museum’s new van Gogh exhibition—“Poets and Lovers”—and threw soup on two sunflower paintings by the Dutch Post-Impressionist. “There are people in prison for demanding an end to new oil and gas,” said one of the protesters in a video of the incident, adding: “Future generations will regard these prisoners of conscience to be on the right side of history.” After examining the two paintings, experts determined they had not been damaged, according to Hyperallergic’s Isa Farfan. The activists have been arrested, and the artworks are already back on display in the exhibition.  Just Stop Oil’s goal is to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal in the United Kingdom by 2030. In recent years, activists affiliated with the organization—and similar groups around the globe—have been staging climate protests at museums and cultural institutions, often targeting famous artworks and artifacts. The British government has responded with new laws that Human Rights Watch describes as “draconian.” According to Just Stop Oil, more than two dozen climate protesters are now behind bars in the U.K. Earlier this week, Greenpeace U.K. released an open letter signed by more than 100 artists, curators and art historians asking that Plummer and Holland be spared jail time. They argued that their stunt belongs to a long tradition of similar artistic acts. “Since at least 1900, avant-garde artists have called for or delivered iconoclasm as part of their artistic practice,” reads the letter. “These activists should not receive custodial sentences for an act that connects entirely to the artistic canon. … [The protest] will inevitably enrich the story and social meaning of Sunflowers; and will be remembered, discussed and valued in itself as a creative and incisive work.” During the sentencing, Plummer gave a 20-minute speech to the judge, per the Guardian’s Damien Gayle. “I believe that non-violent civil resistance is the best, if not the only, tool that people have in order to bring about the rapid change required to protect life from the accelerating climate emergency,” Plummer said, adding: “If you think that taking an authoritarian approach to sentencing today will somehow stop ordinary people standing up for justice, I believe you will be proved wrong.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Two members of Just Stop Oil staged the original demonstration in late 2022. Group members say the harsh penalties will not deter their efforts

Sunflowers with soup
Three activists threw soup on two more van Gogh paintings hours after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were sentenced to prison time. Just Stop Oil

In late 2022, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland entered London’s National Gallery and hurled tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers. The duo wore shirts displaying the logo for Just Stop Oil, a controversial environmental activism group known for its nonviolent demonstrations in protest of fossil fuels.

“What is worth more—art or life?” Plummer asked museumgoers. “Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting, or the protection of our planet and people?”

The soup didn’t harm the painting—which was protected behind glass—but it did cause an estimated $13,400 worth of damage to its 17th-century frame. When the two protesters were found guilty of criminal damage in July, Judge Christopher Hehir told them to be “prepared, in practical and emotional terms, to go to prison.” Now, he has sentenced Plummer, 23, to two years behind bars. Holland, 22, received 20 months.

soup
In 2022, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland glued their hands to the wall of the gallery after throwing soup on Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers. Just Stop Oil

“The action you took was extreme, disproportionate and criminally idiotic,” Hehir said in court, per Politico’s Karl Mathiesen. “You came within the width of a pane of glass of irreparably damaging or destroying the painting.”

During the trial, the activists insisted that the sentence would not hinder their efforts to fight climate change, as the Washington Post’s Shannon Osaka reports. “I made my choices and I’m happy with them,” Plummer said at the sentencing on September 27. “I’ve found peace in acting on my conscience.”

A few hours later, three more climate activists arrived at the National Gallery. They entered the museum’s new van Gogh exhibition—“Poets and Lovers”—and threw soup on two sunflower paintings by the Dutch Post-Impressionist.

“There are people in prison for demanding an end to new oil and gas,” said one of the protesters in a video of the incident, adding: “Future generations will regard these prisoners of conscience to be on the right side of history.”

After examining the two paintings, experts determined they had not been damaged, according to Hyperallergic’s Isa Farfan. The activists have been arrested, and the artworks are already back on display in the exhibition. 

Just Stop Oil’s goal is to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal in the United Kingdom by 2030. In recent years, activists affiliated with the organization—and similar groups around the globe—have been staging climate protests at museums and cultural institutions, often targeting famous artworks and artifacts.

The British government has responded with new laws that Human Rights Watch describes as “draconian.” According to Just Stop Oil, more than two dozen climate protesters are now behind bars in the U.K.

Earlier this week, Greenpeace U.K. released an open letter signed by more than 100 artists, curators and art historians asking that Plummer and Holland be spared jail time. They argued that their stunt belongs to a long tradition of similar artistic acts.

“Since at least 1900, avant-garde artists have called for or delivered iconoclasm as part of their artistic practice,” reads the letter. “These activists should not receive custodial sentences for an act that connects entirely to the artistic canon. … [The protest] will inevitably enrich the story and social meaning of Sunflowers; and will be remembered, discussed and valued in itself as a creative and incisive work.”

During the sentencing, Plummer gave a 20-minute speech to the judge, per the Guardian’s Damien Gayle.

“I believe that non-violent civil resistance is the best, if not the only, tool that people have in order to bring about the rapid change required to protect life from the accelerating climate emergency,” Plummer said, adding: “If you think that taking an authoritarian approach to sentencing today will somehow stop ordinary people standing up for justice, I believe you will be proved wrong.”

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Starmerism has almost destroyed the Labour party, but I still have hope for renewal | Clive Lewis

As our party conference gets under way this weekend in Liverpool, we must start to work out how we can inspire the countryClive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich SouthSo choppy are the waters of the UK’s permacrisis, and so flat-bottomed the life raft known as Starmerism, that ideas once thought impossible at the outset of Keir Starmer’s initial soft-left, “Corbyn-in-a-suit” journey have become the defining realities of Labour’s present course. As its conference begins in Liverpool this weekend, the party must ask itself whether the political culture it is building is one that can inspire a country, or merely discipline it into compliance. Without a shift towards democracy, discussion and pluralism, Labour risks forfeiting the very moral and political authority it needs to confront the authoritarian voices shouting so loudly beyond our own ranks, and increasingly within them.The Corbyn wave that swept Labour in 2015 was more than just a political surge. It was a redefinition of the possible, a moment when grassroots activism, radical ideas and the audacity of political hope took centre stage. It represented a demand for genuine democracy, pluralism and change. For many, it was the first time in living memory that Labour had felt like a movement rather than a machine. Today, Starmer’s absolute determination to distance Labour from that era speaks volumes.Clive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich South. This is an edited extract from Clive Lewis’s foreword to The Starmer Symptom, by Mark Perryman Continue reading...

So choppy are the waters of the UK’s permacrisis, and so flat-bottomed the life raft known as Starmerism, that ideas once thought impossible at the outset of Keir Starmer’s initial soft-left, “Corbyn-in-a-suit” journey have become the defining realities of Labour’s present course. As its conference begins in Liverpool this weekend, the party must ask itself whether the political culture it is building is one that can inspire a country, or merely discipline it into compliance. Without a shift towards democracy, discussion and pluralism, Labour risks forfeiting the very moral and political authority it needs to confront the authoritarian voices shouting so loudly beyond our own ranks, and increasingly within them.The Corbyn wave that swept Labour in 2015 was more than just a political surge. It was a redefinition of the possible, a moment when grassroots activism, radical ideas and the audacity of political hope took centre stage. It represented a demand for genuine democracy, pluralism and change. For many, it was the first time in living memory that Labour had felt like a movement rather than a machine. Today, Starmer’s absolute determination to distance Labour from that era speaks volumes.The current party leadership views unity not as something cultivated through respectful dialogue and diverse perspectives, but something enforced through control. The Corbyn moment threatened Labour precisely because it signalled a party potentially ungovernable by conventional managerial methods. This is a party unsure how to reconcile democratic participation with electoral success.Parliamentary candidate selections have been increasingly centralised, and grassroots members and leftwing voices within the party marginalised. A party once brimming with energy, ideas and volunteers has become a professionalised bureaucracy aimed at maintaining power rather than transforming society.Labour’s aversion to pluralism is most obvious in its rejection of coalition politics. It wants to be an electoral juggernaut capable of winning alone or not at all. Yet contemporary crises – climate breakdown, authoritarian populism, stark economic inequality – demand cooperation beyond narrow party lines. Collaboration between Labour, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and other progressive forces is not a sign of weakness, but maturity. And the stakes are as high as the very future of our democracy, our planet. Such a refusal to share power becomes not just strategically foolish, but morally questionable.Nowhere is Labour’s aversion to transformative politics clearer than in its avoidance of public ownership. Consider water. Public opinion consistently favours renationalisation – not as nostalgia, but as a pragmatic response to corporate failures, ecological crises and profound erosion of trust in privatised utilities. Refusing public ownership signals abandonment of democratic control over our collective future, showing Labour’s alignment with a neoliberal orthodoxy that has repeatedly failed.This alignment finds its starkest symbol in the party’s embrace of corporate influence. This undermines democracy itself by nourishing popular cynicism. When voters see politicians cosying up to the same firms that profited from the 2008 crash, the social contract frays further.Labour’s timidity on the climate emergency underscores this problem further. This defining crisis of our times demands bold, courageous and imaginative responses. Yet Labour’s approach has been cautious and timid, perpetually afraid of alienating swing voters or corporate backers. Net zero is framed only in terms of competitiveness, not adaptation and survival. Green investment is promised, but always secondary to fiscal rules set by an economic consensus long past its sell-by date. While floods devastate communities and air quality worsens, Labour dithers.Part of the problem is that the party is paralysed by institutional pressures and geopolitical alignments. Of course, balancing these forces is what makes for great governments and leaders. But Starmer has shown no such inclination. As prime minister, he faces substantial constraints, particularly regarding established alliances such as those with the US. But his careful neutrality over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and quiet acquiescence to harsh immigration policies reflect an inclination toward diplomatic continuity rather than ethical clarityor moral leadership.In this vacuum, the populist right seizes ground, offering nativist, nationalist solutions to problems that demand internationalist, ecological and equitable solidarity.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Matters of OpinionGuardian columnists and writers on what they’ve been debating, thinking about, reading, and morePrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionAnd yet, despite these profound concerns, hope persists. Not because the current Labour leadership inspires it, but in spite of it. Hope survives in the growing networks of community organisers, cooperative movements, union branches, citizen assemblies and environmental campaigns. It flourishes in places ignored by Westminster – municipal projects reclaiming public land, local councils experimenting with participatory budgeting, workers organising in Amazon warehouses and Uber ranks. These spaces show that politics is not the property of party elites, but of people acting in concert to change their lives.Ultimately, Starmerism risks rendering Labour unfit for the purpose it was created for: to give a political voice to working people and deliver collective solutions to collective problems. Openly addressing this is essential for Labour – and British politics broadly.The crisis is real, yet so too is the potential for renewal. But that renewal cannot come from above. It must come from below – from a revitalised political culture that sees people not as voters to be harvested, but as citizens to be empowered. Recognising this is the first critical step toward a politics daring enough to imagine and urgently act upon the challenges we collectively face. And if this moment is indeed one of endings, then let it also be a moment of beginnings – a time to organise, to imagine and to build anew.

US is violating human rights laws by backing fossil fuels, say young activists in new petition

Petition says that US government’s protection of fossil fuel interests has put people in harm’s wayBy continuing to fund and support a fossil fuel-based energy system, the US is violating international law, a group of young people have argued to an international human rights body.The petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), filed late on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, says that the government’s actions have violated the petitioners’ human rights. Continue reading...

By continuing to fund and support a fossil fuel-based energy system, the US is violating international law, a group of young people have argued to an international human rights body.The petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), filed late on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, says that the government’s actions have violated the petitioners’ human rights.“The US’s actions over the past 50 years constitute an internationally wrongful act that implicate its international responsibility,” the petition to the Washington DC-based commission says.The IACHR, part of the Organization of American States, is a quasi-judicial body that reviews and investigates complaints about human rights violations, then issues reports with findings and recommendations to the accused states. Its recommendations are not legally binding.The plea comes after the publication of two strongly worded advisory opinions on the climate crisis from two top international courts. It was filed by 15 of the 21 youth climate activists who previously brought the groundbreaking federal climate lawsuit Juliana v US, which was effectively dismissed last year.“This petition is about truth and accountability,” said Levi, an 18-year-old petitioner who was eight years old when the Juliana case was filed. “For over 50 years, the US government has knowingly protected fossil fuel interests while putting people, especially young people, in harm’s way.”Young climate activists involved in the Juliana v US suit outside the supreme court in Washington DC on 18 September 2019. Some of the young activists involved in the new petition were part of the Juliana case. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty ImagesLike Juliana, the new filing details the myriad ways that the climate crisis has caused the young petitioners to suffer. Levi, for instance, grew up in Florida on the Indialantic barrier island. He and his family were frequently forced to evacuate amid dangerous hurricanes; eventually, they became so severe and frequent that his parents decided relocating was the only option.“Part of why we left was so that my baby sister could grow up in a home with a smaller risk of flooding,” he said. “One of the most difficult moments was losing my school after it was permanently closed due to storm damage.”Levi and the other young activists accuse the US of breaching international human rights law, customary international law and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man – an international human rights instrument that guarantees economic, social and cultural rights, as well as equality under the law.The bid comes just after the release of an early July advisory opinion from the inter-American court of human rights (I/A Court HR), a separate human rights body which can issue binding recommendations but which the US does not recognize. The opinion said that the climate crisis carries “extraordinary risks” felt most by already-vulnerable populations, and that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man requires countries to set ambitious greenhouse gas-cutting targets.“Before that happened, we had already been planning to file this,” said Kelly Matheson, deputy director of global strategy at the non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which is representing the petitioners. “The timing is pure serendipity.”The I/A Court HR opinion is nonbinding, and the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the top court from which it came. However, international courts and commissions can draw on the opinions to interpret the law.By denying the plaintiffs “access to justice” – and by expanding fossil fuel production – the US is violating an array of rights guaranteed to the young activists, including the right to life, liberty and security; the right to health; the right to benefits of culture; and special protections for children.“We are bringing our case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because domestic courts would not hear the full story,” said Levi. “This petition is a statement that what has happened to us is not just unfortunate or political but that it is a violation of our human rights.”The petitioners also accuse the US of violating their right to a healthy climate, referencing another recent nonbinding advisory opinion on greenhouse gas emissions from the international court of justice – a United Nations top court. The young activists have been trapped in that violation since birth, Matheson said.“These young people were born into a climate emergency, they were born into a rights violation, and they have lived every single day with their right to a healthy climate system being infringed upon,” she said. “We could get to a healthy climate system by 2100 if we make changes, but even then, these young plaintiffs will live their entire lives without ever being able to fully enjoy and exercise their right to a healthy climate system … Their hope is that their children or their grandchildren might.”Filed in 2015, Juliana v US argued that the government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights with pro-fossil fuel policies. Our Children’s Trust, which brought the case, made its final attempt to revive the case last year by asking the supreme court to allow the suit to proceed to trial in a lower court; its bid was denied in March.By denying the young challengers access to effective remedies to the climate crisis and thereby continually causing them harm, the courts failed to fulfill its international legal obligations, the new filing says.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe US is also breaching its obligations by continuing to perpetuate a fossil fuel-based energy system, argues the petition to the IACHR.“The US government, the leading cumulative contributor to climate change, has caused real harm to our health, our homes, our cultures and our futures,” said Levi.With the new petition, the young activists are demanding “precautionary measures” aimed at protecting their rights and obligations, as well as a hearing. In their best-case scenario, the IACHR would visit the US to hear the stories of the petitioners, then hold a public hearing to allow them to present their evidence to the world, and finally declare that the US has committed “wrongful acts” and make recommendations to push the country to improve its behavior.“We want the commission to declare that these systemic actions have violated our rights under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man,” said Levi. “This would carry legal weight across the Americas and help set a precedent that governments can’t continue to violate our rights without consequences.”Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia University, said the commission the activists are petitioning tends to act slowly. The body took five years to review one pollution-focused complaint from a Louisiana community filed in 2005.If the commission issues strong recommendations for the US, he said, US officials will be under no obligation to follow it.“The Trump administration wouldn’t care what this commission says, but the next administration might,” he added.The petition follows news that planet-warming pollution from the US rose in the first half of 2025. It also comes amid widespread attacks on climate protections by the Trump administration, which has launched more than 150 anti-environmental and anti-renewable energy actions since retaking the White House in January.“We are bringing this petition forward now because the science is urgent, the harm is accelerating and our rights are still being violated,” said Levi.Our Children’s Trust has represented young people in an array of state and federal lawsuits. During a two-day hearing in Montana this month, young plaintiffs in one federal case argued that three of Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders should be blocked. The law firm in 2023 notched a landmark win in the lawsuit Held v Montana, when a judge ruled that the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies violated a group of youth plaintiffs’ rights under the state’s constitution.Just hours before Our Children’s Trust filed the petition, Trump addressed the United Nations claiming that the climate crisis was the “greatest con job perpetrated on the world” and “a hoax made up by people with evil intentions”.“This courageous action aims to tell the truth and do something about it,” said James R May, of counsel to Our Children’s Trust.

How a Housing Skirmish in NYC Revealed a Secret Truth About NIMBYism

Fights over housing in New York City are nothing new, but this month the political antagonism to increasing housing stock and making the cost of living more affordable in general escalated to a whole new level. Instead of the usual lawsuits and procedural slow-walking that usually grind pro-housing efforts to a halt, opponents tried something far bolder: erasing a set of pro-housing ballot initiatives before voters could even see them.The proposals in question aim to rewrite the City Charter to confront New York’s housing crisis head-on, cutting through the maze of delays that makes building new homes nearly impossible. They’re broadly popular, curbing the power of individual council members to block projects and shortening drawn-out land-use reviews. But opponents found a powerful ally in Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who pressed the Board of Elections to strike the measures from the ballot altogether, despite the fact that the board had no such power.The gambit failed, thanks to significant public backlash, but it was striking in how starkly it broke from the usual playbook. Anti-housing forces usually cloak themselves in process: lawsuits, appeals to democracy, endless environmental reviews. As New Republic contributor J. Dylan Sandifer described, it’s a type of proceduralism that provides a “performance of forward motion that, in reality, preserves the status quo.” But in this case, the well-worn pretense was dropped entirely. It was a brazen attempt to subvert both the law and the will of the voters—one that exposed something essential about NIMBYism’s true character.The standard arsenal of the anti-housing crowd is familiar to anyone who has waded into the land-use wars: Faced with a new housing proposal in their neighborhood, local residents organize a series of delay tactics and clever rhetoric. They hide behind lengthy land-use processes, stressing the importance of community input and control. They weaponize environmental review laws in court. They pack rooms at community meetings, creating a veneer of popular support.In recent years, especially with the rise of the “abundance” movement, more attention has been paid to the ways these political and legal processes are weaponized to block growth. In turn, the popular discourse has centered around a convenient narrative: Pro-housing activists are the enemies of process and community control, while their opponents are its defenders.There’s some truth in that, but it misses the deeper reality. As the Board of Elections fight revealed, anti-housing forces aren’t committed to process at all; they’re committed to outcomes. The moment procedure no longer protects the status quo, they abandon it, laying bare how process is not so much a principle as it is a tool of power, to be discarded whenever it fails to deliver the intended results.Take the saga over Haven Green in Nolita, a plan for 100 percent affordable senior housing on a city-owned vacant lot that city agencies had been pursuing for over a decade. Opponents threw up every obstacle they could, converting the lot into a quasi-public garden, and filing a string of lawsuits, including one that bizarrely claimed the lot qualified for protection under federal laws meant to safeguard historic works of art. They lost at virtually every level. And when the courts and regulators failed to deliver the outcome they wanted, they sought to short-circuit the process altogether, eventually securing a last-minute backroom deal, on the eve of election night, with a scandal-plagued Mayor Eric Adams.A similar story played out in the Seaport. A parking lot was slated for mixed-income housing, and opponents pulled every lever they could: environmental challenges, landmarks objections, lawsuits that climbed all the way to New York’s highest court. They lost at every turn. Yet instead of accepting the outcome, they pivoted to protests and began accusing local officials of orchestrating a corrupt conspiracy. Having failed within the system, they simply tried to delegitimize it.These episodes are hardly outliers. When the rules stop protecting the status quo, opponents routinely abandon them without hesitation, escalating the fight beyond law or normal politics. What was once defended as a sacred process, indispensable for democracy and community control, suddenly becomes disposable, swapped out for more audacious, often extra-procedural, tactics.Pro-housing advocates are often caricatured as market zealots, eager to bulldoze every safeguard in the name of unfettered growth. But this framing fundamentally misunderstands the reality of how these fights play out in real time. Again and again, it is their opponents who lose within the very procedures they celebrate—and then, unwilling to accept the outcome, they turn against the system itself.This is how power operates in local governance, whether the fight is over housing or any proposal that threatens the current state of affairs. Lawsuits, community meetings, environmental reviews; it’s not that these are inherently democratic or antidemocratic. They are merely instruments, and their meaning comes from how they’re used. Anti-housing forces use them not to ensure valuable deliberation but to obstruct it; rituals of legitimacy that mask the exercise of raw power. Let us take note: These episodes reveal an essential phoniness. Adherence to the rules has become, for NIMBYists, nothing more than a performance undertaken in the name of preserving scarcity and protecting the status quo by any means necessary.This is a convenient moment to take note of the true colors of those who’ve been standing athwart progress, citing procedure. As our nation’s intellectuals enter the national debate on abundance and growth, we need to reframe the discussion to match what’s happening at street level in our cities and towns. Because there, you won’t find a technocratic dispute over rules and processes, or a clash between defenders of democracy and free-market deregulators. Rather, you will find a struggle over power between those who bend laws and institutions to protect the wealthy and well-connected, and those who demand those laws be put to the use of serving the common good.

Fights over housing in New York City are nothing new, but this month the political antagonism to increasing housing stock and making the cost of living more affordable in general escalated to a whole new level. Instead of the usual lawsuits and procedural slow-walking that usually grind pro-housing efforts to a halt, opponents tried something far bolder: erasing a set of pro-housing ballot initiatives before voters could even see them.The proposals in question aim to rewrite the City Charter to confront New York’s housing crisis head-on, cutting through the maze of delays that makes building new homes nearly impossible. They’re broadly popular, curbing the power of individual council members to block projects and shortening drawn-out land-use reviews. But opponents found a powerful ally in Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who pressed the Board of Elections to strike the measures from the ballot altogether, despite the fact that the board had no such power.The gambit failed, thanks to significant public backlash, but it was striking in how starkly it broke from the usual playbook. Anti-housing forces usually cloak themselves in process: lawsuits, appeals to democracy, endless environmental reviews. As New Republic contributor J. Dylan Sandifer described, it’s a type of proceduralism that provides a “performance of forward motion that, in reality, preserves the status quo.” But in this case, the well-worn pretense was dropped entirely. It was a brazen attempt to subvert both the law and the will of the voters—one that exposed something essential about NIMBYism’s true character.The standard arsenal of the anti-housing crowd is familiar to anyone who has waded into the land-use wars: Faced with a new housing proposal in their neighborhood, local residents organize a series of delay tactics and clever rhetoric. They hide behind lengthy land-use processes, stressing the importance of community input and control. They weaponize environmental review laws in court. They pack rooms at community meetings, creating a veneer of popular support.In recent years, especially with the rise of the “abundance” movement, more attention has been paid to the ways these political and legal processes are weaponized to block growth. In turn, the popular discourse has centered around a convenient narrative: Pro-housing activists are the enemies of process and community control, while their opponents are its defenders.There’s some truth in that, but it misses the deeper reality. As the Board of Elections fight revealed, anti-housing forces aren’t committed to process at all; they’re committed to outcomes. The moment procedure no longer protects the status quo, they abandon it, laying bare how process is not so much a principle as it is a tool of power, to be discarded whenever it fails to deliver the intended results.Take the saga over Haven Green in Nolita, a plan for 100 percent affordable senior housing on a city-owned vacant lot that city agencies had been pursuing for over a decade. Opponents threw up every obstacle they could, converting the lot into a quasi-public garden, and filing a string of lawsuits, including one that bizarrely claimed the lot qualified for protection under federal laws meant to safeguard historic works of art. They lost at virtually every level. And when the courts and regulators failed to deliver the outcome they wanted, they sought to short-circuit the process altogether, eventually securing a last-minute backroom deal, on the eve of election night, with a scandal-plagued Mayor Eric Adams.A similar story played out in the Seaport. A parking lot was slated for mixed-income housing, and opponents pulled every lever they could: environmental challenges, landmarks objections, lawsuits that climbed all the way to New York’s highest court. They lost at every turn. Yet instead of accepting the outcome, they pivoted to protests and began accusing local officials of orchestrating a corrupt conspiracy. Having failed within the system, they simply tried to delegitimize it.These episodes are hardly outliers. When the rules stop protecting the status quo, opponents routinely abandon them without hesitation, escalating the fight beyond law or normal politics. What was once defended as a sacred process, indispensable for democracy and community control, suddenly becomes disposable, swapped out for more audacious, often extra-procedural, tactics.Pro-housing advocates are often caricatured as market zealots, eager to bulldoze every safeguard in the name of unfettered growth. But this framing fundamentally misunderstands the reality of how these fights play out in real time. Again and again, it is their opponents who lose within the very procedures they celebrate—and then, unwilling to accept the outcome, they turn against the system itself.This is how power operates in local governance, whether the fight is over housing or any proposal that threatens the current state of affairs. Lawsuits, community meetings, environmental reviews; it’s not that these are inherently democratic or antidemocratic. They are merely instruments, and their meaning comes from how they’re used. Anti-housing forces use them not to ensure valuable deliberation but to obstruct it; rituals of legitimacy that mask the exercise of raw power. Let us take note: These episodes reveal an essential phoniness. Adherence to the rules has become, for NIMBYists, nothing more than a performance undertaken in the name of preserving scarcity and protecting the status quo by any means necessary.This is a convenient moment to take note of the true colors of those who’ve been standing athwart progress, citing procedure. As our nation’s intellectuals enter the national debate on abundance and growth, we need to reframe the discussion to match what’s happening at street level in our cities and towns. Because there, you won’t find a technocratic dispute over rules and processes, or a clash between defenders of democracy and free-market deregulators. Rather, you will find a struggle over power between those who bend laws and institutions to protect the wealthy and well-connected, and those who demand those laws be put to the use of serving the common good.

Intelligence agencies should report on foreign interests in ‘activist groups’, Australian coal lobby group argues

Coal Australia also wants government to broaden restrictions on foreign donations to stop money flowing to environmental groupsAn Australian coal industry lobby group wants national intelligence agencies to report on any involvement of foreign interests in unnamed “activist groups” it claims are attempting to undermine the nation’s prosperity.Coal Australia also wants the government to broaden restrictions on foreign donations to stop money being channelled to Australia-based environmental groups and create powers to terminate grants and rescind charity status to organisations who aren’t transparent about funding sources. Continue reading...

An Australian coal industry lobby group wants national intelligence agencies to report on any involvement of foreign interests in unnamed “activist groups” it claims are attempting to undermine the nation’s prosperity.Coal Australia also wants the government to broaden restrictions on foreign donations to stop money being channelled to Australia-based environmental groups and create powers to terminate grants and rescind charity status to organisations who aren’t transparent about funding sources.The wave of demands are outlined in one of almost 150 submissions to a parliamentary inquiry examining the prevalence of climate change-related misinformation and disinformation.The lobby group, whose members include Whitehaven and Yancoal, argue that Australia’s prosperity was being “compromised” by unnamed activist groups backed by foreign donors.It recommended that the federal electoral and intelligence agencies be required to submit a joint report to parliament each year on the supposed threats to Australia’s energy security, including from “malicious” foreign interference and the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation.The submission did not name specific agencies but the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is responsible for monitoring foreign interference.The first report should include an audit of all funding to the groups, it continued, which are not captured under existing foreign donation rules.“Such reporting would also ensure maximum community awareness and vigilance of manipulative and deceptive campaign tactics,” the chief executive of Coal Australia, Stuart Bocking, wrote.The coal lobby’s push came as the Human Rights Commission and environmental groups warned the inquiry of the corrosive influence of climate changed-related mis- and disinformation.The commission said false narratives about climate change delay urgent action to combat global heating, erode trust in science and institutions and distort the public’s understanding of the challenge.“False claims about climate change, shared either in good faith or deceptively, can result in community polarisation, decreased support for climate-change mitigation policies and obstruction of political action,” the submission read.“This undermines public information and debate, which in turn affects the realisation of the human right to a healthy, clean and sustainable environment.”The commission recommended the Albanese government pursue laws to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation online after abandoning plans in the last term of parliament due to a lack of political support.However, it said any new laws must have the “upmost regard for free speech”, suggesting the previous attempt failed to strike the right balance.In another submission, the Environment Defenders’ Office called for a blanket national ban on fossil fuel advertising as recommended by the UN special rapporteur on climate change, Elisa Morgera.Morgera lodged her own submission to the inquiry, which summarised other recommendations to governments put forward in other reports. That included the criminalisation of “greenwashing” by fossil fuel companies and amplification of it by media companies.“There is a need for states to reckon with the impacts of climate disinformation tactics and the prolonged six-decade failure to take effective climate action, compounded by widespread misinformation,” she wrote.“In order to support an informed, transparent and participatory process for defossilization, states need to ‘defossilize’ information systems, to protect human rights in the formation of public opinion and debate from the long-standing undue commercial influence of the fossil fuel industry.”The inquiry will hold its first public hearing on 29 September.A final report is due on 4 February.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.