WHAT SIDE ARE YOU ON?
What is On2Ottawa and what do they stand for? According to their website they are “a non-violent civil disobedience campaign designed to encourage Canadian governments to take urgent and meaningful action on the climate crisis.”
Last week the group received national attention for blocking traffic and even splashing pink paint on a famous Tom Thomson painting at the National Art Gallery (NAG). Fulcrum editor, Keith de Silvia-Legault and contributor, Ethan Gottesman-Kaplun see these events differently.
Gottesman-Kaplun: The forests are burning and the coasts are flooding. We’re in a climate crisis that no level of government is taking seriously enough. And yet, a recent poll shows that only 28 per cent of Canadian Gen Z voters consider climate change a top priority. That’s right — even Gen Z, the generation of Greta Thunberg. Anything that shines a spotlight on this crisis is helpful.
de Silvia-Legault: Our governments here in Canada are not doing nearly enough but I have to say that I’m quite suspicious of On2Ottawa. They seem very similar to some “astroturf” groups which have been proven to be funded by the oil lobby to purposely make climate activism look like radical extremism.
According to On2Ottawa, their funding comes “directly from members and from individual Canadians. We are very grateful for the donations that we receive. We have also received money from aligned organizations.” Why aren’t they listing these “aligned organizations” they receive donations from? Seems fishy to me.
Gottesman-Kaplun: I suppose On2Ottawa could be more specific about their funding, but I don’t think that invalidates their message or their methods. Their recent stunts have produced a big buzz in the media and in casual conversation.
The result is more people talking about the biggest crisis of our lifetimes. So what does it matter who’s putting money in their pockets if their activism is working?
de Silvia-Legault: But is it actually working? If anything, it seems to be antagonizing climate activism as a whole. But let’s look at the actual means they are doing this “activism”. Road blockades lead to cars being idle which studies show is terrible for the environment.
I also do not understand the point of damaging priceless works of art, such as the work of famous Canadian painter Tom Thomson. It makes the whole of the environmentalist movement look like we are whiny children who aren’t getting our way.
Gottesman-Kaplun: First of all, the painting at the NAG was left completely unharmed. If they really intended to make the climate movement look bad, they probably would’ve done some actual damage.
Secondly, movements like this may not change the minds of people who don’t support climate action, but it could motivate those who do to get more active about it, even if through less radical means. A larger, more united environmental movement has a much greater impact than a few temporarily inconvenienced idling cars.
de Silvia-Legault: We should be promoting movements that do change the minds of people who don’t support climate action. As you said at the beginning of this discussion, climate change is a low priority for our generation and activism like this isn’t going to change that.
I am all for civil disobedience; I am a huge supporter of the work of Greenpeace and its civil disobedience campaigns. Recently in Belgium, 14 activists occupied a gas terminal on kayaks. We need civil disobedience that’s actually targeting the people who are at fault for this climate crisis.
Targeting a famous work of art seems like a waste of paint that could instead be splashed on the Prime Minister’s office , which On2Ottawa has done in the past and should continue to do, rather than waste time blocking traffic and giving the staff at the NAG more work to do. I really hope this organisation is well-intentioned as you say but I want to see them to prove it in their actions; by actually targeting the big fish.
