Luisa Neubauer defends climate protest: “Would never make people insecure”

Climate protests and civil disobedience by the “Last Generation” or “Just Stop Oil” keep society on its toes. The discussion goes in circles. And when it comes to the question of how far climate protests can go, opinions differ: Blocked highways and intersections, tomato soup and mashed potatoes on works of art by famous painters.

But what happens if this protest suddenly has unforeseen consequences?

In the Netherlands, two Just Stop Oil activists have been sentenced to two months in prison for throwing tomato sauce at the painting “Girl with a Pearl Earring” by Johannes Vermeer and sticking glue on the protective window. The back of the photo, the frame and the wall suffered minor damage, the museum reports.

And in Berlin a cyclist died on Thursday. According to the police, your rescue operation was difficult on Monday because the fire brigades were stuck in traffic – probably due to the “last generation” climate protests. According to the emergency doctors who treat the traffic jam, the traffic jam had no effect on the rescue of the injured cyclist, according to the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Watson spoke with Fridays for Future activist Luisa Neubauer about how far climate protests can go and whether she finds it annoying not to talk about the climate, but only about the nature of the protest itself.

Editor’s Note: This interview took place before the cyclist involved in the accident was finally declared brain dead. Luisa Neubauer’s answers should be understood in this context.

The “last generation” protests suddenly struck a priceless number. Why?
Luisa Neubauer: As the climate crisis worsens and the urgency increases – we cannot afford to wait any longer and do nothing. Without public pressure, there is no chance of stabilizing our climate even halfway.

Do you think there are limits to protesting?
We as a climate movement stand for peaceful and nonviolent protest. It’s always been like this and it won’t change. People usually get the concepts behind the Fridays for Future demos or the sit-ins, but such campaigns always keep safety in mind. After all, we are only committed to climate protection so that we people can live more safely – and are protected against crises and disasters.

Does that mean that people’s safety is also an important issue in your protests?
Yes. We would never make people categorically insecure through our protests. And that is also important for us, because that is where the legitimacy of our protests and those of the “last generation” stands and falls. But to keep people safe in traffic, for example, we depend on everyone else to do their part. And right now – this is the situation – inner cities are de facto not safe enough for cyclists because of car-oriented traffic planning.

How useful do you think these actions are if more and more people are getting irritated – and the climate protests are really about convincing people of the urgency and climate protection so that they can go along with that?
Nor do I believe that this kind of protest is an appropriate measure to generate majorities. But that need not be the aim of the “Last Generation” protests either. Creating majorities, for example, is something that Fridays for Future as a movement successfully creates and can make much more authentic.

And what is the “last generation” counting on?
What the “last generation” is doing is responding to the urgency and, through their actions, catapulting the issue back on the agenda. And the fact that we’re talking about it again shows that it works relatively well. Many people make it easy on themselves by saying that the protest isn’t working because what they think should come out isn’t happening.​

Prefer?
It doesn’t have to be – not every protest needs to create a majority. As a climate movement, we are also working on a division of labor: some create majorities in public, others increase the pressure on politics.​

Does it bother you that people are talking about the nature of the protest rather than the climate crisis itself?
I hear that a lot in the media and find it quite unfair.​

How so?
Without the protests, the climate crisis would not be discussed. And society, the movement and the media influence which debates are stimulated by the actions: Let’s talk about the activists who cling to works of art, or let’s talk about the climate crisis, which is progressing at breakneck speed. The reports are clear, science is screaming as loud as it can – there are 1000 reasons to talk about the topic. That people, but also a lot of media, do everything they can to avoid talking about the obvious is not a new effect, but something we know all too well. The energy put into not just talking about the obvious in all of this is undiminished.

In the Netherlands, two activists have been sentenced to two months in prison for pasting themselves on the painting “Girl with a Pearl Earring”. What does such a condemnation say about the system? Is the condemnation justified if the activists are screaming in all fervor for attention to the climate crisis?
It is becoming clear all over the world how paradoxical the approach to the climate crisis is. To this day it is more convenient, safer, socially accepted and without consequences to promote the climate crisis rather than act against it.​

Do you think there is still too little protest?
There is too little political action – and that is the crucial finding. There is too little understanding of how dire the situation actually is. And there is currently no authority in the government successfully advocating for measures that could still maintain the 1.5 degree path. As with the financial budget, it is ensured that the budget balance is correct, an ecological balance must be defended.

What should that look like then?
New fossil infrastructure projects such as gas-fired power stations or the expansion of coal-fired power stations require reliable concepts to achieve the climate targets. And if that is not possible, these projects cannot exist. But until that happens, and until the government dares to treat livelihoods as if human existence depended on it, protests and societal tensions will mount.

What would that mean?
People will always feel misunderstood. That is why climate protection is always a measure that promotes democracy. That would also be a very noticeable relief to people if it were natural for governments to recognize the gravity of the situation and act accordingly. These major conflicts should not be resolved at the family table, but at the cabinet table.​