Time for a Tea Party (Boston Style)?
Considering the impact of protests on pro-climate policy and behaviors.
I've frequently questioned how I can have an impact on a problem as vast, complicated and urgent as the climate crisis. Surely the articles I’m posting on Substack are making a difference now that I’m averaging a whopping 7.8 views per post. But are we on track to limit warming to 1.5 degrees celsius? Back in the Paris Agreement? Is the EPA allowed to protect our environment again? Sadly, no. Maybe there’s more that I can do. What about protests?
If I’m going to block out several hours to protest outside in the Boston weather (which has three seasons: too cold, too hot and fall), I want to make sure that I’m having an impact. So, do protests actually affect any meaningful change?
The Activist’s Dilemma: To Disrupt or Not to Disrupt?
Orderly marches (think Earth Day parades) make people feel good, but they rarely make headlines. On the other hand, more confrontational tactics—like blocking roads, throwing food at art (it’s all the rage in Europe), or disrupting major sporting events—tend to grab media attention. But they also make people mad. And not in the “I should do something about climate change” way—more in the “Why are these people making me late for work?” way. (Nature, 2023)
This tension is what researchers call the “activist’s dilemma” (Guardian, 2022). Essentially, activists have to decide between keeping public opinion on their side or making headlines. And let’s be honest, blocking an oil terminal might be an understandable and effective tactic, but when someone throws mashed potatoes at Monet, people are mostly just confused.
The Radical Flank Effect: The Good, the Bad, and the Tomato Soup
Enter the “radical flank effect,” a term that sounds like a wrestling move but is actually a well-documented phenomenon in social movements. The idea is that radical actions by some activists can make moderate activists seem more reasonable by comparison. (USC, 2023) For example, when Extinction Rebellion splashed fake blood on the steps of the UK Treasury, it got the government’s attention. Shortly after, the UK declared a climate emergency. Coincidence? Probably not. (USC, 2023) Similarly, when climate activists heckled Joe Biden, it may not have won them many dinner party invitations, but it kept climate policy in the conversation.
The Boston Tea Party: Going Overboard?
If you think throwing soup at a Van Gogh is extreme (the art was protected by a glass barrier), imagine throwing 92,000 pounds of tea into Boston Harbor. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against economic policies exempting the British East India Company from paying taxes while imposing taxes on the less favored colonial tea companies (and therefore the consumers). Sound familiar? Trump’s recent executive orders have granted incredible support for the fossil fuel giants while support for renewable energy (research funding, subsidies, tax incentives) has been tossed overboard.
Like colonial revolutionaries, climate activists use disruption to spark conversation and demand change. And just as the Boston Tea Party wasn’t popular with everyone at the time (many colonists thought it was reckless), today’s environmental protests face similar criticism. But history has a funny way of proving that bold actions, however controversial, can change the world.
That said, radical actions can also backfire. Research shows that while these tactics can raise awareness, they sometimes reduce overall support for the movement. This is where things get complicated—does making people aware of climate issues outweigh the risk of annoying them? (Guardian, 2022)
The Magic 3.5%
If there’s one number you should remember (other than the rising global temperature), it’s 3.5%. Political scientist Erica Chenoweth found that when at least 3.5% of a population actively participates in a nonviolent protest, success becomes almost inevitable. (NPR, 2019) That’s a pretty small percentage, but reaching it is no easy feat. For reference, that’s around 11.5 million people in the U.S.—roughly the entire population of Ohio.
The good news? Nonviolent movements historically succeed 53% of the time, compared to 26% for violent ones. So while gluing oneself to the Mona Lisa might grab a headline, simply getting enough people on board for sustained, strategic, nonviolent action is statistically the better bet. (NPR, 2019)
What works best?
Mass participation. More people = more impact. Simple math. (NPR, 2019)
Disruptive but strategic actions. Targeting the right institutions (like governments and oil companies) is more effective than annoying random commuters. (Apollo Surveys, 2023)
The radical-moderate dynamic. Having both radical and moderate activists creates space for policy change. (USC, 2023)
Persistence. The first Earth Day led to long-term environmental progress. Keeping up the pressure works. (BBC, 2023)
Final Thoughts
Climate activism is messy, frustrating, and sometimes involves food fights with art (or the Atlantic Ocean). But history suggests that when done strategically, it can—and does—work. So whether you’re the type to march peacefully, block a pipeline, or get creative with your leftovers from lunch, remember: every movement needs its numbers, its strategy, and a little bit of spectacle.
Sources:
Nature (2023): How effective are climate protests?
BBC (2023): The science of climate protests
Apollo Surveys (2023): Social change and protests
USC (2023): Radical activism and social change
The Guardian (2022): Radical climate protests: helping or hurting?
NPR (2019): The magic number behind protests
From the radical flank to the 3.5%…this is a very insightful breakdown of social movements