If Just Stop Oil “won,” who lost?
Spoiler: It might be everyone
Social movements love talking about “tipping points.” In Extinction Rebellion UK, we were borderline obsessed with one in particular: the so-called 3.5% rule - a stat lifted from research suggesting that when just 3.5% of a population actively engages in protest, social change becomes inevitable. But there’s a catch: that 3.5% figure comes from studies on regime change, involving dictatorships, revolutions, and toppling autocrats, not democracies. Which raises an inconvenient question: what exactly are we trying to overthrow in a democracy, and is it even the same game?
A lot of what gets called “success” in activist circles boils down to two things: vibes, and how well a movement can convince people that it “won,” often by inventing metrics no one outside the group understands (or bothers to question). Case in point: last week, Just Stop Oil (JSO) declared victory and announced that they are stepping back from direct action because they have, in their own words, achieved their goal. The mainstream media, ever eager to copy-and-paste an activist press release, dutifully repeated JSO’s claim that they are “one of the most successful civil resistance campaigns in recent history” who have “kept over 4.4 billion barrels of oil in the ground.” What didn’t make the headlines is a serious interrogation of whether any of this is remotely true.
There are only two reasons behind why a protest movement would suddenly declare victory and exit stage left. One: the money has dried up, and they need to reassure donors that their contributions made a difference. Two: internal drama - the kind of infighting that makes a clean exit look better than a public meltdown. In Just Stop Oil’s case, both seem plausible. The group’s funding sources have always been murky (someone’s got to cover those mounting legal fees), and meanwhile, their founder Roger Hallam, who is sitting in jail for various acts of direct action has not echoed the victory narrative - he told Sky News that JSO has only had a “marginal impact.” This suggests that the sudden rebranding as a historic success is less about triumph and more likely a factional power grab, with the dissenting team taking the wheel while Hallam’s behind bars.
We pulled the same move in XR. After the infamous tube protests, where members of XR blocked commuters in some of London’s poorest neighbourhoods - actions that ended in violence - we lost major donors. Turns out, alienating working-class people who were just trying to get to their jobs, appointments and school runs on time isn't a great fundraising strategy. But instead of owning up to making a huge strategic blunder, XR spun the story, issuing a statement that we were “winding down” for the foreseeable future due to the pandemic. A spineless retreat dressed up as a press release, which the mainstream press lapped up like cream.
So - did JSO win?
Just Stop Oil claims victory because the government has (on paper) adopted their headline demand: no new oil and gas licences. But their actual stated goal of ending fossil fuel production altogether - as reflected in their name - has not been achieved. Arguably, the former singular goal was attained despite widespread disapproval of their methods. Still, it takes a special kind of audacity to claim credit for a policy shift initiated by a government that also publicly dislikes you. The timeline doesn’t support their story, yet JSO has no problem claiming credit for progress made by others - those quieter, less controversial, but more effective groups and individuals who have been doing the real groundwork without throwing paint at works of art.
But putting that aside, the main unexamined question is whether this supposed “victory” is even a good thing. The UK already depends heavily on imported oil and gas. Ending domestic production doesn’t eliminate fossil fuel use; it just hands more leverage to foreign suppliers and makes the country even more vulnerable to global price shocks and supply chain chaos. That’s less a win for climate justice and more a masterclass in unintended consequences.
My post on how stopping oil altogether is not likely or feasible:
Now, things get murkier. Four Just Stop Oil protesters who caused £104,750 worth of damage to the HM Treasury building have just walked free thanks to a judge who described their actions as being “born out of concern and anxiety for climate change.” The activists, aged between 25 and 62, framed their vandalism as a moral imperative. One declared in court: “our action wasn’t violent, this system is.”
Which raises an uncomfortable question: what exactly is the role of the courts here?
Three of the four had been found guilty by a jury back in January 2025 for causing criminal damage exceeding £5,000. The fourth had already pled guilty. During the trial the prosecution laid out the staggering cost of the incident, emphasising both the financial burden and the symbolic weight of targeting a government building. But when it was time for sentencing, Judge Rimmer chose leniency, signalling, intentionally or not, that climate anxiety is a legitimate legal defence for criminal damage.
This isn’t the first time activists have walked away from criminal damage, while insisting that they are “non-violent.” But for a movement that clearly doesn’t have climate change as its primary motivator, it raises a crucial question: who, exactly, does the law serve here? And how far should reasoning really stretch to justify acts of criminal damage? Should the already-overburdened taxpayer be footing the bill for what amounts to a political hobby? Because that’s essentially what we’ve just done - paid for a protest that has left the taxpayer holding the tab.
No matter how noble the cause, defacing property or blocking roads crosses a line, and when people break the law, it’s the justice system’s job to hold them accountable. If activists are given a pass because they say they say they’re trying to save the planet, the message is that the law doesn’t really matter as long as you’re “doing it for the right reasons.” This is dangerous territory. When the consequences for breaking the law are so easily waved away, it weakens the entire deterrent effect of the legal system, which only encourages more people to think they can act with impunity, especially when it’s wrapped up in moral self-righteousness.
That they believe their cause is just, does not make it just. Groups like JSO often justify their actions as civil disobedience, but that isn’t a free pass to do whatever you want. Civil disobedience doesn’t mean immunity from consequences; it’s a deliberate tension between breaking the law for a higher cause and acknowledging that the law still needs to be upheld. If activists continue to escape punishment, it raises the uncomfortable question of where we draw the line between lawful protest and unlawful disruption.
I am not against civil disobedience or the act of standing up for what is right. Rarely has society progressed without movements of people standing up to challenge unjust laws, but groups like JSO make a mockery of those movements, while endlessly comparing themselves to Martin Luther King and the Suffragettes. Those movements fought discrimination and they succeeded precisely because they were right to go against the grain and were punished by the law for doing so. Hence the 3.5% rule involves mass arrest of swaths of the population for change to take effect. When protesters are simply let off the hook for breaking the law, clearly that signals something that they believe, though not in the way they mean, is correct: that the system is broken, and drastic change is required to fix it.
So, did JSO win? In a way, yes. Whether it’s evading consequences that cost the taxpayer or sitting in jail as a martyr like Hallam, they did get what they want. But as with any victory, there are losers. The question that remains is what that costs the rest of us. In this case, £104,750, and a heavier reliance on foreign oil - the tipping point that pushes us deeper into a precarious global supply chain.
Perhaps they looked at the the $600M fine Greenpeace were hit with for direct action and decided discretion was required!
A very good article. But it has some grim possbilities if not addressed. You write,
"We pulled the same move in XR. After the infamous tube protests, where members of XR blocked commuters in some of London’s poorest neighbourhoods - actions that ended in violence - we lost major donors. Turns out, alienating working-class people who were just trying to get to their jobs, appointments and school runs on time isn't a great fundraising strategy."
It's not just poor fundraising. It's become evident in recent years that at a number of protests, the police are present to protect the protesters from an outraged public. There was at least a few episodes of protesters blocking highways. They were then set upon by drivers whose trip to work was being blocked with the protesters being kicked and assaulted physically. If protests become too annoying to the public, the response can be violent and hostile. And NOT from the police.
So when you write, "No matter how noble the cause, defacing property or blocking roads crosses a line, and when people break the law, it’s the justice system’s job to hold them accountable," I agree entirely. This is the sort of thing which encourages the general public to seek or approve of vigilante justice.
You make another equally strong point when you write, "When protesters are simply let off the hook for breaking the law, clearly that signals something that they believe, though not in the way they mean, is correct: that the system is broken, and drastic change is required to fix it."
Inflicting zero punishment for breaking the law encourages people to approve of non-lawful punishment. This has manifested in all sorts of unpleasant ways such as so-called prison justice for sex offenders. If the justice system will not impose suitable punishment for offences, then it risks bringing the law itself into disrepute. The legal system in Canada is already in some disrepute for purporting to criminalize public protest, imprison people for political reasons, seize bank accounts and violate constitional rights simply because "the Prime Minister was a terrified little boy".