# Assessing claims of counterproductivity of Just Stop Oil’s civil disobedience

## TL;DR

This paper examines whether the climate group Just Stop Oil's disruptive tactics have been counterproductive, finding they raised media attention but had limited public impact.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a two-dimensional framework for assessing counterproductivity in climate activism.

## Key findings

- JSO achieved high media visibility but failed to significantly broaden public awareness of climate change.
- JSO increased the salience of new oil and gas licences, prompting political responses.
- JSO did not turn the public or policymakers against Net Zero policies.

## Abstract

A key development in the post-pandemic climate movement has been the rise of small-scale civil disobedience groups, who prioritise high-profile disruptions to gain media attention. The British group Just Stop Oil (JSO) have been one of the most publicised. In this paper we research the impact of JSO and ask if they have been counterproductive, as is often claimed. We make a significant contribution to the interdisciplinary literature on climate activism by proposing a two-dimensional framework for assessing counterproductivity. We conducted a rigorous mixed-methods study, analysing how JSO’s campaigning influenced media reporting and public opinion. This included media content analysis and public opinion surveys to evaluate how JSO’s protests shaped discourse on climate policy, public attitudes, and government responses. Our findings show that JSO achieved considerable media visibility, yet it has had limited success in broadening public awareness of climate change. However, they did contribute to increasing the salience of the issue of new oil and gas licences, compelling political actors to publicly address the matter. JSO have not been counterproductive in the sense that they have not turned public or policymakers against Net Zero policies. Their impact on support for the climate movement and state repression is more ambiguous.