George Monbiot: *Do we really care more about Van Gogh’s sunflowers than real ones?*

His points, about the shocking level of repression that the UK plans to impose without trial on anyone who has participated in a protest, comparable to putting per on probation, and about the danger government plans pose to nature at every scale, are valid. But I want to quibble with the hook that he has used in the title.

Do I care more about that series of paintings (or just the one in the UK's National Gallery) than about some real sunflowers?

I think any painting by an admired artist has more value to the world than a few cut flowers in a vase. The species of sunflowers is not one I personally adore, but preventing any species' extinction is important, arguably more so than saving a famous painting. But so what?

Those comparisons are pure distraction because there is no reason to compare them. Humanity does not face a choice of "this painting or that species."

Neither did the protesters — their protest did not risk damaging the painting.

So why does the comparison suggest itself? I think it is implied, though misleadingly, by that method of protest. Even if it can't actually damage the painting, it suggests an attempt, threat or wish to do so.

That is why I think that particular form of protest is misguided. It leads people to make the misleading comparison.

A painting won't survive for millennia without help — it needs protection, conservation, and restoration. If global heating wipes out technological civilization, the humans that survive won't have the skill, tools, or spare wealth to attend to such work.

So we can argue that Just Stop Oil's goal is necessary for preserving that very painting, along with the civilization it forms a part of.