You may have missed this, but over the weekend, a British climate change protester was arrested in central London for dousing Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson, in green custard as he prepared to speak at a low carbon energy summit on March 6. Leila Deen, a charity worker and member of activist group Plane Stupid, threw a cup of green custard on Mandelson as he exited his car, saying "it's for the third [Heathrow] runway and the fact that he corrupted our government in order to bring about something that's going to destroy the climate." 

While Mandelson has dismissed the stunt as an "adolescent protest" it has garnered praise from the British public, many of whom vehemently oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport and regard Mandelson as an unscrupulous advocate for big business, particularly through his dealings with the British Airport Authority (BAA), who own Heathrow. The overwhelming consensus on the message boards of British newspaper The Guardian is that the incident was both "juvenile and justified," with many commentators fingering the undermining of the democratic process over the airport expansion decision as the impetus behind such action, as a parliamentary vote was not taken.

But not everyone was pleased by what transpired that morning. Interspersed between congratulatory postings were calls for Miss Deen to be on the receiving end of a hot coffee shower, a brick hurled through her front window or a fist raised in violence. The same day a Guardian columnist questioned whether public figures should have to endure such abuse, to which the response was mixed.  

Miss Deen's actions are very clearly that of a woman who has reached her tipping point. Her frustration and outrage over the worsening climate is understandable, and many of us who share similar feelings of exasperation might consider doing the same. It took courage to confront a public figure, but what did throwing green custard on Peter Mandelson actually achieve? It may have refocused the attention of a nation on climate change for an instant, but did it succeed in winning support for the cause, or has just the opposite occurred?

Direct action environmentalism is a thorny issue. Depending on how far you're willing to go - how many laws you're willing to break, how many barbed-wire fences you're willing to scale - direct action environmentalism can achieve immediate and significant results. And while it is also a great way to win attention for your cause, it can also detract from it, should the public find the protest distasteful or disruptive. Take Plane Stupid, for example. In December 2008, a group of 50 Plane Stupid activists breeched the security fence at Stansted Airport and setup a makeshift enclosure on the runway where they remained for hours, forcing the cancellation of dozens of flights. The stunt attracted national media coverage, and more importantly, prevented the release of thousands of tons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. It also succeeded in enraging thousands of affected travelers and airport employees, many of whom said that this was not the way to win their support. Also in December, a lone climate change protester entered Kingsnorth, Britain's most heavily secured power-plant, and switched off a 500MW turbine, bringing electrical output to a screeching halt for 4 hours. It is estimated that this act alone cut UK carbon emissions by 2%. You can imagine how people reacted when everything suddenly went black.

These two instances of direct action environmentalism produced real, measurable results by preventing the release of thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Though they were unlawful, irritating to the general public, and extremely dangerous, the acts served the purpose of the protestors by temporarily bringing about the change they so desperately want to achieve.

As such, I wouldn't categorize stunts such as Leila Deen's as direct action environmentalism, but rather a provoked response after one too many illegal jabs from a goliath opponent. OK, maybe it was childish, but to strike out at something, or in this instance, someone, that unjustly frustrates your efforts time and again, or the efforts of an entire movement, is not unnatural. Sometimes it's the only means of expression we have left, the only way to get the point across that we are unhappy. I do not begrudge Miss Deen this means of expression, but to risk alienating further a wavering public for the sake of mocking a public figure is something that hardly seems worth doing.

On Friday, March 13th, the environmental group Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) lost the legal battle to halt the go-ahead of a second runway at Stansted Airport. I wonder how the direct action community will respond.