Just Stop Oil is selling the T-shirts in orange or white (Image: Just Stop Oil / Getty)
Just Stop Oil was last night slammed for “hypocrisy and double standards” after shipping in T-shirts made by low-paid workers from 4,000 miles away to sell to supporters.
The eco-warriors, notorious for shutting down Britain’s roads and interrupting sporting events, are selling anti-fossil fuel merchandise produced in and transported from the Dominican Republic to help fund their disruptive work.
The Just Stop Oil store is selling “iconic” T-shirts with its logo emblazoned across the front, for £20 in orange or white.
The garments are described on the website as being 100 percent cotton and customers are assured they are made with “no oil” – but with no mention of the long carbon-creating journey they have to go on to reach the UK.
Cross-party politicians lined up to criticise the climate group over its “blatant inconsistency”.
Senior Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith said Just Stop Oil was demonstrating a “do what I say, not what I do” attitude.
Just Stop Oil sells the T-shirts in two colours for £20 each (Image: Just Stop Oil)
The T-shirts are made more than 4,000 miles away in the Dominican Republic (Image: Express)
Reform UK MP Richard Tice said the eco-group were “hypocrisy personified”, adding: “Just Stop Oil uses just cheap labour and just fossil fuels to make its merchandise.”
Former Tory MP Bob Seely said that Just Stop Oil using an overseas T-shirt supplier “sums them up really”.
He added: “They drone on about saving the planet but fly in T-shirts from 4,000 miles away. Perhaps if they practised what they preached they would get them made in the UK.
“The words hypocrisy and double standards spring to mind. Being a responsible person should mean buying stuff made closer to home, not [on] the other side of the world.”
Sir John Redwood, who represented Wokingham from 1987 to 2024, said: “More hypocrisy from Stop Oil as they use marine diesel to bring T-shirts in from 4,000 miles away. Just like the protesters stopping cars who drive to the protest and eat food delivered by diesel truck.”
The product description warns buyers against purchasing similar T-shirts from rival stores as “any other shirts are a knock-off and may contain oil”.
However, there was no mention of the fact the shirts were made in the Caribbean country some 4,200 miles away before being shipped or flown into the UK.
Workers in the country earn an average of around £630-a-month meaning many of the poorer paid textile workers are paid less than £30 a day.
Just Stop Oil, which in March said it wanted to spark regime change via a Lenin-inspired “political revolution”, also sells luxury artwork, £40 soup tins and a brand new £25 protest-themed calendar, released just before Christmas.
The calendar features pictures of Just Stop Oil activists who have been imprisoned since 2022, as well as court dates for those accused of committing crimes.
The shop also sells a £15 mug, which is “perfect for those in low-key resistance against oil-based politicians and police”, according to the product description.
Just Stop Oil is selling novelty soup cans for £40 (Image: Just Stop Oil)
The mug carries a secret “conspiratorial message” which is only revealed when heated. The message reads: “Every time I use this mug I’m conspiring to commit thoughtcrime and the police can’t stop me.”
Cans of soup are also being flogged, carrying the message “Just Stop Oil: Mother Earth Fights Back”.
The novelty tins come in a variety of colours and are a nod to Just Stop Oil’s infamous attack on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, which saw Phoebe Plummer, 23, and Anna Holland, 22, fling tinned soup over the masterpiece in October 2022. Both women were jailed over the incident.
The soup cans, which are sold for £40 – discounted from £50 – come in green, orange, blue, red and yellow. It is unclear if the tins actually contain soup, but each one does claim to be made of “20% courage”, “20% love”, “20% humour”, “20% hope” and “20% camaraderie”.
In Bed with Big Oil is one of the artworks being sold by Just Stop Oil (Image: Just Stop Oil)
‘Untitled’ by Andrew Lumsden is on sale for £900 (Image: Just Stop Oil)
Artwork is for sale too. One piece, ‘Untitled’ by Andrew Lumsden, is being sold for £900, reduced from £1,000.
Another, which takes a swipe at former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, is being sold for £400. The piece has Mr Sunak’s surname written on a tongue which is making contact with another tongue carrying the words “fossil fuels”.
A third piece, ‘Board Room’ by Peter Kennard, is being sold for £750, down from £1,500. The artwork appears to carry BP’s logo.
Just Stop Oil told the Express: “We need a war-style mobilisation to end fossil fuel use by 2030, so all T-shirts can be made, shipped and sold without risking our traditions, our heritage and our hard-fought rights.
“To this end we call on the T-shirt buyers and wearers of the UK to join us in April 2025 at Westminster [when Just Stop Oil are planning a major demonstration outside Parliament].”
Fury as Just Stop Oil ‘Hypocrites’ Flog £20 T-Shirts Shipped From 4,000 Miles Away
Just Stop Oil has faced renewed criticism over the environmental impact of its merchandise, with questions being raised about the apparent contradiction between campaigning to protect the planet and selling clothing associated with long-distance supply chains. The controversy has reignited a familiar debate about whether environmental campaigners are practising the principles they promote or whether their actions risk undermining their own message.
At the centre of the dispute is the sale of campaign T-shirts priced at around £20, with critics questioning the environmental consequences of manufacturing and transporting clothing over thousands of miles. For a movement that has built its public identity around reducing fossil fuel consumption and confronting climate change, the issue has provided ammunition for opponents who argue that environmental responsibility should extend to everyday purchasing decisions.
However, the debate is more complicated than the headline suggests. Just Stop Oil has previously faced criticism over its cotton merchandise and subsequently announced a move towards clothing made from organic hemp and cotton. The organisation’s current fundraising merchandise is advertised as a hemp-and-cotton blend, produced in partnership with a specialist clothing company. That development makes the wider argument about sustainability, manufacturing and transportation particularly relevant.
The controversy raises a fundamental question: how should environmental campaigners demonstrate that their own activities are consistent with the changes they want society to make?
The £20 T-Shirt That Sparked a Wider Debate
Campaign merchandise has long been an important feature of political movements. T-shirts, badges, posters and other products help supporters demonstrate their allegiance while providing organisations with a potential source of income.
For Just Stop Oil, merchandise also serves a fundraising purpose. Money raised through sales can help support the group’s activities and people facing legal proceedings following environmental protests.
Yet clothing is not environmentally neutral. Its production can involve the cultivation of raw materials, industrial processing, dyeing, manufacturing, packaging and transportation. Each stage can consume energy and generate emissions, although the precise impact depends on the materials used, the manufacturing methods employed and the distance travelled.
The criticism surrounding the £20 T-shirts centres on the perception that an organisation campaigning against fossil fuel dependence should be particularly careful about the environmental consequences of its own supply chain.
Critics argue that shipping merchandise thousands of miles can create an apparent contradiction between the movement’s message and its commercial practices. They question whether campaigners who urge society to reduce emissions should be expected to demonstrate greater transparency about where their clothing comes from and how it reaches customers.
For some observers, the issue is not simply the price of a T-shirt. It is whether the organisation applies the same environmental standards to its own operations that it expects governments, businesses and consumers to adopt.
Supporters of the movement, however, may argue that no modern organisation can operate entirely outside the global economy. Clothing, electronic equipment and other everyday products often depend on international supply chains, making it difficult to eliminate transportation emissions altogether.
The important distinction is between demanding absolute perfection and expecting reasonable efforts to reduce avoidable environmental harm.
Why Environmental Campaigners Face Particular Scrutiny
Environmental organisations often ask individuals, companies and governments to reconsider established habits. They may campaign for reduced fossil fuel consumption, cleaner energy, more sustainable agriculture and changes to manufacturing practices.
Such demands inevitably invite questions about the campaigners themselves.
If an organisation argues that society must change its relationship with energy and consumption, people may reasonably ask whether its own purchasing and fundraising decisions reflect those principles.
This scrutiny is not unique to Just Stop Oil. Environmental charities, climate activists, renewable energy companies and political leaders have all faced questions about the consistency of their public commitments and private practices.
Criticism can be legitimate when it identifies a genuine contradiction or highlights an opportunity to improve transparency. At the same time, accusations of hypocrisy can become a distraction when they focus exclusively on an individual’s consumption rather than examining the wider systems responsible for emissions.
For example, the environmental impact of one T-shirt does not necessarily determine whether a campaign’s broader objectives are valid. Equally, the importance of addressing climate change does not mean that campaign organisations should be exempt from scrutiny over their own environmental footprint.
Both questions can be considered simultaneously.
The most constructive approach is to examine the evidence, establish how products are manufactured and transported, and determine whether realistic alternatives would reduce their environmental impact.
For Just Stop Oil, the merchandise controversy provides an opportunity to explain the decisions behind its supply chain and demonstrate how it intends to minimise the footprint of its fundraising activities.
The Problem With Long-Distance Supply Chains
Modern clothing production frequently involves multiple countries. Raw materials may be grown in one location, processed in another, turned into garments elsewhere and eventually shipped to the market where they are sold.
This global system can make it difficult for consumers to understand the full environmental cost of a product.
Transportation is one part of the calculation, but it is not the only one. The energy used in manufacturing, the type of electricity powering factories, the materials selected and the expected lifespan of the finished garment can all influence its overall environmental impact.
Shipping a product over a long distance does not automatically make it more polluting than producing it locally. Large cargo vessels can transport enormous quantities of goods, meaning that emissions per item may be relatively low compared with some other forms of transport.
Nevertheless, transportation remains relevant, particularly when products are moved through several stages of production before reaching customers.
The question for an organisation such as Just Stop Oil is therefore not simply how many miles a T-shirt travels. It is whether the entire supply chain represents a reasonable effort to minimise emissions and environmental damage.
A garment manufactured closer to its customers may reduce transportation distances, but the result depends on how it is produced. Conversely, a product made from a more sustainable material may still carry environmental costs if its manufacturing process is energy-intensive or its supply chain is unnecessarily complicated.
Without detailed information about the specific garments in question, it would be misleading to calculate their carbon footprint or declare that the transportation distance alone proves environmental irresponsibility.
What can reasonably be said is that transparent information about sourcing, manufacturing and delivery would help consumers evaluate the claims being made.
Just Stop Oil’s Move Towards Hemp Clothing
The organisation has previously addressed criticism of its merchandise by announcing a shift away from selling new cotton campaign T-shirts towards products made from organic hemp and cotton.
The change was presented as an effort to improve the environmental credentials of its clothing. Hemp is often promoted as a potentially lower-impact alternative to conventional cotton because it can require less irrigation and fewer agricultural chemicals under suitable growing conditions.
However, the environmental performance of any textile depends on more than the name of the material. Farming methods, processing, dyeing, transportation and garment durability all matter.
Hemp production is not automatically impact-free, just as cotton production is not necessarily environmentally harmful in every circumstance. A meaningful comparison requires evidence about the complete life cycle of each product.
The move towards hemp nevertheless demonstrates that the organisation has responded to questions about the materials used in its merchandise.
The remaining challenge is to communicate clearly about the full supply chain. If clothing is marketed as sustainable, customers may reasonably expect information about its composition, origin and manufacturing standards.
Environmental claims are most convincing when they are specific, measurable and supported by evidence rather than relying solely on broad descriptions such as organic or eco-friendly.
For a climate campaign, these details can be particularly important because the credibility of its message depends partly on public confidence in its practices.
Is Selling Merchandise Inconsistent With Fighting Climate Change?
The debate also raises a broader question about whether environmental campaigners should sell physical products at all.
Merchandise can help organisations raise money, spread messages and build a sense of community among supporters. It can also generate environmental costs through resource consumption, production and eventual disposal.
The challenge is to determine whether those costs are justified by the product’s purpose and whether they can be reduced.
One approach would be to produce smaller quantities of merchandise, avoiding excessive stock and unnecessary waste. Organisations could also prioritise durable garments, use recycled or responsibly sourced materials where appropriate, and provide clearer information about manufacturing and transportation.
Another option is to offer digital fundraising alternatives or encourage supporters to purchase fewer items and use them for longer.
These measures would not eliminate every environmental impact, but they could help make the relationship between campaign objectives and commercial activities more consistent.
There is also a distinction between selling a product to finance an organisation and promoting consumption for its own sake. The environmental consequences of both activities deserve consideration, but their purposes and outcomes may differ.
Ultimately, the relevant question is not whether campaigners are permitted to buy or sell clothing. It is whether they make reasonable efforts to understand and reduce the environmental consequences of their decisions.
The Political Cost of Perceived Hypocrisy
For an organisation that has attracted substantial public attention through disruptive protests, credibility is an important resource.
Supporters may see direct action as a necessary response to the urgency of climate change. Critics may regard such tactics as disproportionate or counterproductive. In either case, controversies surrounding merchandise can become part of a larger argument about the organisation’s methods and priorities.
Opponents can use questions about clothing production to challenge the consistency of its message. Supporters, meanwhile, may argue that the environmental crisis should be judged by the scale of emissions and the effectiveness of policies rather than by whether every campaign product has a perfectly local supply chain.
Neither argument removes the need for evidence.
If the merchandise has a substantial environmental footprint that could reasonably be reduced, acknowledging the problem and making improvements would strengthen the organisation’s credibility. If the criticism exaggerates the significance of transportation while ignoring other factors, a detailed explanation of the supply chain could provide necessary context.
A transparent response would therefore be more useful than simply dismissing criticism as politically motivated or accepting accusations of hypocrisy without examining the facts.
The same standard should apply to governments and corporations that promote environmental commitments while relying on products or processes with significant emissions.
Consistency matters, but so does the quality of the evidence used to judge it.
What Consumers Should Consider
The controversy offers a useful reminder that sustainability labels and environmental messaging do not tell the whole story about a product.
Consumers interested in reducing their environmental impact can consider several factors before purchasing clothing.
First, they can look at the material and how it is produced. Organic fibres, recycled materials and certain plant-based textiles may offer advantages in particular circumstances, but their benefits depend on production methods.
Second, they can consider durability. A well-made garment that is worn for years may represent a more sensible purchase than a cheaper item that quickly becomes unusable.
Third, consumers can examine the manufacturer’s transparency. Information about production locations, labour standards, material composition and transportation can help distinguish meaningful environmental commitments from vague marketing.
Finally, they can consider whether a purchase is necessary at all. Extending the life of existing clothing, repairing damaged garments and buying second-hand items can sometimes avoid the environmental costs associated with producing something new.
These principles apply to political merchandise just as they apply to clothing sold by major retailers.
A T-shirt bearing an environmental slogan does not become sustainable simply because of the message printed on it. Its actual impact depends on the resources used to produce, transport and eventually dispose of it.
Conclusion: Environmental Credibility Depends on Transparency
The criticism surrounding Just Stop Oil’s £20 T-shirts highlights a familiar tension within the climate debate. Environmental campaigners want governments, businesses and individuals to change their behaviour, but their own activities can attract scrutiny when they appear inconsistent with those demands.
Long-distance transportation is a legitimate factor to consider when assessing a product’s environmental impact. However, distance alone does not establish the full carbon footprint of a garment, and claims about the specific products should be assessed against reliable information about their materials, manufacturing and delivery.
Just Stop Oil has previously announced a shift towards hemp-and-cotton merchandise following criticism of its clothing. The broader question is whether such changes, together with greater supply-chain transparency, are sufficient to demonstrate a serious commitment to reducing environmental harm.
For critics, the controversy reinforces concerns about whether campaigners practise what they preach. For supporters, it illustrates the difficulty of operating sustainably within a global economy that remains heavily dependent on international manufacturing and transportation.
The most useful response is neither to dismiss every criticism as an attack nor to treat every accusation of hypocrisy as proven. It is to examine the evidence and ask whether practical improvements are possible.
Ultimately, environmental credibility is built through consistent action, transparent decisions and a willingness to acknowledge shortcomings. For any organisation campaigning for a more sustainable future, those principles are just as important as the slogans printed on its T-shirts.