Quick Read
- Greta Thunberg was banned from Venice and fined €150 after participating in a green-dye protest.
- The protest, led by Extinction Rebellion, dyed canals neon green using biodegradable dye to highlight climate inaction.
- Authorities criticized the stunt as disrespectful and potentially harmful, despite activist assurances.
- Eight activists were detained for hours before being released with further complaints.
Venice’s Waters Turn Neon Green: The Protest That Led to Greta Thunberg’s Ban
On a crisp Saturday in November 2025, the iconic canals of Venice were suddenly transformed, their waters shimmering in neon green. The spectacle wasn’t the result of a festival or artistic installation—it was a deliberate act of protest, led by world-renowned climate activist Greta Thunberg alongside members of Extinction Rebellion (XR). Their message: urgent action against what they term ‘ecocide’ and climate inaction.
Why Did Venice Bar Greta Thunberg?
The protest wasn’t isolated to Venice. It was part of a coordinated action across Italy, with activists targeting waterways in several cities. Thunberg herself joined the demonstration in Trieste, where the Grande Canal was dyed using fluorescein—a biodegradable tracer dye commonly employed by scientists to study water flows. Videos of the green canals quickly spread online, fueling heated debate.
Local police responded swiftly. Thunberg and 35 other activists received €150 fines, and all were temporarily banned from entering Venice. Eight protesters were detained for several hours for identification, then released with additional complaints filed, according to XR Italy’s social media updates. The move wasn’t just a legal response; it was symbolic—a city famed for its fragile heritage drawing a line against what officials saw as disruptive activism.
Extinction Rebellion’s Rationale: “Stop the Ecocide”
Extinction Rebellion Italy defended the protest in a statement posted to Instagram, stressing that the dye used posed no environmental risk. Their aim, they said, was to highlight the “depredation of ecosystems for economic exploitation” and to call out the government’s failure to address the climate crisis, especially ahead of the upcoming Cop30 climate conference.
The group also accused Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s administration of blocking ambitious climate policies. Their call to “Stop the ecocide” was both a demand for ecological justice and a challenge to the political status quo.
Official Response: Heritage vs. Protest
Veneto’s regional governor, Luca Zaia, was quick to condemn the protest. He described the act as “disrespectful” to the city’s history and its unique vulnerability. Zaia warned that, despite assurances from XR, the move could have unforeseen environmental consequences. His words echoed a broader sentiment among Italian officials, who saw the green dye not as harmless symbolism, but as reckless behavior threatening Venice’s delicate ecosystem.
The backlash wasn’t confined to local government. Across social media and in the press—including coverage by Reuters, The Sun, and Unilad—the protest sparked heated discussion. Supporters argued that the action was necessary to draw attention to climate inaction. Critics, meanwhile, claimed it showed disrespect for the city’s cultural and environmental heritage.
Balancing Activism and Local Sensitivities
Venice is no stranger to environmental challenges. Rising sea levels, pollution, and overtourism have long threatened its survival. For many, Thunberg’s protest is a metaphor—a flash of color in the murky waters of climate politics. But for others, it’s a cautionary tale about the limits of activism in a city already on the edge.
Extinction Rebellion and Thunberg maintain that their actions were not only safe but necessary. The fluorescein dye, they argued, is non-toxic and routinely used for scientific research. Yet, the city’s authorities were unconvinced, framing the protest as a risk to both the environment and public order.
As Venice recovers from the incident, the debate continues: How far can activists go in challenging climate inaction without crossing lines of cultural or ecological respect? And in a world desperate for urgent solutions, what forms of protest are truly effective?
Thunberg’s ban from Venice highlights the friction between global climate advocacy and local stewardship. The episode serves as a reminder that even the most urgent causes must navigate a complex landscape of tradition, environmental risk, and public perception. Whether the protest will drive meaningful change or deepen the divide remains to be seen.