Climate Conversations 23rd March 2023
Climate hypocrisy happens when someone says we should do something about the environment but doesn’t live up to their own standards. It’s a subject that has come up in earlier meetings and in the last session we decided to take a closer look at the topic. In the previous meeting we began looking at some research that was carried out by politics researchers and we continued that in this session. They looked at stories that mentioned climate hypocrisy in 12 English language. newspapers. The newspapers came from Australia, US, Canada and the UK. The researchers were interested in seeing how the newspapers framed stories in different ways to make their readers feel positively or negatively towards climate change. They published their findings in an article called ‘Why Don’t You Act Like You Believe It?’ by S. Gunster and other authors, published in Frontiers in 2018′.
The researchers identified four different types of storyline in all the articles they looked at:
1. “Individual Lifestyle Outrage”
What the articles say:
Someone who has spoken out about climate change is caught doing something environmentally damaging. It’s often something that is out of the reach of ordinary people which shows that they are elitist and out of touch. This shows that environmentalism is a conspiracy of elites who are forcing others to make sacrifices they won’t make themselves (according to the newspaper article, not the researchers!).
The researchers say this story could:
•Undermine the credibility of environmentalists.
•Encourage more cynicism, more selfishness and acceptance of the status quo.
•Discourage public discussion of morality and the climate crisis.
•Suggest environmentalism is all about sacrifice.
•Promote the idea that individuals have the power to change things and tackle climate change.
An example:
Stories criticising the electric and gas bills for Al Gore’s mansion, which were 20 times the American average.
2. “Institutional Cynicism”
What the newspaper articles say:
Governments are hypocritical about climate change. They promise action but do very little. This really isn’t their fault though. We can’t expect them to do anything else. The green lobby are forcing them to address climate change. But everyone knows that they can’t take meaningful action because the public and the markets wouldn’t stand for it. In this story environmentalists are just a special interest group.
The researchers say this storyline could:
•Lead to loss of faith in governments.
•Fatalism. Feeling hopeless and resigned to our fate.
An example:
A US Energy Secretary is criticised for supporting measures to enforce emissions reductions, then wanting to keep oil prices low for the sake of the economy (he is criticised for not understanding that cheap oil is necessary for the economy, not for undermining the effectiveness of the environmental measures).
3. “Institutional call to action”
What the newspaper articles say:
They point out the hypocrisy of governments, organisations and corporations that talk about addressing climate change but carry on with business as usual. They suggest that governments and institutions have real choice and power to tackle climate change.
The researchers say this story could:
•Create public outrage to generate positive action on climate change.
•Highlight the constraints and limitations that individuals face (without necessarily making excuses for people’s decisions).
•Identify possible alternatives.
•Challenge the storylines that say that hypocrisy is an intrinsic part of human nature.
An example:
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth point hypocrisy of the government around it’s plans to expand Heathrow. They highlight the contradiction in having a “supposedly progressive” climate change programme and then “pushing forward plans to lock Britain into high emissions for decades to come” (The newspaper story was ‘New Heathrow runway would erase a village by’ S. Lyall, and was published in The New York Times in 2008)
4. “The reflexive mode”
What the newspaper articles say
These stories describe people’s personal struggles with the gap between their values and behaviour. People struggle with what they know about the climate crisis and pressure to live a normal life. Often the storyline follows a sequence of gaining awareness, then taking responsibility, then a change in behaviour.
The researchers say this story could:
•Open up new conversations about a difficult subject.
•Focus on individuals changing their own behaviour as a way to resolve the feelings of hypocrisy.
•Expose or counter the “cynical” strategy of using accusations of hypocrisy to shut down discussion or action on climate change.
•Let us see the structural (social, economic and political) issues that limit individuals ability to live as sustainably as they want to.
For example:
The researchers give the example of a Canadian student who was interviewed by a journalist at a Climate Camp protest opposing airport expansion. She “admitted” flying back to British Columbia to visits family she missed and hadn’t seen for years. She says to the journalist, “The thing about asking when we last flew—I understand why you want to know, but I worry that it gives the impression our protest is about attacking people at the level of individual guilt. Because it’s not. Foremost this is about highlighting government policies that, on one hand, want people to change to energy-efficient bulbs and on the other hand is hypocritically in favor of doubling air traffic to facilitate the binge flying of the super-rich.” But she acknowledged that her “guilt for having flown to Vancouver” also played some role in her politics. “There are no simple answers…But surely at least one part of the answer is to question a culture that has persuaded us we have to fly in order to be happy. This issue needs special attention. And that’s why we are here”. (The newspaper story was ‘Reality-checking at Heathrow” by M. Potter published in 2007 in the Toronto Star)
Maybe it’s not so bad to be a hypocrite
Some quotes from the article, on how you can only be called a hypocrite if you’re trying to live more ethically:
In response to an article by Julie Burchill that ridiculed “posh” environmentalists, “Guardian columnist and climate activist Monbiot (2008) reasoned that critics such as Burchill were largely immune to accusations of hypocrisy: “she cannot fail to live by her moral code, for the simple reason that she doesn’t have one.””
“Sure, we are hypocrites,” he writes. “Every one of us, almost by definition. Hypocrisy is the gap between your aspirations and your actions. Greens have high aspirations; they want to live more ethically; and they will always fall short. But the alternative to hypocrisy isn’t moral purity (no one manages that), but cynicism. Give me hypocrisy any day.” (Monbiot,)
The best way to never be a hypocrite, and to always stay consistent, is to deny climate change, and have no agenda on anything beyond self-interest…Indeed, the more ardently you pursue your own interests, the more persuasively you live your own values. If, on the other hand, you have ambitions for large-scale change and believe things could be significantly better for vast numbers of people, you will always fail fully to embody your own hopes (Williams, 2014)
“It’s time to accept your inner hypocrite and take action all the same.” So ends a provocative Guardian op-ed from Fauset (2006)
‘Why Don’t You Act Like You Believe It?’ by S. Gunster and other authors, published in Frontiers in 2018′.
Our Thoughts
- Some hypocrisy is inevitable.
- Maybe being called a hypocrite isn’t such a bad thing – it may mean you’re doing something right.
- We can’t help living in a fossil fuel world, where there’s a concerted, cynical strategy to make it about individual responses, that’s been funded by the fossil fuel industry.
- It’s part of a broader cultural thing too. Where we tend to focus on individual choice and responsibility.
- There’s been a change in the framing of stories from outright denial to delay.
- Stories about climate change are framed as being a niche concern that only bothers ‘environmental activists’ rather than the general public.
- We want more of the fourth type of story (The reflexive mode). We really liked the quote from the Canadian student. But where’s the space for it? Social media doesn’t allow for nuance and detailed descriptions.
- It’s hard to tell what is internal guilt about our own actions and what might be internalised from being exposed to these stories repeatedly.
Sources
Gunster and other authors ‘Why Don’t You Act Like You Believe It?’ S, published in Frontiers in 2018′.