They tell us to stop flying, stop driving, get electric cars, stop eating meat, stop burning wood, stop using fossil fuels, stop using plastic. They imply that we're not taking climate breakdown seriously, that we're clinging to all our bad habits and resisting the necessary changes.
Then what do you discover? The very same activists are jetting round the world to one climate conference after another, driving around in gas-guzzlers, tucking into giant steaks or throwing another log on the wood-burning stove.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they should instantly give up all these things and revert to some kind of stone-age existence stripped of all our modern-day comforts and pleasures. That would be absurd.
What I object to is the hypocrisy, that they preach one thing while doing something quite different. That they make a show of ideological purity and integrity when in reality they're as fallible and imperfect as the rest of us. That off-stage they're wrestling with the same day-to-day dilemmas as everyone else - how do we give up all these harmful practices and still have a decent life? What would be an easy adjustment and what would be a painful sacrifice?
If they'd just admit that yes, they still fly around the world, that yes, they still have a petrol car and still drive hundreds of miles every week, I would applaud their honesty and human frailty. But pretending to be holier than thou when they know very well they're not - that really pisses me off.
Why can't they just level with us?
PS: Good example: Prince Charles flew 125 miles by helicopter to make a speech about lowering aircraft emissions (02.02.20)
......................................................................................
As a balance to my scathing review of Keith Richards, I would add that I love Annie Lennox, who seems far more talented and a much nicer person all round. Both her music and lyrics are a lot more interesting than the Stones'. "Diva", "Bare", and "Songs of Mass Destruction" are all brilliant albums. She also does masses of charity work for Amnesty International, Oxfam, the British Red Cross and the Burma Campaign among others. And surprise surprise, there's no misogyny.
I would have more time for them if they were to draw attention to the power of the fossil fuel lobbies in, for example, the EU, and put the blame where it belongs rather than trying to make the general public feel guilty.
ReplyDeleteAs for their swanning around to conferences, could we see an analysis of the result of conferencing? I susoect it is bugger all.
And why don;t any of them mention water...the resource it is most important to safeguard.
Fly: Indeed, we don't have much control over the fossil fuel industry, which if anything is expanding. And yes, rivers and lakes are being heavily polluted, especially by the run-off from farmland and factory farming.
DeleteIf they level with us, they will not grab headlines. Their entire purpose in life is to grab as many as possible.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised at you, Ramana (please also see my reply to Nick's original post). "Their entire purpose in life …"? That is a terrible thing to say. So, lovely passionate and incredibly brave Greta Thunberg's efforts are to "grab headlines"? If she were YOUR granddaughter you'd be proud of her.
DeleteU
Ursula: Agreed, Ramana is being a bit sweeping. I wouldn't call Greta Thunberg a headline-grabber. Or David Attenborough. Or Leonardo Dicaprio.
DeleteI think you are a little harsh here. All environmentalist activists do is draw our attention to potential problems. Doesn't mean they shouldn't participate in life as is. Which, naturally, does involve flying to Davos. The whole issue isn't black or white. It's many shades of grey and a bit of rainbow. Raising awareness. Ramming it home. Trying to jolt people and, of course, governments and business, into some proactive action.
ReplyDeleteGreetings from a militant recycler,
U
Ursula: I agree, the climate issue isn't black or white, as I was trying to say in my reference to day-to-day dilemmas. What do I give up and what do I continue with? As for Davos, Greta Thunberg said that those present had completely ignored demands for fossil fuel divestment.
DeleteIt's a conundrum on who to believe. Plastic bags are being banned in our county, yet there are environmentalists who claim that the cloth bags are worse for the environment because they take so much water to produce. Who does one believe?
ReplyDeleteWhat would be most interesting is if flights became rationed (say, allowing only 2000 miles per person). Then let's see who complains the loudest.
Bijoux: I like the idea of flight rationing. And yes, there's a lot of debate around plastic versus cloth. But cloth bags do last much longer, which conserves resources. We have several cloth bags for the supermarket shop, and they're at least 10 years old.
DeleteOn flights that would give me a problem, coming from Central America to Europe even once a year...what about banning private jets? That would hit the worst offenders.
DeleteFly: Yes, 2,000 miles would be quite limiting. One flight from London to New York is 3,500 miles. A ban on private jets would help, as they're getting more and more popular.
DeleteAustralia is some 9000 miles from the east coast of the US - should no American be allowed to visit? But I'm in agreement about not allowing private jets except for things like delivering medical services to remote areas.
DeleteAgent: Yes, suppose an American has relatives in Australia? Would they be banned from a family get-together? It's not so simple....
DeleteMy point wasn't the random number but that like most things, those that complain the most about the environment tend to be those who fly the most. Flights are costly here, so the average person isn't flying all that much.
DeleteBijoux: I realised that was just a random number you'd plucked out of the air. Interesting that your internal flights are so dear. Ours are so cheap and the train fares so expensive that flying is often a much cheaper option.
DeleteI've read that China is starting to ban non-degradable plastic bags in major cities and single-use straws in restaurants as the first step in drastically reducing plastic pollution. That's encouraging and more effective than trying to shame people, which can be counterproductive.
ReplyDeleteJean: I read that too. It's a good step forward. The amount of plastic we use every day is colossal, somehow we have to radically reduce it.
DeleteI suspect there are environmentalists who walk the walk and others who are more hypocritical. I also don't care for the ones who don't follow their own suggestions.
ReplyDeleteAgent: Sure, I'm not saying that every activist is a hypocrite. Many of them (like Greta Thunberg) try hard to practise what they preach.
DeleteThere's an intereting article in the Boston Globe (hopefully not behind a pay wall) about how some airlines are taking the problem seriously: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/23/lifestyle/flight-shame-movement-grows-travelers-have-more-options-offset-their-carbon-footprint/?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter
ReplyDeleteJean: Unfortunately I can't read it, I have to be a subscriber.
DeleteMy whole comment vanished. I'll come back later, it was a long one :(
ReplyDeleteXO
WWW
www: I always copy my comments on other people's blogs before I post them, because these technical glitches happen quite a lot.
DeleteI think that most humans are hypocrites. A lot of people preach at you not to do something while they do it behind closed doors anyway.
ReplyDeleteMary: Absolutely. Politicians are the most visible example (gay men upholding "family values" etc), but we're all guilty to some extent.
DeleteDo whatever you can, whenever you can
ReplyDeleteKylie: Yep, that's what Jenny and I are doing. And we're not pretending we're some sort of super-green trail-blazers!
DeleteI dislike how ageist they seem to be - as though the young invented environmentalism - which is crap.
ReplyDeleteSx
Ms Scarlet: That just shows how ignorant they are of the decades of environmental warnings that preceded them. Do schools have environment lessons, I wonder?
Delete