Are Environmentalists Hypocrites?

If there is one thing?nobody likes,?it’s a?hypocrite.?Political philosopher, Judith Shklar, once called?hypocrisy the one unforgivable sin.?Dante?even designated a special place in hell for hypocrites. It’s easy to understand what bothers us so much about hypocrites. Like liars they are untruthful but even worse, they are arrogant and condescending. We are so offended by hypocrites because we suspect they’re?motivated by self-righteousness?and not governed by morals or principles.

When it comes to the climate crisis, accusations of hypocrisy have polluted political discourse, with politicians, commentators and Twitter mobs pointing out perceived double standards of climate activists. Are environmentalists hypocrites?if they still lead high carbon lifestyles while bemoaning the demise of the planet?

I wonder if the focus on hypocrisy takes us anywhere beyond finger-pointing? Is deploying the hypocrisy rhetoric an outcome of?outrage culture, something that simply keeps up uninformed and distracts us from the real issue – the climate catastrophe??

Shooting the messenger

The Truth about Hypocrisy chronicles how the message and the messenger are two separate things. Dismissing the fundamental issue because the spokesperson is flawed or inconsistent does not make any sense. Contrarily, they call to?‘temper such knee-jerk reactions toward the messenger and instead independently consider the validity of the message itself.’

Looking at One Nation politician?and climate change sceptic Malcolm Roberts?for example. He considered the structural demands of the?climate protests?invalid because some children were carrying?disposable plastic water bottles. This critique is irrelevant to the underlying issue of climate change. Even if everyone converted to?reusable bottles it is not going to stop the unprecedented bushfires, drought or famine that ensues from climate change. After all,?individual emissions pale in comparison to Australian coal and oil-producing companies.

A similar thing happened when a?column?by conservative Australian broadcaster, Alan Jones scolded protesters, arguing that?‘If you are going to turn yourself inside out about coal-fired power, turn off your iPad, your phone and your laptop, instead of charging them with life-threatening coal-fired power’. What he failed to acknowledge is that our entire society is structured in a way that avoiding fossil fuels-based products is almost impossible. Therefore, the fallacy that one needs to abstain from using the oil that powers society today in order to argue for a more sustainable tomorrow should be dismantled.?

Talisse and Aikin?labelled these ‘argumentative diversions’ because they draw attention away from the issue, and short circuit rational discussion with the purpose of eliciting outrage. These are pivots that do not encourage meaningful or constructive conversation surrounding the burgeoning issue of climate change but enter the realm of ‘whataboutism’.?

Whataboutism?

Whataboutism?is?a conversational tactic?that describes an attempt to discredit the spokesperson by charging them with hypocrisy without directly disproving their argument. So, when confronted with a complicated and emotionally charged issue like climate change, people often ignore it and bring up another vaguely related issue.?

When being confronted with a pro-vegan argument, for example, some animal consumers retort, “What about almond milk and the dwindling bee population?”, “What about bacteria?”, “What about your leather-upholstered?car seats?”, “What about fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides?” or “What about?life saving medication?” Perhaps, they can lead to constructive discussions. But more often than not, a conversation like this is filled with finger-pointing and red herrings that can quickly spiral out of control and away from the central issue.?

Most vegans will admit that they struggle to sever all connections with animal suffering and exploitation. However, the overall vegan argument is deflected with attempts to expose inconsistencies in vegan practice. It sidelines in-depth discussion and debates about ethical and sustainable food consumption. Instead, it encourages these emotionally loaded dead-end conversations where the topic isn’t explored but superficially compared to another one.?

With armchair critics taking delight in accusing?environmentalists?of?hypocrisy, too much of climate change dialogue has descended into personal crucifixions. Through taking turns pointing out the inadequacies and failures of environmentalists, it is slowly turning environmentalism into an individual choice defined as sin or virtue. And any real discussion of how we are going to mitigate climate change is lost among all the noise. The conversation needs to be re-oriented towards the underlying and structural issues of climate change.?

I am certainly not arguing that being vegan is the only, or even the best, way to lead an eco-conscious life... but it's a convenient example of how toxic whataboutism can be.

Stop being strangled by your environmental sins

With?climate change becoming an ever-looming anxiety,?we have been too busy testing each other’s purity and contributing to the toxic culture of?guilt and shame surrounding sustainability. In the meantime,?the true culprits’ have been exonerated – the government and industries. This obsession with individual action shames people for their everyday activities, things that are largely unavoidable because they exist in a system sustained by fossil fuels. People are?carrying the guilt of the oil and gas industry’s crimes?and that blame, is too much for an individual to bear.

So, are?you a climate change hypocrite? I certainly am. After all, doing something imperfectly is better than not trying at all.??