06 September 2010

It’s a common complaint, individuals and organisations urging us to adopt sustainable lifestyles and acting in a very different way themselves. We call them hypocrites (or worse). But is this the right reaction? Could it be that there are legitimate defences of this “hypocrisy” that can be made? Does it really matter if some of the high-profile advocates of sustainable development are burning up the air miles like there’s no tomorrow (which there might not be someday if we all do go on spewing out carbon)?

A couple of recent cases. Cases come up all the time of seemingly hypocritical behaviour, of people and organisations telling us what to do while not doing it themselves. .

Transport Scotland. Staff took 661 short-haul domestic flights in the last 12 months on the British mainland. Taking in Ireland and the islands, this rises to 731.The officials from the national transport body also travelled on international flights to South Korea, Peru, Venezuela and South Africa as well as 33 flights to Dusseldorf and 17 to Amsterdam. There are only 290 people employed by this agency which is trying to reduce our emissions. (Scotsman)

Prince Charles. He has set out on a tour of the country to promote sustainable living including the importance of walking and cycling – in a £50,000 trip aboard his own nine-carriage Royal Train. The train is at least using biofuels, albeit in some parts of the world this is seen as ethically  dubious as the growing of crops for this purpose contributes to deforestation, food shortages and higher prices. Not necessarily the case here in the UK though. (See Mail Online for this and other examples of Prince Charles’ “green” travelling”.)

Does this kind of thing constitute hypocrisy? Does it matter if people say, “Do what we say, not what we do”? Should their behaviour influence us?

It is important to recognise that this kind of hypocrisy (let’s just call it that), however big and whoever from, does not detract in any way from the facts of climate change. If you believe in climate change then nothing Prince Charles, or Transport Scotland do to increase carbon emissions should make any difference to that belief. What they are telling us to do is right or wrong independent of what they do themselves. They may be hypocrites but their message may be still be correct. If you believe in climate change and believe we should be acting to alleviate it, you should consider the advice of Prince Charles, or Transport Scotland solely in terms of whether it is practicable, affordable and contributes to the goal of countering climate change. Their private behaviour (or employee behaviour) is irrelevant to this, and should not change your behaviour.

There’s another kind of argument in defence of the seeming hypocrisy (let’s just call it that). Prince Charles, and various celebrities who have climbed on the green bandwagon, may through the publicity they attract and their role as role models, encourage behaviour change among the public which outweighs their own contribution to our environmental footprint. That is surely a good thing. The same argument can be applied to the behaviour of heads and officials of environmental charities and agencies, and the behaviour of academic and other experts and lifestyle-change promoters.

Now, logically and rationally, what I have just written is, I think indisputable (though there are those who will dispute it – and feel free to do so below, but not before you’ve read the whole piece, please!)

So is it wrong of me to think, “Why should I bother doing the right things if Prince Charles and others are doing what they’re doing? Well, no it’s not wrong at all to think that way. It’s not wrong at all to become reluctant about moving any further down the green path of climate change righteousness in our behaviour. After considering further the matter we should not be influenced, for the reasons given above. Some people might be though and if they are it will not be easy to convince them they are wrong. Because it’s not just a matter of reason and logic.

My argument is OK as far as it goes. But we are not logical calculating machines. We have emotions and these are more important than our reason. As the greatest Scotsman ever, the philosopher David Hume wrote, in possibly his most famous words, “Reason is, and only ought to be, the slave of the passions." No amount of facts or reasoning can ever provide a decisive guide to our actions. It's our beliefs and values which must govern our what we do. And we know, whatever the logical niceties, that these people are hypocrites, that their behaviour is wrong. We are right to criticise them rigorously and fiercely. We are right to be annoyed and angry when their behaviour is at such odds with what they are telling us to do? They shouldn’t be doing the jobs they are doing, they shouldn’t be supporting the campaigns they are supporting.

But, let us remember, for it is still true, climate change is happening regardless. We have to take actions against it. We have to change our lifestyles. Because it is the right thing to do. And that is ultimately the only reason to do it.

< Prev		Next >