Some thoughts on hypocrisy

It's been a pretty eventful couple of weeks for people interested in Alberta environmental issues. We've seen Ed Stelmach's $25 million dollar greenwashing campaign swing into action, the cheeky interruption of Stelmach's Premier's Dinner speech by Greenpeace activists, and, most recently and visibly (notice the source I link to), the death of approximately 500 ducks that landed in one of Syncrude's several, massive, and highly toxic tailings ponds (these, I might add, being a fine example of the environmental stewardship that our government is spending vast amounts of taxpayer money to promote.*)

Because this blog doesn't often allow me the opportunity to directly berate people, I often find myself duking it out in the comments section below news stories on either the CBC News or Globe and Mail websites. In light of all of the action this week I've been especially busy, and I've noticed a common thread in the arguments posed in these forums, typically by conservative types, that makes my blood boil: the notion that people like the Greenpeace protesters, for example, are "hypocrites" because they drove to the Shaw Conference centre/were wearing shoes with rubber in them/performed their action in a room heated by natural gas/know someone that works at a gas station. The idea is that this "hypocrisy" somehow invalidates the arguments of these people because they're not "putting their money where their mouths are."

The only problem with this argument is that in western society it is impossible -- short of walking into the forest naked -- to put one's money where one's mouth is in this respect.  As an example, I type this on a computer composed largely of petroleum byproducts that's being powered by coal-generated electricity while I sit in a natural-gas-heated room, with the energy for this typing coming from food produced with fossil fuel-powered machinery. Are these oil-industry critical  words invalidated because I'm indirectly using oil to produce them?

I don't think so, because it is impossible to produce these words otherwise -- just as there was no practical way for Greenpeace interrupt the Premier's dinner or for David Suzuki (another very popular target for accusations of this sort for having the audacity to use a bus for his cross-country climate change tour) to influence public opinion without using fossil fuels in some way. Accusing environmentalists of hypocrisy is so popular amongst their opponents, I think, because the accuser knows that the only real alternative for the party that the accuser is directing his or her attacks towards is to more-or-less stop doing whatever it is that riled up the accuser so much in the first place and, as I mentioned, walk naked into the forest.

People like Suzuki or Greenpeace members are simply trying to change the society that we live in, and regardless of what they think of this society they are subject to its constraints like everyone else. Calling environmentalists hypocrites for using fossil fuels is like calling Scott Hennig a hypocrite for paying taxes, or members of the private-healthcare-advocating Fraser Institute hypocrites for going to a publicly-funded hospital if they fall ill. It's ludicrous, because in Canada, paying taxes and using public healthcare are precisely like using fossil fuels, in the sense that each is entirely unavoidable. Right now there is no fossil-fuel-free method remotely approaching practical that would allow environmental groups to spread their message to the extent necessary to influence public opinion  -- indeed, that is exactly what they're trying to change. Can you think of anything that would make Greenpeace happier than us living in a society where it wasn't necessary for them to use fossil fuels to propagate their message?

Criticize these people for being idealistic, unrealistic, or fatalistic -- whatever. But stop calling them hypocrites, or I'll aggressively browbeat you in the discussion section of a globeandmail.com story.

*I've been having a lot less of these lately, but this is one of those things that makes me shake my head, sigh, and say "Oh, Alberta." Edmontonians flew into an absolute rage when architectural entrance markers were proposed for the city, at a cost of about $1.4 million -- but they'll look the other way when the government spends $25 million on what is so blatantly propaganda.

Comments

[JR]

Fantastic post! I too have noticed when arguing with those "right-wing" or "regressive-thinking" types that their usual course of action when backed into a corner is to change the subject or make ad hominem attacks. This is likely because their core beliefs have little to no empirical basis.

[One Alberta Voter]

Great post, AGRDT, but I think you have overlooked a more subtle, widespread, and insidious way in which the environmental message is marginalized. I am referring to the widespread use of the term "environmentalist", which seems to distinguish people vocally concerned about the environment from citizens in the mainstream of society. Consider how different it would be if the media and polticians used "citizens concerned about the environment", in place of "environmentalists". It would mean that headlines starting "Environmentalists claim . . " would be dropped in favour of "Concerned citizens claim . . " Politicians would no longer be able to dismiss concerns as simply coming from "environmentalists", and thereby marginal.

In saying this, I work for an environmental organization and have proudly worn the environmentalist mantle for years. However, when I see a well-rounded, open-minded, multi-faceted citizen, who speaks up about an environmental problem, labeled suddenly, on the basis of that one opinion, an environmentalist, it seems that the consideration they have given their opinion is being denigrated. There seems to be the implicit suggestion that, of course they would hold that opinion - they are an environmentalist, and therefore have no mind of their own and are bound to push the limit of social norms.

It's time to recognize that environment is a concern of a broad range of citizens, including the most mainstream.

[LV]

Great post jk. In a follow-up question to the one(s) posted by One Alberta Voter, I was wondering if AGRDT has weighed in on the "environmentalist" v. "conservationist" labels. Lately, I have heard them used interchangeably by the mainstream media. Is there a difference? Or are they synonyms?

How does "language" play into this whole publicity thing?

[jk]

One Alberta Voter: excellent, excellent point. I was struggling with the language a little when I wrote that post -- specifically with the use of the word "environmentalists" -- and I couldn't quite figure out why. Since I was in a hurry I pushed those thoughts aside, but your comment has elucidated why I felt uneasy using the term. You're completely right; it seems that the term "environmentalist" seems to be suffering the same fate as "feminist" -- a pejorative, used to impart the idea that the person carrying the label is driven by some sort of radical ideology and therefore isn't worth listening to.

LV: also an excellent question, I have noticed that term ("conservationist") popping up a lot lately, and haven't really pondered the difference. This could be the makings of another post...

[ch]

One Alberta Voter - have you read the Nordhaus and Shellenberger "Death of Environmentalism" piece from a couple years back? They discuss your very point.

[Aaron]

Right now there is no fossil-fuel-free method remotely approaching practical that would allow environmental groups to spread their message to the extent necessary to influence public opinion

Here's a start: bullfrogpower.com

[One Alberta Voter]

On the question of "environmentalist" vs. "conservationist", over the past several years many of us have tried to avoid the taint which comes with the label of "environmentalist", and been using "conservationist" in its place. There was a feeling in part that "conservationist" tied back to a more traditional land ethic of pioneers, cowboys, hunters and fishers, and so tied us into a larger community. The distinction, however, is no big deal and most of us use both interchangeably.

One subtle distinction, however, is that many who work on land and water use, and associated habitat and wildlife issues, prefer "conservationist" while those who work on toxins, emissions, etc. tend to gravitate to "environmentalist".

As I said originally, however, I think we should all get in the habit of calling ourselves "concerned citizens", which is the best label of all in a democracy.

[ch]

One Alberta Voter may disagree with me and this may not apply to their organization, but 'conservationist' as a label adopted by many ENGOs also implies a more neutral, apolitical approach. Think Ducks Unlimited, Nature Canada (but they're changing), and other more parks focused groups (at least outside of Alberta).

In some cases, it's a strategy, it's a lot easier to get business on board if you're 'merely' preserving land, not challenging the entire capitalist resource exploiting system.

[One Alberta Voter]

I think your take, ch, is fairly accurate. I would contest , however, that there is anything inherent in environmentalism which necessarily challenges the capitalist system. In fact I would say that it is much broader than that. Having said that, I am sure we could all point to SOME prominent environmentalists who have issue such a challenge.

Again, however, I think such semantic debates serve to build artificial distinctions, rather than move us to shared understanding.