Do motoring journalists have an ethical responsibility to discuss the environment?

Suffice it so say that the UK’s most well-known motoring journalist, Jeremy Clarkson (who else?), is something of a controversial figure. His sometimes slightly racist humour tends to attract a fair bit of press attention and, perhaps even more disappointingly, quite a few fans. But we are not here to discuss these matters in this blog; instead I’m interested in the question of Clarkson’s view of climate change - which is particularly significant when his position as a leading public voice on motoring affairs is taken into account.

To summarise Clarkson’s position briefly; he believes climate change is happening, but has nothing to do with humankind’s activities and can therefore not be affected by things such as our C02 emissions. Thus he often delivers ‘humurous’ insights on the consequences of climate change such as ‘Switzerland loses its ski resorts, the beach in Miami is washed away, North Carolina gets knocked over by a hurricane… anything bothering you yet?’.

Is this irresponsible talk from such a publicly prominent motoring authority? Such statements seem to revolve around an underlying lack of compassion or consideration for others, disguised as free-thinking individualistic rebellion. Don’t lots of people usually die in hurricanes and floods? Is this something we’re really happy to joke about?

I know Clarkson would call me a politically correct fool, but nonetheless he chooses to focus his joke on natural features for a reason (’a beach’, ’ski resorts’) rather than mention that actually it is the loss of human life that is most central and tragic when such events occur. If he was truly comfortable and happy with this as the basis for a joke, why hide the truth of death and suffering in such events? Why not just say: ‘thousands of people lose their homes in Bangladesh, floods kill yet more people in Florida, and a hurricane destroys half of a city in Mexico. Anything bothering you yet?’ Hahaha indeed…

I don’t doubt for a second that Clarkson truly believes what he says, though we should not forget that such views also serve quite a useful function of positioning his public persona as a ’speaks his mind, no messing about with pc concerns, anti-government rebel’ - which ensures quite the degree of popularity, as we can see from his quite extensive career success.

I don’t really want to enter into an actual debate on climate change and motoring here really, or the specifics of Clarkson’s actual views. What concerns me instead is the manner in which he expresses them - which relies upon an exploitation of underlying racism or unfeeling disregard for others, dressed up as plain-speaking humour.

Have a look for example at a recent article for the Sun which covers some key climate change and motoring topics, and in which Clarkson’s main point is that since we have no viable alternatives to fuel at the moment (in a widely market-available option) then it’s just tough since we have no choice but to drive. Nothing wrong with that - I might not fully agree personally, but really it’s a valid opinion and there’s nothing too controversial there. However here’s a little extract from the piece itself:

‘This week, eight rich old men in Japan announced it was “The End For The Petrol Powered Car”. The leaders of the G8 nations decided, over a delicious eight-course lunch, that the grubby little people who they represent must now eat mud and go to work every day in a Moulinex Magimix. My, I bet the eco-mentals were celebrating. They probably all had friends round to their yurts for a glass of nuclear-free South African peace wine.’

Basically the gist is this: extravagantly indulgent foreigners (those pesky ‘rich old Japanese’), who hold us in total contempt (apparently they reckon we should now ‘eat mud’ though they have an ‘eight-course lunch’), have decided once again what’s best for us, much to the delight of fundamentalist and deluded environmentalists who drink foreign wine (ewww) and live like semi-civilised primitives (yurts!), all because they are too fussy about damaging the environment (’nuclear-free’).

So, what is essentially a scientific issue (climate change) is actually situated along the lines of an opposition to foreigners telling us what to do; rich fat cats exploiting us for their own gain; and finally the wackjob environmentalists winning authority and status even though they are really just dirty, self-righteous hippies…

And that’s the problem really - there’s not too much real scientific engagement here from Clarkson, and instead the climate change debate really just becomes an opportunity for a populist political position, meanwhile the cause of encouraging intelligent debate and knowledge on the topic takes a very very back seat.

Some might disagree with my analysis of Clarkson’s writing and comments, and ultimately this is a wider issue facing all those journalists and bloggers whose topics touch upon the climate change issue, but when it comes to the particular case of our country’s most influential motoring journalist, maybe in the interests of professionalism, in future it might be better to not discuss the climate change topic in future if an intelligent and rational analysis is not on the cards.

Dejan Levi

, , , ,