October 12, 2010
The Environmental Rot?
I refrained from blogging about the shocking 10:10 climate change video when it appeared online a fortnight ago. Partly this was to allow myself some critical distance. Partly I was so overwhelmed by it’s monumental stupidity that I didn’t know what to write.
For those who missed the video, here it is:
It’s fair to say that 10:10 couldn’t have come up with a worse video if they’d tried.
You’d be forgiven for suspecting that this must be a fake; climate-change denial’s answer to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But it’s not. It’s for real. Campaign group 10:10 thought-up, wrote, commissioned, and hired celebrities for this video. They then shot, produced, and watched it. And then they still chose to release it.
Yet precisely because this video must have gone through a lengthy process of commission and execution, it suggests that the evident and appalling lapse of judgement on display is not a one-off aberration. Rather, it may be a product of some deep pathologies within the environmentalist movement.
I should say now that I am not a climate change “sceptic”. I am convinced that climate change is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it will be disastrous if not mitigated quickly. Nonetheless, the 10:10 video appears to indicate at least 3 potential pathologies at work.
First, 10:10′s strikingly callous attitude towards those who don’t sign up to their brand of anti-climate change action. In the video those who dissent are firstly lied to – “no pressure” – before being murdered in graphic and shocking detail. It seems likely that only an organisation holding utter and deep-seated contempt for dissenters could find this an acceptable way to portray opponents in public.
Second, the 10:10 video demonstrates a complete lack of basic political acumen, strategy and common sense. It’s one thing to find it appropriate to symbolically blow-up those who don’t care about climate change (however worrying or not that might be from a psychoanalytic point of view). It’s quite another to be so politically stupid as to not realise that depicting the blowing up of children in particular will gift a vast arsenal of ammunition to opponents, whilst also alienating reasonable people in the middle ground.
Third, this video manifests a staggering penchant for stunt and shock-factor over likely political gain. For what, after all, is the message supposed to be? That if you don’t agree with 10:10, they’ll kill you? That is the only coherent suggestion I can draw – and it’s hardly a smart one to be sending out. If the video was meant to highlight that lack of action on climate change will endanger us all, it fails spectacularly. If there was some other message here, it’s been destroyed by allowing a childish desire to pull stunts take priority. (Those who question the wisdom of preventing Easyjet flights packed with middle-England holiday-makers from taking off may sense a pattern emerging).
Again: given how much planning and preparation went into this video, how many people must have been involved with making it, and that nobody senior realised that it was a really stupid idea, indicates that this may not be a one-off cock-up.
I say this not to attack environmentalists. They have the best of intentions, and they are undoubtedly on the side of the angels. I say it because many environmental campaigners need to recognise that if there is a deep rot in aspects of their movement and its thinking, then they need to sort that out quickly. If they don’t, they are likely to fail in their goals and objectives. And we will all be significantly the worse off for that.
Tim Worstall said,
October 12, 2010 at 8:27 am
Classic case of groupthink.
The Wisdom of Crowds fails under the condition that the crowd is already committed to a specific belief. Banks about risk, enviros about this perhaps.
Simply, there’s no one there who does stand back and ponder “is this stupid or what”?
Left Outside said,
October 12, 2010 at 11:48 am
How? How did this get made?! I heard it was bad but I only just got a chance to watch the video.
It seems really threatening as an advert and a little bit creepy. Not to mention the child who is cycling to school is called “Jemima”, which I presume is a popular name in luvvie environmental circles, but just sounded middle class and detached to my ears. How did they get Radiohead to put their music to it?
More questions raised than answered but this frankly. The mind boggles that 100s of people thought this was a good idea, even one person thinking it was a good idea is stretching it.
Peter said,
October 12, 2010 at 12:34 pm
You’ll get no disagreement from me that this video was politically inadvisable etc, but is it really “shocking” etc? Seems to me that the only people who are shocked or offended are professional sad-cases whose job it is to get het up about trivial stuff.
Paul Sagar said,
October 12, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Peter, 1) that’s because you spend too much time playing violent computer games, 2) even if the “shock” is exaggerated by the Permanently Taking Offence brigade, it remains that 10:10 should have seen that coming and thought about it in advance.
NemesisTheWarlock said,
October 12, 2010 at 10:47 pm
More proof – as if anyone needed it – that committed Greens are drawn from the ranks of lunatics and totalitarians. Is this the way the Left’s “compassion” and “empathy” would work in practice – do what we tell you, or be vapourised into red mist?
“Think of the children”, indeed!
Grace said,
October 12, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Peter, that video is incredibly shocking… Showing a nice smiley teacher lying to her class and then blowing up the ones who disagree with her, even though she’s just told them it’s fine to, and the blood and gore going everyone, is just wrong on so many levels! And it’s not even as if all the kids get blown up and then the video ends… it happens again, and then again, as if they think all the viewers are idiots who don’t get whatever point there is the first time around.
Paul Sagar said,
October 12, 2010 at 10:59 pm
“as if they think all the viewers are idiots who don’t get whatever point there is the first time around.”
Yes. And it’s particularly ironic, given that there *is* no point!!
NemesisTheWarlock said,
October 12, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Christ! It’s a bit like the Tory Party putting out a PPB that showed Thatcher using a flamethrower on striking miners, and George Osborne pissing on them to cool them down!
But there’s a difference between having a political daydream in the bath, and turning it into propaganda that exposes you to international ridicule.
RA said,
October 13, 2010 at 11:00 am
The biggest problem with the video is not that it is shocking but that it’s rather boring. With the budget this campaign obviously had, I would hope that Richard Curtis could have come up with more creative and amusing ways for people to die. It’s kind of adorable when the kids at the start get it, but the repeated use of explosion-via-magic-button quickly becomes tiresome. Or if they had to continually use the exploding device, at least try to make the audience feel the explodees had it coming, either by acting like twits or being disgustingly unattractive. 10:10 only make themselves look worse with their whiny “many people found it very funny” qualification in the apology; they’re either lying or are friends with people who lie to them or have awful taste.
Ste For Sure said,
October 13, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I think the point being made is that committing to this 10:10 idea is so obviously right; that it involves such little effort and sacrifice for such massive moral gain (like potentially saving the species) that anyone who refuses to participate is a complete and utter twat. They put in jeopardy the chances of this idea working, which might mean more avoidable environmental destruction. So really, there *is* pressure. Because if we dont all do it, we put the future of humanity at risk – and if the stakes are that high, maybe we should kill people who refuse to cooperate.
Its meant to shock people – like those THINK adverts. So you are supposed to think “shit, they’re right. if i dont participate in this, Im a worthless piece of shit who contributes to jeopardising the future of humanity.”
I still think its stupid. but there is a point to it.
Ste For Sure said,
October 13, 2010 at 3:08 pm
oh, and i dont agree with the ‘point’ either
Thrasymachus said,
October 14, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Maybe it’s a new way to do viral marketing. Make an ad so awful that it draws attention to itself that way.
Andy said,
October 15, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I was shown this video the other night by a colleague. It is monumentally stupid. How could they not stop to think that it might play into the hands of those who believe that climate change is nothing more than a front for fascist interests? It’s already been shown on Fox News to great hysteria, confirming everything the denial industry wanted people to think: namely that environmentalists don’t give a damn about freedom or dissent or rational debate or, frankly, people.
I am an environmentalist. And it is profoundly depressing to think that the crass idiots who made this deeply unfunny and pointless video want to call themselves that too.
Wolfie said,
October 16, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Andy said, …confirming everything the denial industry wanted people to think: namely that environmentalists don’t give a damn about freedom or dissent or rational debate or, frankly, people.
Unfortunately this is very much the way that the political left in the UK view anyone who disagrees with them and I think I speak for the silent majority when I say many people are sick to death with it.
James Doran said,
October 19, 2010 at 1:14 am
I wasn’t surprised. 10:10 means well it was spun out of The Age of Stupid – a depressing rather than inspiring film. AoS could have shown the benefits of sustainable development to our environment and economy – 10:10 could have created an ad which showed how reducing carbon emissions can help people save money.
Deep Pathologies « Bad Conscience said,
March 23, 2011 at 11:05 pm
[...] I strongly suspect there’s a deeper pathology at work here. Namely, that many on the left are frankly uninterested in clarity, accuracy or political efficacy. [...]