Why I disagree with Chris Packham’s latest campaign
Environmentalist, wildlife expert and TV presenter Chris Packham has released a series of ads naming and shaming CEOs of fossil fuel companies. Here’s why I disagree with his tactics
Chris Packham is pissing off the Daily Mail again. He’s had enough of calling out polluting organisations and has paid for a series of ads that highlight and call out CEOs of fossil fuel companies. The ads include a photo of the CEO in question, their name and the company they lead, along with the words ‘Wanted for murdering life on earth’.
The ads are deliberately provocative. CP will have known that they would garner a lot of publicity, most of it negative – controversy drives clicks. And let’s face it, the fact that we’re facing climate breakdown doesn’t really get the press it deserves unless there’s some sort of controversy.
I was at a protest a couple of years ago which attracted more than 100,000 people. Not a single news outlet reported on it. It took place on the same day as the London Marathon, and Had Just Stop Oil shown up and disrupted that, it would have been everywhere.
I like Chris Packham. A lot. He’s intelligent, knowledgeable and an excellent communicator. He believes in what he’s doing and he wants to make this world a better place. He understands the severity of the climate crisis and that we have to act now. So it must be incredibly frustrating when the message is ignored by those who should know better: our media; our politicians; industry leaders.
Maybe this is what has resulted in him putting out these ads. He’s had enough of these people hiding their heads in the sand and he’s ready to call them out for it. I understand this.
Policies, not people
However, I can’t say I agree with what he’s done. Although I’m sure he doesn’t care very much what I think. I’ve always been told ‘attack policies, not people’. This reminds me of the RSPB tweet in which they called ministers, including then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, liars.
There was a huge outcry and the charities commission ruled the tweet “inappropriate”. There were many in the birding world who congratulated the RSPB for it, celebrating that the organisation had finally shown some teeth.
It certainly got them a lot of publicity; most of it bad. Because they attacked individuals, not policies. It would have been easy for the RSPB to criticise the government without naming names.
Chris Packham is in the same position. He isn’t a charity so he won’t get into trouble that way. But he is being attacked in the media. And I do see the irony here – those attacks are as personal as the ones he’s being criticised for.
What he’s done has got a lot of publicity. But has he really highlighted the damage these fossil fuel companies are doing? I don’t think so. The publicity is all directed at him, not the message he’s trying to communicate.
No change
He won’t have convinced any of those CEOs to change their behaviour or their companies’ ethos. None of them will now go green or suddenly start investing in renewables. They won’t be divesting themselves of their fossil fuel assets. He won’t have convinced any governments to force these changes in law. And we already know which side the media fall on given the current attacks on CP.
I also feel that he won’t have changed anyone’s mind in the ‘public’ either. That grand mass of people that includes us all. Anyone already on his side (which I believe is the right side) will still support him and his fight to change things. Anyone else, though, won’t suddenly become climate warriors. If anything they’ll be hardened against the cause. And this is such an important cause.
It was Michelle Obama who said that when they go low, we go high. That when someone is cruel or bullying we don’t stoop to their level. We all know who she was talking about.
Chris Packham has experienced a lot of bullying in his time. People calling for him to be sacked. People setting fires on his property. People nailing dead crows to his gate. I mean, seriously, who does that?
These ads, they feel like bullying. Like CP has gone low, to their level. To the level of the Daily Mail. Just at the time when we should be going high.
Not winning
How far has that got us, though? Trump is back in the White House. We have a Labour government that appears to want to be Nu-Reform. Climate protection measures are being ignored and rolled back. So I can understand why CP might be feeling frustrated, why he might feel like extreme measures are needed.
How do we feel, though, when other people use these sorts of tactics? The anti-choice brigade make leaflets smearing doctors who perform abortions, showing their faces and calling them murderers, and put these leaflets through the doors of the doctors’ neighbours. Is it OK to do that? I don’t think so. Which means it can’t be OK for Chris Packham to do the same just because I agree with the message.
If we have to compromise our morals in order to win, then what’s the point of winning? I don’t want to become all the things I hate so that I can win the day. I don’t even want to ‘win the day’ – that sort of thinking is what got us into this state in the first place. I want to make the world a better place for us to live in and you don’t do that by making personal attacks on people.
Those CEOs are people too. Dehumanising them like this is dangerous. They have friends and families – they might have young children. It’s thought that Luigi Mangione believed he was justified in killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson because of his anger with US health insurance companies.
I can understand that anger. I think it’s disgusting that people can’t afford health care in the world’s richest economy. But I don’t think that in any way justifies murder. I also don’t think that will happen in this case, but I do think picturing these people potentially puts them – and their families – in danger.
Sign the petition
The ads were used to highlight a petition on the parliament petitions website, calling on the government to ban fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship. When a petition reaches 100,000 signatures it will be considered for a parliamentary debate. As I write, it’s at 68,547, with a deadline of 12 May. One calling for driven grouse shooting to be banned, which closes 10 days later, is already at 102,740.
At 10,000 signatures, the government has to give a response to the petition. The response is that there are no plans to restrict fossil fuel advertising. It would seem all that (bad) publicity hasn’t helped. (I’d be interested to know how much money fossil fuel companies have donated to this government.)
Despite all this I’ve signed the petition because I believe in what it’s asking for. I’ve signed the grouse shooting one too.
You can sign the petition here. I would urge you to do so.
And you can sign the grouse shooting one here.