How the Spectator frames climate issues- Dissecting Western Conservative narratives

They label global efforts to invest in renewables and mitigate emissions to support the carbon transition the ‘net-zero cult’

Narratives have power. Framing shapes perceptions.

That is why even if you don’t agree with their views, reading a highly conservative media outlet like the Spectator is an invaluable act. It helps you understand the thought processes that lie across the ideological divide, how they think and frame the issues they care about.

How they, in the words of Noam Chomsky, ‘manufacture consent’ amongst their readers.

The Spectator is a weekly politically conservative magazine established in 1828 and based in the UK, with Australian and American editions. It is owned by Fredrick Barclay, who also owns the Daily Telegraph. In 2020, it became the longest-running current affairs magazine in history, with over 10,000 issues. So evidently, it has a large, loyal fanbase, and immense power to shape narrative.

The issues and stances that are promoted within the Spectator are easy to predict. Climate change denial, talk of a ‘net-zero cult’ and arguments against supporting developing countries to tackle the impacts of extreme weather events find their way into these pages. These journalists bristle under the imposition of land rights for Indigenous groups, on what they see as “dead cultures” committing “intransigence against development”, and rage against the “identity politics of the left” and a “cancel culture” that they feel directly targets them. They fiercely argue for freedom against what they see as the encroaching control of big government and regulations on their individual liberty, and appeal to the rationality and moral superiority of their Western audience.

Although all these issues are interesting and warrant further thinking on, this piece focuses on how conservative media like the Spectator frames climate issues.

Climate change, or more accurately, ‘climate alarmism’, is what the journalists at the Spectator see dominating the discourse in ‘mainstream’ academia, government and media. They believe that “… today’s climate warriors are adept at striking fear into the hearts of their royal followers”, citing Extinction Rebellion founder Roger Hallam and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who say that we are in a global ‘suicide pact’ and ‘a road to hell with our foot on the accelerator” if we continue down our current emissions trajectory. And of course, valuing what they regard as rationality and the dangers that societal changes pose to their current way of life, they are ‘sceptical’ of this narrative.

They label global efforts to invest in renewables and mitigate emissions to support the carbon transition the ‘net-zero cult’. The article Business/Robbery, etc. in the November 12 issue of the magazine expressed support for Australian Resource Minister Madeleine King’s declaration that Australia must continue to rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, for its “reliability as dispatchable power and its role in meeting energy security demands for Australia’s neighbours, such as Japan”. King, they write, “swept aside local and international demands for an end to investments in fossil fuels”, adding “a touch of reality” to the climate debate. This is in stark contrast to their opinion of Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen who has put forward “clearly unattainable and unbelievably costly emission limits” and “endless government renewable subsidies in order to save the planet” (In that sense, both ultra-Conservatives and climate activists find some common ground on their poor opinions of Bowen).

The November issues were launched during COP27, where countries of the Global South banded together to demand a separate ‘loss and damage’ fund paid for by rich countries to compensate for their role in creating the climate crisis that disproportionately impacts them.

Like many sections of the conservative media, the Spectator frames ‘loss and damages’ through a highly politicised term- reparations.

Upholders of the status quo such as Todd Stern, former US climate envoy to Barack Obama, and Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, have criticised this framing as wording “that risks being divisive” by making it harder for the Global North to agree to pay up. But many climate activists have also insisted that instead of reparations, a more appropriate, inclusive term to use is climate justice.

Because even if people sympathise with the sentiment (and some progressives argue that compensation for the history of genocide, slavery and colonisation warrants far more than ‘loss and damage’), “blame games” only aggravate emotional responses. The Spectator is acutely aware of this. By using this term, they present climate change and loss and damage as a threat, proof that it is rooted in an envy of the economic success of the rich world. And to a certain section of society, it is an incredibly appealing framing.

The Spectator ’s framing of loss and damage is this (italics not included)- “Aussie taxpayers are going to hand over a king’s ransom to any lucky Pacific leaders who sticks his hand out because apparently we ghastly Australians are to blame for their islands sinking under the waves” (followed by a short explanation on why their islands are expanding, not sinking). Look at the word choices. The burden is placed on the individual, on ordinary (typically white) working-class Australians mistrustful of the state, and a little seed is planted- that (to borrow a term used by an erstwhile President of the United States, “shithole”) countries like the Pacific islands are seeking more than their fair share of money, which they have done little to deserve, on a baseless claim.

Now, there are numerous flaws in each of these arguments, enumerated by many scholars, writers and journalists (read Jason Hickel, Rutger Bregmann, Amitav Ghosh, Naomi Klein, Will Steffen, Franz Fanon, George Monbiot, to name a few)

And this is also not to say that all their arguments are invalid. In the leading article of the November 12 issue, Sarah Dudley expressed their discontent at the seeming hypocrisy of “all the greatest and most powerful leaders of the climate cult descending from far-flung cities, flying in by Lear Jet or luxury gas-guzzling yacht to lecture the world on how we should eat bugs and insects to reduce our emissions”. It’s a bit dramatic and venomous, but a question that many have of the current COP negotiation system. Journalist Martin Vander Weyer also had an interesting critique of reparations. He admitted that although as an “admission of guilt” they have a “place in public discourse”, perhaps it is better to advance collective work needed to repair historic damages, such as public services infrastructure, technological innovations, helping small businesses and cross-cultural communication, much like the post-war Marshall Plan.

Nevertheless, behind their justifications of scepticism, rationality and Western superiority, what these arguments show is that at the core of Western conservative framing of climate issues (and conservative beliefs in general) is fear of uncertainty and doubt.

Fear that the scientists are right, fear of not knowing your place in the world, fear that what you thought you knew to be true was a lie, and a fear of change to the status quo. Denial and projecting are merely defence mechanisms responding to this fear. Outlets like the Spectator capitalise on this fear; indeed, their journalists are riddled with it.

When looked at as a fear response, narratives constructed by outlets like the Spectator seem less outrageous and dangerous, more saddening.

The first step towards dealing with fear is to acknowledge it. Perhaps those who adhere to the Spectator’s messaging either seem unable to or are not given the space to acknowledge their beliefs as a fear response (linking back to the conservative criticism of today’s ‘cancel culture’). The next step is to get more comfortable with fear. This can be done through incremental exposure, to differences, changes, conversations, and evidence that you will be alright after all. But this requires self-awareness, critical thinking and empathy, from people on all sides of the ideological divide. And until we develop these qualities, individually and collectively, media outlets like the Spectator will continue harnessing fear through their narratives.

The views in the article are the opinions of the author