April 3, 2025 • 45 mins
Sustainability expert and professor Mike Berners-Lee argues that dishonesty in politics, business, and the media is one of the biggest barriers to tackling global crises like climate change, social inequality, and environmental destruction.
In this episode of Ways to Change the World, he talks to Krishnan Guru-Murthy about the need for a cultural shift where honesty is valued, and where deceit in public life carries real consequences. Without this, he warns, we risk making the world's biggest challenges even harder to solve.
Produced by Silvia Maresca, Ka Yee Mak, Tom Gordon-Martin.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Hello and welcome to Ways to Change the World.
I'm Christian Gary Murphy, and this is the podcast in which we
talk to extraordinary people about the big ideas in their
lives and the events that have helped shape them.
My guest this week is Mike Berners Lean.
Mike is a professor at LancasterUniversity.
He's a researcher, writer, also a consultant to business, and
his latest book is called The Climate of Truth.
(00:23):
And it's a big challenge to us all and a sort of a road map for
how the world could be a better place.
So welcome, Mike. Thank you.
In what way would you change theworld?
Well, I would have a culture in which if you are seen to be
deceitful of the public in particularly in politics, media
or business, that is treated as abuse.
(00:45):
So, for example, you're a presenter.
If somebody in your position is found to have groped one of your
colleagues, you know that's the end of your career.
And you also know that any of your colleagues who have are
found to have stood by in the knowledge that that's what
you've been doing, that's probably the end of their
careers too. Well, we could have that culture
or we could get closer to that culture around deceit.
(01:08):
If a politician has is shown clear cut to have deliberately
misled the public, not just through lies, but any any other
form, then that is that's that'san abuse.
We absolutely, we can't afford it in today's world and we have
to get that out of the decision making mix.
Now, this is part of a much bigger set of ideas that that is
(01:28):
sort of in response to everyone's propensity to throw
their hands up in despair and say, Oh, well, there's nothing
you can do. Well, I've been working on the
kind of climate and wider sustainability agenda for best
part of a couple of decades now.And you know, we're not getting
anywhere, right? The broad science on climate
that it's really, really serioushas been clear cut for at least
(01:51):
three decades since we've been having the climate cops.
But if you look at the carbon emissions curve, it's been just
going up and up throughout those30 years.
Exactly as if those cops had never happened.
So if you're someone in my kind of situation, you can either
say, you know, and there are plenty of us who every year we
find slightly more articulate ways of describing how we're in
(02:14):
even more trouble than we were in the year before and so on.
And every year we get a bit morefrustrated that the world is
still isn't doing anything like what is required.
And we just go round and round in a loop.
And we kind of, it's tempting toimagine ourselves on our
deathbed just thinking, yeah, well, at least we might get the
satisfaction of saying, I told you so.
Why do you think that the doom laden warnings working?
(02:35):
Well, there's a whole psychologyof coming to terms with
difficult news. I mean, that's part of it.
There's an actual tendency to deny this stuff and then just
get angry about it and then get depressed about it or bargain
with the problem and try and getit to agree to be less than it
is. So maybe, maybe it's just a
techno fix, we'll sort it, or maybe, maybe I can offset it or
something. And all of that is just wishful
(02:56):
thinking. Well, then we get depressed
about it and decide there's nothing we can do.
And actually we need to come through all those phases and
take ourselves to the point where we face the problem.
Because as James Baldwin said, you know, nothing can be changed
until it's faced. So we need to properly stare it
in the eye, and then we can get ourselves to the point at which,
for the first time, we might be able to start taking effective
(03:18):
action. So where I'm coming from and
what led to the book was a sensethat, you know, if what you're
doing is not working year after year after year, and it's it's
people who say we're making progress but not fast enough,
That's, that's not correct. The facts, if you look at the,
you know, the core facts on rateof emissions and so on, we are
accelerating into the problem. So, you know, if what you're
(03:39):
doing is not working, it's important not just to carry on,
but to stop, stand back, see theproblem from new angles, see it
from a greater distance, get a new perspective on it and get
under the skin of the problem. Like ask yourself the reasons
behind the reasons behind the reasons why we're not getting
anywhere and see if out of all that we can identify a new point
(03:59):
of greatest leverage for anybodywho cares about these things.
And just by the way, it's not, it's not specifically a book
about climate, whatever you careabout in terms of environment or
social issues. Actually, I've I've, I've come
down to what I think is the point of greatest leverage for
anybody who cares about any of this stuff and is frustrated
(04:21):
that we're not getting anywhere.And it's truth.
And it's truth. So why do you think truth is is
gettable is achievable given it's currently not and it hasn't
been for quite a long time? Well, the good news about things
going in the wrong direction is it proves it's a variable,
right? And I'm not going to sugarcoat
this like it's pretty, you know,if you look at what's going on
in some parts of the world, especially on the other side of
(04:43):
the Atlantic, things have thingshave taken a lurch in their own
direction. But we've been lazy about truth,
right? We've, we've allowed situations
in which, you know, we've voted for politicians, we've elected
politicians who we know it's, you know, it's clear cut.
They've done things to deceive the public.
Or we could, we could reset thatright, just by deciding that
(05:05):
it's not acceptable. So I'll come back to my, you
know, I'll come back to my example of, you know, physical
abuse in public life. You know, we've decided as a
society that that is totally unacceptable.
It's disgusting and we're not having it.
And now if we get an example of it, that person's out.
Well, we can have that, you know, and there's plenty of
evidence that says humans are capable of cultivating the
(05:29):
values that they know that they need in order to thrive as a
society. And there's a couple that are
really important. We need to, we need to cultivate
if we're going to thrive in the situation that we're in now as a
species. And one of them is standards of
of honesty. And the reason for that is that
there, the quality of decision making that we need to, that we
(05:52):
need now to see us through theseincredibly complex, joined up
and urgent challenges is, is a higher quality, You know, it's
a, it's a more complex kind of decision making that we've ever
needed before. And yet the ability to confuse
the facts precisely because of that complexity and other things
like AI and so on and social media and so on, you know, it
(06:12):
makes it easier than ever to distort the facts.
And we just cannot afford the spanner in the works that deceit
provides. It just completely throws it.
It completely messes up any kindof quality decision making
process. I mean it, it's a hell of a
task, isn't it? In truth?
Because what you're not arguing is that political liars or lies
(06:36):
in the media are in some way pulling the wool over everyone's
eyes straightforwardly, You know, it's not that we don't
realize that they are people whohave lied.
You know, the, the example you use, you know, among many
examples, you talk about Boris Johnson.
Now that there was some notable things that Boris Johnson did as
(06:56):
a journalist and as a politicianwhere it was straightforwardly
not true. Everybody could say that it
wasn't true. It was widely said, not true,
but people voted for him anyway.So, so, so, so you've got,
you've got a big hurdle, haven'tyou, to convince people that
lying is harmful and that actually delivers some, you
(07:16):
know, if you stop it, you will deliver some change.
Yeah, I, I think we need a reseton this.
In fact, more than a reset, we actually need high standards of
this than we've ever had before.It's like, you know, humans are
in this position now where, you know, we're in this era in which
we're so powerful and yet we haven't yet got the kind of
wisdom to go with that. And we need to that's like an
(07:37):
urgent evolutionary challenge. We need to cultivate it quick.
So we need to not just reset, but we need to do better than
we've ever done before. So he could say, oh, there's
always been lying in political in politics, but you know, that
may be the case, but it's not acceptable.
Now, I don't want to be utopian about this.
I'm not going to suggest we can suddenly make it magic
overnight. But the further we move in that
(07:58):
direction, the better we'll findthe situation becomes.
Well, let's let's sort of 0 in on that then a little bit as to
why you think truth will deliversolutions.
Because it enables high quality decision making, right?
If somebody's, if somebody deliberately misleads the
public, that tells you they're not on their side.
That's all you need to know. And if we can, it's so easy to,
(08:23):
to spell out some deceit. You know, I've, I've got one or
two examples in the book, you know, of people having gone on
the radio and said things that they knew weren't true.
It takes them 10 minutes to do it.
And yet it takes a bunch of academics like days to put
together a careful paper showinghow that was a load of nonsense
and showing how it must have, they must have known it was a
load of nonsense. So we need to create an
(08:43):
environment in which the price to be paid for having been
caught out, which is so hard to catch somebody is so high that
it's not worth it. And the the way we do that is we
create the understanding I go that if you find that somebody
has misled you about something, it tells you they're not on your
side. Why would they try and deceive
(09:05):
you about the world if they if they were on your side?
Well, people might interrogate that a little bit, might they?
Because they might say, well, weall tell little white lies.
And sometimes it's for the, sometimes it's for the good.
Sometimes it's because you're trying to protect somebody.
Sometimes you just take a calculation that actually is
better to carry on, you know, down this line.
Minor, minor fantasy. I address that one specifically
the the, the notion of a white lie.
(09:27):
And as I think that we, you know, there's some classic
examples where if you're going to be very charitable about it,
like you might say, possibly did, did Tony Blair believe
that, you know, we just had to go with to a war with Iraq and
it was just in everybody's best interest to be told a little bit
of something about the evidence,the strength of the evidence for
those weapons of mass destruction.
(09:47):
OK, well I think a lot of peoplewould argue that the
consequences of that white lie were pretty.
If it was a white lie, were pretty would be pretty serious.
I mean that, but that's a good that's a good example that you
do raise in the book and and youknow, it does beg a challenge,
which is that you you've clearlydecided that it was a lie.
Now, Blair and lots of people who support him still reject the
(10:10):
idea that it was a lie and that it was based on, you know,
sincerely held beliefs. They say it was a mistake.
Yeah. So, so, so, you know, there
isn't really a sort of a consensus necessarily on what is
a lie and what isn't. It can be tricky.
So actually, when I, I'm a little bit more nuanced in the
book about the Tony Blair thing,because you know, I'm not, I'm
(10:30):
not going to be the, the, the big decision maker on that.
So I kind of say if you do have a conclusion that he knew, then
it would then if you're going tobe charitable, you'd say it was
a white lie, but you know, if so, it, it went the wrong way.
Most of the so-called white liesbackfire anyway.
And actually, you know, the, thething to do if you've got a
difficult message about, about the reality as you see it is to
(10:52):
explain that difficult message with a bit, with a bit more
nuance, which I know we're in a,you know, we're in a culture in
which we want simple messages and so on.
But it's just, it's just so counterproductive to the
decision making process if people are not input in the
picture. You can't even vote properly if
you're not being told the realities of what is.
What if you're not? And there's a whole taxonomy of
(11:14):
deceit. There's a whole big appendix in
the book to try. And you know, to be clear that
deceit is a lot more than just not lying.
Deceit is anything that a persondoes which tries to put convey a
view of reality that's other than how they see it.
Give me an example. So for example, if you were to
write on the side of a bus that so many millions of pounds, we
(11:39):
pay this much to the EU, whetheror not that number was right,
which it wasn't actually, so let's pay it to the NHS and said
it's not quite a lie, but it's creating an impression that the
that that money would go directly to the NHS.
Well, the people who put that message on the bus knew it
wasn't true. And actually lots and lots of
people on that campaign knew it wasn't true, even if they hadn't
(12:02):
personally put it on the side ofthe bus.
And they stayed quiet in the knowledge that it was untrue,
which is actually, which is actually just as bad.
If we, if we see that there's deceit going on, we all have a
responsibility to call it out. That's the 7th.
So why? Why was that such a bad thing?
Because if you're a Brexiteer, you might think it didn't really
matter. It helped the campaign and we we
achieved a greater good which was Brexit.
Well, I think, and I don't want to get into whether we should or
(12:26):
shouldn't have had Brexit, but whether or not we should have
had it, the British public was mis sold it.
And I think there are more and more people who are beginning to
realize that, you know, they they were mis sold something.
And that's actually a form of abuse.
And the benefits of Brexit that some people expected, sure
enough haven't come to pass. So we've been having a kind of
(12:48):
post truth experiment, right? Because it's fun if you if you
just don't care about the truth for a little while, you can be
sold an entice of narrative about what it's going to be
like. And it feels fun if you can just
switch off that bit of your brain that asks careful
questions about whether it's true.
Maybe there's somebody charismatic, maybe with a funny
haircut and it feels good and a little bit rebellious at the
(13:09):
time and all the rest of it. But the, you know, that awful
thing about that uncomfortable, boring thing called truth is,
you know, there's a reason why, there's a very good reason why
we hang on to it. I think in this country, I like
to think there's a little bit ofthe, the results of that post
truth experiment are starting tocome in and we're starting to
realize that didn't do us any good.
(13:31):
We need to come back from that. We need a reset from that.
And on the other side of the Atlantic, I've got a nasty
feeling that the results of thatpost truth experiment are going
to come in very badly over the coming years.
I think there will be a little bit less easy for everybody to
see because the way the the media is not going to cover
(13:53):
them, cover it properly. The data analysis isn't going to
be out there. But I think I've got a nasty
feeling that the results of thatexperiment are, one way or
another, going to be felt prettyhard by millions and millions of
people, even on that side of theAtlantic, but definitely in the
rest of the world. We'll come to the media in a
second, but again, if you want to talk about Trump for a
moment, let's take the example of defense spending.
(14:16):
Now, Trump has been going aroundendlessly repeating something
that's straightforwardly not true, which is this.
You know, America has given $350billion of aid to Ukraine and
Europe's only be giving 100 and that it should have been equal.
It's straightforwardly not true.You know, roughly America and
the European Union have given about the same, and it's much
(14:38):
nearer 100 billion than 350. But it's kind of worked in his
favour because the European response has been yes, yes, we
must spend more, they're all committing more.
And he's able to go to back to his American electorate and say,
see what I achieved. So in that example, now you can
say the truth is just important,but it's quite hard to persuade
(15:02):
Republicans right now that the truth, you know, was what they
really needed in that argument. Yeah.
OK. So there's an environment in
which you can say something, Trump can say something that's
that's not true. And at the moment he's getting
away with it because there's a kind of a culture and a
narrative that says that the truth doesn't matter all that
much. If someone's a, if you decide
(15:24):
someone's a good guy and then even if they don't tell the
truth, that's OK, You can vote for them.
And there's no price. There's not much price to be
paid. And it's not seen as clear cut
abuse. And you know, we've, we've
played with that kind of same narrative in this country.
And the other people who, you know, have said to me,
politicians, seasoned politicians who said to me,
(15:46):
well, you know, you know, lying is, is how the world is.
It's just how the world goes. Does it's does it's business.
But if that's the case, we can'tmake high quality decisions.
We can't get through the Anthropocene.
We're going to face a, you know,very, very tricky time coming
up. And it doesn't need to be like
that. Yeah, just explain that.
(16:06):
So what the consequences? You know what?
Why do you link a Trump lie about, you know, defence funding
to Ukraine to actually the problems of climate change, of,
of inequality, of, of everythingelse that you might want to
solve? So I came into this from a
climate change angle. So I was asking well, and you
(16:26):
know, the and wider Poly crisis.So I was asking why aren't we
getting anywhere when the science is so clear and so on.
And when I look at all the worstdecisions on climate, they don't
have poor judgement at their roots.
They have flat out dishonesty. So if I take the climate cops
for example, you know, they havebeen cynically undermined by the
(16:48):
vest, by well funded activities from the fossil fuel industry to
undermine the science, deny the science, fudge the science,
enable narratives about the kindof things that would actually
get us somewhere that they know won't work.
So they basically create a situation where they can allow
the policy makers to say or do anything they like as long as it
(17:10):
won't succeed in doing. And the one thing that matters,
which is restricting the rate atwhich fossil fuel comes out of
the ground. So that's kind of, you know,
that's how, that's how the climate cops have been subverted
by deceit. So it's not just politicians
though, is it? In a way, branding politicians
lies is the easy bit. It's it's everything else that
(17:31):
you you think we need to pursue the truth.
Well, I, I pick out three domains as really critical.
So there's politics, there's media and there's business.
And those 3, they're like a Trinity and they, they feed into
each other, they influence each other.
And we need them working together to help each other to
raise the game. The media needs to be holding
(17:52):
politicians to the count, supporting them when they're
honest, even if it's difficult for them, and, and holding them
their feet to the fire if they're wilfully deceitful.
And we've had, we've had that Trinity completely broken.
We've had we've had the media letting politicians go get away
with anything. We've had politicians
influencing the media. We've had media influencing the
politicians for you know, for personal vested interests.
(18:15):
We've had media groups owned by multi billionaires who have been
pushing their own personal agendas and the business
community, you know, some aspect, elements of the business
community have really rolled their sleeves up to stifle, you
know, not just around climate but around plastics as well.
(18:35):
Same kind of thing going on someelements of the meat industry
doing playing a similar game. I could, you know, in the book I
list quite a few different industries.
So those 3 domains, it's really critical.
Let's just focus then on the media a little bit because there
are two, two very distinct blocks of media.
There is privately owned unregulated media which can
(18:56):
basically take sides on things, newspapers, websites, they can
say whatever they want. There are no rules.
There are then regulated broadcasters like Channel 4, the
BBCITV, who have a regulated duty of due impartiality.
Now, this is where truth is getting a little bit complicated
(19:19):
at the moment, isn't it? Because, you know, broadcast
media has generally taken its job as to put all sides of an
argument or at least both sides of an argument.
And, and this is on the massive attack now, I think because
people are saying we'll stop both sides in something that is
obviously true on one side. So, So what?
What do you think? Let let's just concentrate on
(19:43):
the media that's trying to be honest, if you like, because
there's a whole section of mediathat's just got an agenda and
is, is, is is honestly pursuing it.
But let's talk about the media that is trying to be honest and
where it gets it wrong. OK.
So I don't think it's quite as clear cut because I think the
kind of, you know, even the media that has a duty to public
service, I think comes under pressure.
The responsibility for us as citizens is to be incredibly
(20:06):
discerning about who we trust and why.
So who funds this Media. What's their track record on
honesty? What pressures are they under?
What interests have they got that might be other than putting
me in the best, clearest view ofreality that I can get?
How can I triangulate this with a few different sources so that
I can see if somebody gets, you know, and some of my favorite
(20:29):
media and you know that I I do now list some of them out in the
book, but. But you're very uncompromising
about what we should do. You're giving us advice about
how we can actually influence this consumers.
So what do you think we should do to get the media that we
want? OK, So what you should do is
take something like the criteriathat I use for having, for how
(20:50):
you might make up your mind or improve on those criteria.
That's even better. Ask yourself really carefully
how the different media score and if there's media that
doesn't score well, for example,if it's owned by somebody who
has got a track record of manipulating the truth in order
to steer elections, just for example, then don't touch it
(21:11):
with a barge pole. Don't feed it any money it needs
to be starved out. Don't feed it any money.
Don't feed it's advertising streams by by accessing it at
all and get yourself out of its,it's fear of influence.
So don't. It's not good enough to say, Oh
well, I just get this paper because I like the TV Guide and
the cooking guide, right? You're supporting it.
(21:33):
If you do that and you're under its influence in all kinds of
subtle ways that we all like to think, we're much better at
fending off. So don't don't watch crazy
channels because they're entertaining.
Absolutely, absolutely do not watch something.
Don't you have a right to be entertained if you like?
Well, you do. It's just that.
(21:53):
It's just that in doing so you are subjecting yourself to an
influence that is deeply corrosive and is against your
interests. So and conversely, pick some
media that you do like that doespass these tests and support it.
And if you can afford to pay it money, pay it proper money,
because it costs good money to do good media.
And you know, if you can afford to pay a lot more than you would
(22:15):
normally have thought of paying conventional media, it might be
one of the most powerful ways inwhich you can support a good
cause for the good of the world.Because we're in an environment
now where freedom of speech is being held up as the rival to
truth, as you would, as you would portray it.
And and that's the right to say what you want on the media or on
(22:37):
a platform is held up as a virtue in itself.
You know what, your suggestion, yes, starve them out.
Don't give them viewers. Take away their advertising, you
know, funding all that kind of stuff.
You know, make it hard for the media that doesn't try to tell
the truth would be seen, particularly in America, as a
straightforward assault on freedom of speech.
Well, no, they can say what theywant.
This media can say what they want.
(22:57):
It's just that no one's going tono one's going to buy it.
No one's going to churn into it.All right?
It's just like ask yourself who you want to be influenced by.
But. Do you think advertising we cost
for a good idea, for example, you know, because that's been
tried in different, you know, indifferent media brands where
there have been campaigns aroundlet's starve them out because
they don't try to tell the truth.
I think advertising has got a lot to answer for.
(23:18):
I mean, you know, the, the firsthalf of this bit that we perhaps
haven't talked much about, whichis, which is fine.
But you know, is, is about the nature of this Poly crisis and
how we're in it and what we might do to get out of it.
Because one of the great pieces of news is that actually we've
more or less got the technology to live better than ever, not
have a climate crisis, get through the plastics problem,
restore our nature, all the restof it, you know, whilst having a
(23:40):
well-being, you know, an improvement in human well-being.
There's nothing not to like about it.
And one of the things that's oneof the forces that's really
holding us back from that is an advertising industry, which a
lot of the time is persuading usto want things and to buy things
that are actually against our interests.
And actually we could be so liberated from that.
(24:02):
So one of the things I support now, I don't talk about it in
the book, but I'm supporting theidea of ABSI standard on
advertising, which can at least create some criteria around, you
know, some of the worst and mostpoisonous products being
advertised. Just, you know, if we could just
get rid of that, that would actually help to move our
culture in a way that would be so good for humanity.
(24:23):
But that's not all you want, is it?
When it comes to advertising, you basically want us to stop
wanting new things all the time.Well, I want, I think the, I, I
talk a little bit about what, what good industries look like
in a kind of movement in a, in aworld that's transitioning
towards sustainability. And the idea of an industry that
(24:44):
most of the time is making its money out of persuading people
to believe and to want things, whether or not it's in their
interests, is just fundamentallywhat it's worse than immoral.
You know, it's, it's worse than immoral.
It's it's taking us in a bad direction, OK.
It's it's something that it shouldn't be socially
acceptable. If you've got friends in that
(25:06):
industry who are working in thatway, that shouldn't be socially
acceptable. That shouldn't be something that
they can just turn up at a dinner party and nobody talks
about it because it's uncomfortable.
So, so, so there should be social pressure on the
advertising industry also to tell the truth.
I think we have to because it creates a point of greater
leverage on all this. So, you know, you, if you've got
friends who read traditional or,or get involved in social media,
(25:34):
that's, you know, it's clearly has a corrupting influence, then
we need to challenge them on that because we need to create a
culture in which everybody's thinking about this stuff.
And it's like, oh, you read thatpaper.
You know what, what is it about that?
Is it because you don't mind being taken for a ride or you
haven't noticed? Is it your critical thinking
skills aren't that great? Or is it that you just don't
(25:55):
care? Or what is it?
It needs to be something that isnot socially normal in the same
way that you'll get the sack if you're a fan to have groped
somebody. You know that we need the same.
We need that. We need to bring that same
culture in around deceit. When it comes to advertising and
sort of acquisitiveness, then there are standards of truth.
You know, there is an Advertising Standards regime
(26:15):
which makes sure that, you know,adverts cannot straightforwardly
lie. But that's not really what
you're talking about, is it? You're what you're talking about
is the truth around whether you really need this new piece of
consumer goods, right? So let's go.
Back and what the impact of thatis.
Sure. So let's go back to what honesty
really looks like, right? When you're being honest with
somebody, you are helping them to understand reality as best
(26:39):
you possibly can. You know, within the
practicalities of the situation,right?
So if you have an advert that iscreating the impression that you
have to be dissatisfied with your life if you don't buy an
oversized gas guzzling car and that if you buy it, that's it,
your life will be a dream, right?
And that's not actually the reality of how it's going to
(27:00):
play out for that person. And you're also distracting
them, you know, not mentioning anything about the wider, wider
negative impacts of, of, of spending your money in that way,
then that's fundamentally a dishonest, that's fundamentally
dishonest and deceitful proposition.
Now there there were lots of sort of suggestions that you
give in the book for how people can live their lives.
(27:20):
I mean, how you know, what proportion do you think of of us
is up for this? Oh, all of us, right?
This is a cultural change we canhave.
There's plenty of evidence that humans are capable of creating,
of cultivating the cultural values that we need in order to
(27:42):
thrive. And here we are now in this
Anthropocene accelerating into acrisis, right?
We're on this fragile planet together.
We've globalized. We need to do decision making in
ways that we've never had to do it before.
And there's, there's actually, Iactually talk in the book about
3 core values that we absolutelyneed to cultivate.
And one is much greater respect for the environment.
(28:04):
I think that kind of goes without saying.
Another one, which I do want to touch on because it it when I
first started talking about this, it felt like this is so
this is too obvious to need saying, right?
But we need to treat all people in the world with equal respect,
right? As humans.
That is that right? There's 8 billion of us on this
planet together. We will either thrive together
or we won't. And right now there are
(28:26):
narratives growing that really challenge that right that are
really starting to say maybe it's white men that should be
the decision makers. Maybe it's, you know, maybe
people in one country are worth more than people in another
country. Maybe it's this country first
over that country. All of that is deeply poisonous
and we need to we need to challenge that.
And then the third value is truth for its own sake.
(28:48):
And that's because it's requiredfor the quality of decision
making that we need. And it's becoming ever easier to
hide it. So we need a kind of, there's a
little bit of maths in the book that says if you the price to be
paid for being found out for having been deliberately
deceitful over a matter of policy needs to be greater than
(29:12):
the benefit you thought you'd get.
You'd get if you got away with it.
Times the ratio of how much workit takes to flush out deceit
divided by how much effort it takes to sow the deceit.
And that ratio is a very high number because it's so easy to
be deceitful and it's so hard toput it back in the bag.
So we need to create that very high price.
And the way to pay that, to create that price is to have a,
(29:35):
a normal acceptance that if you find out that a politician has
been wilfully deceitful with thepublic, it tells you you can't
trust them ever on anything at all that you might care about.
And it also tells you that you can't trust any of their
colleagues who were seen to havestayed quiet in the knowledge of
(29:57):
their deceit. And it's very clearly not a
party political book that I've written, but I do pull out
examples that were relevant at the time.
And I wrote most of that book with one government was in power
that was just being so routinelydishonest that there was not one
MP left standing. Of what exact criteria?
Isn't the problem you still comeback to this question of will
will deceit, the judgement on willful deceit and who decides?
(30:18):
Because, you know, even in your book, as you say in the examples
we've talked about, you lay it off slightly, say, well, either
either they're very stupid or they're very bad.
And it's, and it's difficult to be the person who says, well, I
think they are actually very bad.
And that this is a deliberate lie.
And, and all the examples we canthink of, whether it's around
the bus or the Iraq or, or whatever it might be, there's
(30:41):
still an argument about whether this was willful deceit or not.
Yeah, sometimes we have to make judgment calls.
Sometimes. Sometimes it actually doesn't
matter. Sometimes you're left with a
choice that says either this person's critical thinking
skills are so poor that they shouldn't be in the job they're
in, or they're not honest enoughso.
Either way, you get them out. Either way, they're out.
So if somebody starts saying climate change isn't a big,
(31:02):
we're not in a climate crisis, it's not a big deal, right?
And there's one party in particular, there's really few
parties are really pushing that line.
That tells you that they're either they don't know how to
think or they're not being straight with the public.
Either way, don't even think of voting.
So how? How do you answer then the
question of sort of that is the problem, I suppose, with the
cops as well and individual climate action by any country,
(31:26):
which is, well, what's the pointof us doing this if everybody
else isn't? So if everybody who read your
book started behaving like this,at what point do you get to a
stage where you actually start changing the world?
OK, so I don't want to sugar coat this.
There's some big, you know, I wouldn't say we're heading in a
(31:46):
good direction at the moment. It does look extremely
challenging and the urgency of the Poly crisis.
I mean, we don't, you know, we don't.
There are no hard and fast sort of lines in the sand that tell
us we know at this point we're really in trouble in it, but if
we can stay below that then we're fine.
We're just exposing ourselves toever increasing risk and the
rate at which we're exposing ourselves to them is, you know,
getting faster and faster. So we're just going to hotter
(32:09):
and we're throwing the dice evermore every year.
So it's very, very challenging. And right now, if you look on
both sides of the Atlantic, there's all sorts of things
there's not going in the right direction.
So it's an enormous challenge. Does that mean it's provably not
one that we can get through? No, it doesn't mean that.
What gives me hope. What gives me hope is that
(32:31):
social tipping points can happenvery, very quickly.
You can think that you're miles away from the change that you're
looking for and actually the conditions are carefully being
put in place and then suddenly things tip.
And we might be quite close to that.
Now, I can't tell you what the mechanism will be by which
America regains democracy and starts to and gets itself a
(32:56):
culture in which the truth is really prized and mattered and
the quality of decision making goes up and climate gets back on
the agenda and so on. But I can believe in the
possibility of that mechanism and I can.
And I do think that the results of the post truth experiment are
going to come in. We're starting to get them in
the UK. More and more people are seeing
that. You know, I like to think we're
(33:16):
ready for a movement in that direction in this country.
You know, that's what I'm pushing for for sure.
It seems further away at the moment in the US, but when one
country does it and they show how it's done, if we can do
something really clever in this country that shows we can, you
know, rise up and insist on a culture that just suddenly makes
the outcome for British people better.
(33:38):
We start getting the quality of decision making that we need,
which allows us to run our economy in a way that's
Anthropocene fit. That sorts that starts to sort
out our health service and inequality and just all kinds of
things. The air gets cleaned up,
whatever. Other countries can look at that
too. These, you know, we're a
globalized world. We can learn from each other far
faster than ever before. So I can't tell you the exact
(34:00):
mechanism. It does.
You know, we are heading for a dark place.
If I was a betting man, I would probably bet against us getting
by without having a very nasty time in the next decade or two.
But it's definitely not proven and the more we can move in this
direction, the better placed we will be to deal with whatever
(34:21):
situation we find ourselves in. Can we just come back to talk
about the media a little bit? I don't know how many interviews
you've done on this book, but I can imagine the reaction of most
media is yes, but come on, When are you going to live in the
real world? Most people are not like this.
Most people aren't prepared to make the sacrifice that you're
asking from them because you're saying, you know, to, to, to the
affluent, stop buying things. Ask yourself whether you really
(34:44):
need that. Don't travel on, you know, 10
international holidays a year ifyou don't really need to, you
know, stop ruining the climate in terms of your own personal
behaviour. And you know, as we've as, as
it's obvious, it's a big, it's abig ask.
So, so how, how you know what, what, what is the problem, if
you like, in terms of saying, well, come on, you know, we live
(35:08):
in the real world. Yeah, we do live in the real
world. Let's have a look at what that
real world is like, because we're being given this narrative
that we'll all not enjoy life asmuch if we don't get on those
ten flights. And that, you know, GDP growth
has to be the big master metric that we let govern our lives.
And there are all sorts of things, there are all sorts of
narratives going around that have pushed pretty hard and
(35:29):
don't get challenged all that much in mainstream media and in
mainstream politics. And they're actually not right.
OK. It's pretty frustrating.
And what I'm advocating is not ahair shirt.
It's not, you know, this is what's so frustrating, right, is
I'm actually advocating a quality of life improvement and
it's just let's take GDP right, as the as the central measure
(35:52):
for economic success, right? Well, the argument that that
doesn't track well at all with well-being and definitely not
with the well-being of the planet is so clear cut, so
robust and not that difficult that it is astonishing that
there's still barely a mainstream politician who's
(36:13):
ready to challenge it. So the emperor's just not
wearing any clothes on this and we need to call it out.
I've got, I have got some other good news just to just to be
optimistic about this for a second, is that more and more
people see this but don't see that everybody else sees this.
So I do quite a lot of talks to business audiences and I've been
(36:36):
carrying out a little experimentand I've probably, I've probably
carried it out with about 10,000people now across, I don't know,
30-40 talk, something like that.Or I spell out what I think's
going on in the Poly crisis and how I think we're getting on.
I look at the, I show the climate curves accelerating, the
plastic curve accelerating even faster, the end of crime
disruption, all the rest of it. I lay out what I think is a
(36:58):
pretty a very serious situation and I just ask everyone.
Sometimes I do this with a secret ballot as well.
So just put up their hand if they think I've in broad terms,
I've got things about right, that it's about as serious as
the situation as I've described.Or in broad terms, do they think
I've fundamentally exaggerated or if I fundamentally think I've
(37:20):
underestimated it. And every single time, the vast
majority of people think I've got it about right.
And there's always more people who think I have undirect it
then I've exaggerated it. So everybody gets it.
And so I get people to look around and look at everybody
else. And these aren't, you know, just
because now you can see that youwill get it.
(37:41):
And isn't it funny because we'renot acting as if we will get it?
So, so, so again, in terms of the way the media should behave
responsibly, you see where if I,if I, if I do an interview with
a, you know, with Ed Miliband about the government's plans on
climate change, it's my job to challenge him and put the other
side of the argument. Sure is.
Now what that means sometimes isthat if he's broadly right about
(38:04):
something, I will be sowing seeds of doubt in some viewers
and they people will wonder, well, is he talking rubbish or
not? And I will be raising the other
side of the argument. Do do you think that is that is
a good or a bad thing? Well, if you're going to raise
the other side of the argument, don't do it in a spurious kind
of way. Don't.
Don't cook. I I think it's unhelpful to cook
(38:25):
up an argument that you know isn't robust, you know, in case
you can catch them out or something.
I mean, I think Ed Miliband, youcan challenge him in lots of
ways. He's trying to do the right
thing within the constraints of certain things.
But you know, you could, you could equally challenge him the
other way. So I think it's definitely not
healthy to present two sides of the argument as equal when one
(38:46):
side's got when one side's got all the evidence in it, then ask
challenges around the details ofthat side of the argument.
What about the the generations? Do you see a generational
difference between people's attitude or demand for truth or
susceptibility to lies? I think we are, we're in danger
(39:11):
of having normalized things. I mean, I think different
generations do things, react in different ways.
I mean, I think a few years ago some of the kids protesting on
the streets were making helping to make a real difference.
And they, you know, they, they helped the UK to improve their
climate targets and so on. And they cooled things out and
they were very good at sort of standing.
Yeah. The.
(39:31):
Greta Tunberg. Yeah, the Greta Tunberg kind of
thing. You know, she comes at the world
with fresh eyes and she says, hang on, the emperor's not
wearing any clothes, is it? Right.
So kids can be very good at that.
But equally, you know, we're bringing up a generation in
which we've been normalizing dishonesty, right?
We've actually allowed a situation in which, you know,
somebody had been sacked a couple of times for dishonesty
(39:52):
in his previous job as a journalist, got asked by a major
political party to become allowed to become a
parliamentary candidate, right? At that point, we should have
all been holding our, we should have all been questioning what's
going on, what's going wrong in that party, right?
Then finds his way to being an MP, then gets elected party
leader. All the rest right?
And all this stuff is being normalized.
(40:12):
And I've talked to, you know, perhaps I won't name them this
time, but, you know, I've talkedto radio presenters and so on,
you know, and challenged them on.
Or when you have somebody who you know is being dishonest with
the public, why don't you just hold their feet to the fire, you
know, until, until it's properlyflushed out and they've
apologised or you know, or something.
(40:33):
If it's clear cut and they've just said, well, you know.
Well, look, well, they'll, they'll probably say, well, look
at what happened when Channel 4 did that.
OK there. Well, what I got was what I got
was when you had public doesn't like it enough.
But you know, if you've got a remit that says your job,
you're, you know, you're given money by the government, you
know, in order to and by the public in order to educate,
(40:56):
entertain and inform, right thenyou've got to do the educate and
inform bit properly and seriously.
And you know what's frustrating at the moment, And one reason
why we don't all act in the way that we kind of know deep down
when we start to think about it,we should be, is because you
turn on the radio in the morningand you pick up.
You'll occasionally hear a mention of something to do with
climate, maybe something to do with nature, but you will pick
(41:18):
up a whole flavour that says theappropriate response to this
situation is broadly to carry onas normal.
And we've got to snap out of that.
But have you seen any evidence that young people who mostly get
their information and news from social media and mobile phones
these days, are you know any anybetter or any worse or
discerning what truth is? I think it has a full spectrum.
(41:40):
I think, I think there are really loads of really smart
young people. I know loads of young people who
are very, very smart at this, you know, and they, you know,
they, they, they properly ask critical thinking questions.
And, and if you know, if there'sany teachers listening to this,
I would say one of them, you know, you could do a lot worse
than just running some classroomsessions with kids of any age.
(42:02):
Just, you know, put people in front of adverts and ask them,
what is this advert trying to make you think and want?
What techniques are they using? Do you think it's in your best
interest? And then put them in front of
some media and ask them, you know, to go and, you know, teach
them the skill of working out what you can trust and what you
can't trust. And I think we all need, all of
us, every age group needs to develop that skill and encourage
(42:25):
each other to develop that skill.
It's like a, it's like a collective, a collective
standard raising and we can do it.
And do you think we're in a sortof a unique time, a moment in
history, or is this a sort of a cyclical thing where society
sort of correct themselves eventually over time when they
when they go too far? That's a really good question.
I think we need to be really clear.
I think it's easy for any, any generation to say, Oh yeah,
(42:47):
we're in a special age, right? This is why this is such a
critical age. It really is very, very special.
So I've talked about this Anthropocene, right?
So human energy use has been going up and up and up.
We've been getting more power atour disposal every year for
millennia. And that didn't matter that we
were getting more and more powerful for a very long time
(43:08):
because the planet was still bigand robust to what we could do
with it. And then we started getting to
be oh, and by the way, as we develop our energy supply, we
also develop more technologies so we can through more things
with this power, this and it it gives.
And through our use of energy and technology, we influence the
ecosystem through a mixture of accident and design in a greater
and greater way has taken us into the Anthropocene.
(43:31):
And we've had a few decades of being able to get away with
living as if we are not in it. But what's absolutely critical
about right now is we're throwing the dice so hard that
if we don't make a transition toan Anthropocene fit way of
carrying ourselves as a species,we are going to experience a
very, very nasty crunch. And I can't tell you exactly
(43:53):
what year, I can't tell you exactly how it's going to
manifest itself. But I do articulate, you know,
the evidence that this is comingnot too far away.
I very much expect to see it well within my lifetime.
And I'm 60, you know, well within my lifetime.
So, you know, now is the moment where we make a deep transition
(44:14):
or we experience a very nasty time.
So what I want to say is there'severything to play for.
But if we just carry on going, oh, business as usual.
Oh no, we can't change the economic framework because it's
too, because it's too set in stone and everybody lies in
politics and this is the way it's always been done.
If we just go along in that dopey half asleep way, then
(44:35):
we're going to, you know, we're going to wake up with a very
nasty shot. Mike Berners, Lee, thank you
very much indeed. Pleasure.
Thank you for sharing your ways to change the world or many ways
to change the world. I hope you enjoyed listening to
that. You can watch all of these
interviews on the Channel 4 NewsYouTube channel.
Our producer is Sylvia Maresca. Until next time, bye bye.
Hello and welcome to Ways to Change the World.
I'm Christian Gary Murphy, and this is the podcast in which we
talk to extraordinary people about the big ideas in their
lives and the events that have helped shape them.
My guest this week is Mike Berners Lean.
Mike is a professor at LancasterUniversity.
He's a researcher, writer, also a consultant to business, and
his latest book is called The Climate of Truth.
(00:23):
And it's a big challenge to us all and a sort of a road map for
how the world could be a better place.
So welcome, Mike. Thank you.
In what way would you change theworld?
Well, I would have a culture in which if you are seen to be
deceitful of the public in particularly in politics, media
or business, that is treated as abuse.
(00:45):
So, for example, you're a presenter.
If somebody in your position is found to have groped one of your
colleagues, you know that's the end of your career.
And you also know that any of your colleagues who have are
found to have stood by in the knowledge that that's what
you've been doing, that's probably the end of their
careers too. Well, we could have that culture
or we could get closer to that culture around deceit.
(01:08):
If a politician has is shown clear cut to have deliberately
misled the public, not just through lies, but any any other
form, then that is that's that'san abuse.
We absolutely, we can't afford it in today's world and we have
to get that out of the decision making mix.
Now, this is part of a much bigger set of ideas that that is
(01:28):
sort of in response to everyone's propensity to throw
their hands up in despair and say, Oh, well, there's nothing
you can do. Well, I've been working on the
kind of climate and wider sustainability agenda for best
part of a couple of decades now.And you know, we're not getting
anywhere, right? The broad science on climate
that it's really, really serioushas been clear cut for at least
(01:51):
three decades since we've been having the climate cops.
But if you look at the carbon emissions curve, it's been just
going up and up throughout those30 years.
Exactly as if those cops had never happened.
So if you're someone in my kind of situation, you can either
say, you know, and there are plenty of us who every year we
find slightly more articulate ways of describing how we're in
(02:14):
even more trouble than we were in the year before and so on.
And every year we get a bit morefrustrated that the world is
still isn't doing anything like what is required.
And we just go round and round in a loop.
And we kind of, it's tempting toimagine ourselves on our
deathbed just thinking, yeah, well, at least we might get the
satisfaction of saying, I told you so.
Why do you think that the doom laden warnings working?
(02:35):
Well, there's a whole psychologyof coming to terms with
difficult news. I mean, that's part of it.
There's an actual tendency to deny this stuff and then just
get angry about it and then get depressed about it or bargain
with the problem and try and getit to agree to be less than it
is. So maybe, maybe it's just a
techno fix, we'll sort it, or maybe, maybe I can offset it or
something. And all of that is just wishful
(02:56):
thinking. Well, then we get depressed
about it and decide there's nothing we can do.
And actually we need to come through all those phases and
take ourselves to the point where we face the problem.
Because as James Baldwin said, you know, nothing can be changed
until it's faced. So we need to properly stare it
in the eye, and then we can get ourselves to the point at which,
for the first time, we might be able to start taking effective
(03:18):
action. So where I'm coming from and
what led to the book was a sensethat, you know, if what you're
doing is not working year after year after year, and it's it's
people who say we're making progress but not fast enough,
That's, that's not correct. The facts, if you look at the,
you know, the core facts on rateof emissions and so on, we are
accelerating into the problem. So, you know, if what you're
(03:39):
doing is not working, it's important not just to carry on,
but to stop, stand back, see theproblem from new angles, see it
from a greater distance, get a new perspective on it and get
under the skin of the problem. Like ask yourself the reasons
behind the reasons behind the reasons why we're not getting
anywhere and see if out of all that we can identify a new point
(03:59):
of greatest leverage for anybodywho cares about these things.
And just by the way, it's not, it's not specifically a book
about climate, whatever you careabout in terms of environment or
social issues. Actually, I've I've, I've come
down to what I think is the point of greatest leverage for
anybody who cares about any of this stuff and is frustrated
(04:21):
that we're not getting anywhere.And it's truth.
And it's truth. So why do you think truth is is
gettable is achievable given it's currently not and it hasn't
been for quite a long time? Well, the good news about things
going in the wrong direction is it proves it's a variable,
right? And I'm not going to sugarcoat
this like it's pretty, you know,if you look at what's going on
in some parts of the world, especially on the other side of
(04:43):
the Atlantic, things have thingshave taken a lurch in their own
direction. But we've been lazy about truth,
right? We've, we've allowed situations
in which, you know, we've voted for politicians, we've elected
politicians who we know it's, you know, it's clear cut.
They've done things to deceive the public.
Or we could, we could reset thatright, just by deciding that
(05:05):
it's not acceptable. So I'll come back to my, you
know, I'll come back to my example of, you know, physical
abuse in public life. You know, we've decided as a
society that that is totally unacceptable.
It's disgusting and we're not having it.
And now if we get an example of it, that person's out.
Well, we can have that, you know, and there's plenty of
evidence that says humans are capable of cultivating the
(05:29):
values that they know that they need in order to thrive as a
society. And there's a couple that are
really important. We need to, we need to cultivate
if we're going to thrive in the situation that we're in now as a
species. And one of them is standards of
of honesty. And the reason for that is that
there, the quality of decision making that we need to, that we
(05:52):
need now to see us through theseincredibly complex, joined up
and urgent challenges is, is a higher quality, You know, it's
a, it's a more complex kind of decision making that we've ever
needed before. And yet the ability to confuse
the facts precisely because of that complexity and other things
like AI and so on and social media and so on, you know, it
(06:12):
makes it easier than ever to distort the facts.
And we just cannot afford the spanner in the works that deceit
provides. It just completely throws it.
It completely messes up any kindof quality decision making
process. I mean it, it's a hell of a
task, isn't it? In truth?
Because what you're not arguing is that political liars or lies
(06:36):
in the media are in some way pulling the wool over everyone's
eyes straightforwardly, You know, it's not that we don't
realize that they are people whohave lied.
You know, the, the example you use, you know, among many
examples, you talk about Boris Johnson.
Now that there was some notable things that Boris Johnson did as
(06:56):
a journalist and as a politicianwhere it was straightforwardly
not true. Everybody could say that it
wasn't true. It was widely said, not true,
but people voted for him anyway.So, so, so, so you've got,
you've got a big hurdle, haven'tyou, to convince people that
lying is harmful and that actually delivers some, you
(07:16):
know, if you stop it, you will deliver some change.
Yeah, I, I think we need a reseton this.
In fact, more than a reset, we actually need high standards of
this than we've ever had before.It's like, you know, humans are
in this position now where, you know, we're in this era in which
we're so powerful and yet we haven't yet got the kind of
wisdom to go with that. And we need to that's like an
(07:37):
urgent evolutionary challenge. We need to cultivate it quick.
So we need to not just reset, but we need to do better than
we've ever done before. So he could say, oh, there's
always been lying in political in politics, but you know, that
may be the case, but it's not acceptable.
Now, I don't want to be utopian about this.
I'm not going to suggest we can suddenly make it magic
overnight. But the further we move in that
(07:58):
direction, the better we'll findthe situation becomes.
Well, let's let's sort of 0 in on that then a little bit as to
why you think truth will deliversolutions.
Because it enables high quality decision making, right?
If somebody's, if somebody deliberately misleads the
public, that tells you they're not on their side.
That's all you need to know. And if we can, it's so easy to,
(08:23):
to spell out some deceit. You know, I've, I've got one or
two examples in the book, you know, of people having gone on
the radio and said things that they knew weren't true.
It takes them 10 minutes to do it.
And yet it takes a bunch of academics like days to put
together a careful paper showinghow that was a load of nonsense
and showing how it must have, they must have known it was a
load of nonsense. So we need to create an
(08:43):
environment in which the price to be paid for having been
caught out, which is so hard to catch somebody is so high that
it's not worth it. And the the way we do that is we
create the understanding I go that if you find that somebody
has misled you about something, it tells you they're not on your
side. Why would they try and deceive
(09:05):
you about the world if they if they were on your side?
Well, people might interrogate that a little bit, might they?
Because they might say, well, weall tell little white lies.
And sometimes it's for the, sometimes it's for the good.
Sometimes it's because you're trying to protect somebody.
Sometimes you just take a calculation that actually is
better to carry on, you know, down this line.
Minor, minor fantasy. I address that one specifically
the the, the notion of a white lie.
(09:27):
And as I think that we, you know, there's some classic
examples where if you're going to be very charitable about it,
like you might say, possibly did, did Tony Blair believe
that, you know, we just had to go with to a war with Iraq and
it was just in everybody's best interest to be told a little bit
of something about the evidence,the strength of the evidence for
those weapons of mass destruction.
(09:47):
OK, well I think a lot of peoplewould argue that the
consequences of that white lie were pretty.
If it was a white lie, were pretty would be pretty serious.
I mean that, but that's a good that's a good example that you
do raise in the book and and youknow, it does beg a challenge,
which is that you you've clearlydecided that it was a lie.
Now, Blair and lots of people who support him still reject the
(10:10):
idea that it was a lie and that it was based on, you know,
sincerely held beliefs. They say it was a mistake.
Yeah. So, so, so, you know, there
isn't really a sort of a consensus necessarily on what is
a lie and what isn't. It can be tricky.
So actually, when I, I'm a little bit more nuanced in the
book about the Tony Blair thing,because you know, I'm not, I'm
(10:30):
not going to be the, the, the big decision maker on that.
So I kind of say if you do have a conclusion that he knew, then
it would then if you're going tobe charitable, you'd say it was
a white lie, but you know, if so, it, it went the wrong way.
Most of the so-called white liesbackfire anyway.
And actually, you know, the, thething to do if you've got a
difficult message about, about the reality as you see it is to
(10:52):
explain that difficult message with a bit, with a bit more
nuance, which I know we're in a,you know, we're in a culture in
which we want simple messages and so on.
But it's just, it's just so counterproductive to the
decision making process if people are not input in the
picture. You can't even vote properly if
you're not being told the realities of what is.
What if you're not? And there's a whole taxonomy of
(11:14):
deceit. There's a whole big appendix in
the book to try. And you know, to be clear that
deceit is a lot more than just not lying.
Deceit is anything that a persondoes which tries to put convey a
view of reality that's other than how they see it.
Give me an example. So for example, if you were to
write on the side of a bus that so many millions of pounds, we
(11:39):
pay this much to the EU, whetheror not that number was right,
which it wasn't actually, so let's pay it to the NHS and said
it's not quite a lie, but it's creating an impression that the
that that money would go directly to the NHS.
Well, the people who put that message on the bus knew it
wasn't true. And actually lots and lots of
people on that campaign knew it wasn't true, even if they hadn't
(12:02):
personally put it on the side ofthe bus.
And they stayed quiet in the knowledge that it was untrue,
which is actually, which is actually just as bad.
If we, if we see that there's deceit going on, we all have a
responsibility to call it out. That's the 7th.
So why? Why was that such a bad thing?
Because if you're a Brexiteer, you might think it didn't really
matter. It helped the campaign and we we
achieved a greater good which was Brexit.
Well, I think, and I don't want to get into whether we should or
(12:26):
shouldn't have had Brexit, but whether or not we should have
had it, the British public was mis sold it.
And I think there are more and more people who are beginning to
realize that, you know, they they were mis sold something.
And that's actually a form of abuse.
And the benefits of Brexit that some people expected, sure
enough haven't come to pass. So we've been having a kind of
(12:48):
post truth experiment, right? Because it's fun if you if you
just don't care about the truth for a little while, you can be
sold an entice of narrative about what it's going to be
like. And it feels fun if you can just
switch off that bit of your brain that asks careful
questions about whether it's true.
Maybe there's somebody charismatic, maybe with a funny
haircut and it feels good and a little bit rebellious at the
(13:09):
time and all the rest of it. But the, you know, that awful
thing about that uncomfortable, boring thing called truth is,
you know, there's a reason why, there's a very good reason why
we hang on to it. I think in this country, I like
to think there's a little bit ofthe, the results of that post
truth experiment are starting tocome in and we're starting to
realize that didn't do us any good.
(13:31):
We need to come back from that. We need a reset from that.
And on the other side of the Atlantic, I've got a nasty
feeling that the results of thatpost truth experiment are going
to come in very badly over the coming years.
I think there will be a little bit less easy for everybody to
see because the way the the media is not going to cover
(13:53):
them, cover it properly. The data analysis isn't going to
be out there. But I think I've got a nasty
feeling that the results of thatexperiment are, one way or
another, going to be felt prettyhard by millions and millions of
people, even on that side of theAtlantic, but definitely in the
rest of the world. We'll come to the media in a
second, but again, if you want to talk about Trump for a
moment, let's take the example of defense spending.
(14:16):
Now, Trump has been going aroundendlessly repeating something
that's straightforwardly not true, which is this.
You know, America has given $350billion of aid to Ukraine and
Europe's only be giving 100 and that it should have been equal.
It's straightforwardly not true.You know, roughly America and
the European Union have given about the same, and it's much
(14:38):
nearer 100 billion than 350. But it's kind of worked in his
favour because the European response has been yes, yes, we
must spend more, they're all committing more.
And he's able to go to back to his American electorate and say,
see what I achieved. So in that example, now you can
say the truth is just important,but it's quite hard to persuade
(15:02):
Republicans right now that the truth, you know, was what they
really needed in that argument. Yeah.
OK. So there's an environment in
which you can say something, Trump can say something that's
that's not true. And at the moment he's getting
away with it because there's a kind of a culture and a
narrative that says that the truth doesn't matter all that
much. If someone's a, if you decide
(15:24):
someone's a good guy and then even if they don't tell the
truth, that's OK, You can vote for them.
And there's no price. There's not much price to be
paid. And it's not seen as clear cut
abuse. And you know, we've, we've
played with that kind of same narrative in this country.
And the other people who, you know, have said to me,
politicians, seasoned politicians who said to me,
(15:46):
well, you know, you know, lying is, is how the world is.
It's just how the world goes. Does it's does it's business.
But if that's the case, we can'tmake high quality decisions.
We can't get through the Anthropocene.
We're going to face a, you know,very, very tricky time coming
up. And it doesn't need to be like
that. Yeah, just explain that.
(16:06):
So what the consequences? You know what?
Why do you link a Trump lie about, you know, defence funding
to Ukraine to actually the problems of climate change, of,
of inequality, of, of everythingelse that you might want to
solve? So I came into this from a
climate change angle. So I was asking well, and you
(16:26):
know, the and wider Poly crisis.So I was asking why aren't we
getting anywhere when the science is so clear and so on.
And when I look at all the worstdecisions on climate, they don't
have poor judgement at their roots.
They have flat out dishonesty. So if I take the climate cops
for example, you know, they havebeen cynically undermined by the
(16:48):
vest, by well funded activities from the fossil fuel industry to
undermine the science, deny the science, fudge the science,
enable narratives about the kindof things that would actually
get us somewhere that they know won't work.
So they basically create a situation where they can allow
the policy makers to say or do anything they like as long as it
(17:10):
won't succeed in doing. And the one thing that matters,
which is restricting the rate atwhich fossil fuel comes out of
the ground. So that's kind of, you know,
that's how, that's how the climate cops have been subverted
by deceit. So it's not just politicians
though, is it? In a way, branding politicians
lies is the easy bit. It's it's everything else that
(17:31):
you you think we need to pursue the truth.
Well, I, I pick out three domains as really critical.
So there's politics, there's media and there's business.
And those 3, they're like a Trinity and they, they feed into
each other, they influence each other.
And we need them working together to help each other to
raise the game. The media needs to be holding
(17:52):
politicians to the count, supporting them when they're
honest, even if it's difficult for them, and, and holding them
their feet to the fire if they're wilfully deceitful.
And we've had, we've had that Trinity completely broken.
We've had we've had the media letting politicians go get away
with anything. We've had politicians
influencing the media. We've had media influencing the
politicians for you know, for personal vested interests.
(18:15):
We've had media groups owned by multi billionaires who have been
pushing their own personal agendas and the business
community, you know, some aspect, elements of the business
community have really rolled their sleeves up to stifle, you
know, not just around climate but around plastics as well.
(18:35):
Same kind of thing going on someelements of the meat industry
doing playing a similar game. I could, you know, in the book I
list quite a few different industries.
So those 3 domains, it's really critical.
Let's just focus then on the media a little bit because there
are two, two very distinct blocks of media.
There is privately owned unregulated media which can
(18:56):
basically take sides on things, newspapers, websites, they can
say whatever they want. There are no rules.
There are then regulated broadcasters like Channel 4, the
BBCITV, who have a regulated duty of due impartiality.
Now, this is where truth is getting a little bit complicated
(19:19):
at the moment, isn't it? Because, you know, broadcast
media has generally taken its job as to put all sides of an
argument or at least both sides of an argument.
And, and this is on the massive attack now, I think because
people are saying we'll stop both sides in something that is
obviously true on one side. So, So what?
What do you think? Let let's just concentrate on
(19:43):
the media that's trying to be honest, if you like, because
there's a whole section of mediathat's just got an agenda and
is, is, is is honestly pursuing it.
But let's talk about the media that is trying to be honest and
where it gets it wrong. OK.
So I don't think it's quite as clear cut because I think the
kind of, you know, even the media that has a duty to public
service, I think comes under pressure.
The responsibility for us as citizens is to be incredibly
(20:06):
discerning about who we trust and why.
So who funds this Media. What's their track record on
honesty? What pressures are they under?
What interests have they got that might be other than putting
me in the best, clearest view ofreality that I can get?
How can I triangulate this with a few different sources so that
I can see if somebody gets, you know, and some of my favorite
(20:29):
media and you know that I I do now list some of them out in the
book, but. But you're very uncompromising
about what we should do. You're giving us advice about
how we can actually influence this consumers.
So what do you think we should do to get the media that we
want? OK, So what you should do is
take something like the criteriathat I use for having, for how
(20:50):
you might make up your mind or improve on those criteria.
That's even better. Ask yourself really carefully
how the different media score and if there's media that
doesn't score well, for example,if it's owned by somebody who
has got a track record of manipulating the truth in order
to steer elections, just for example, then don't touch it
(21:11):
with a barge pole. Don't feed it any money it needs
to be starved out. Don't feed it any money.
Don't feed it's advertising streams by by accessing it at
all and get yourself out of its,it's fear of influence.
So don't. It's not good enough to say, Oh
well, I just get this paper because I like the TV Guide and
the cooking guide, right? You're supporting it.
(21:33):
If you do that and you're under its influence in all kinds of
subtle ways that we all like to think, we're much better at
fending off. So don't don't watch crazy
channels because they're entertaining.
Absolutely, absolutely do not watch something.
Don't you have a right to be entertained if you like?
Well, you do. It's just that.
(21:53):
It's just that in doing so you are subjecting yourself to an
influence that is deeply corrosive and is against your
interests. So and conversely, pick some
media that you do like that doespass these tests and support it.
And if you can afford to pay it money, pay it proper money,
because it costs good money to do good media.
And you know, if you can afford to pay a lot more than you would
(22:15):
normally have thought of paying conventional media, it might be
one of the most powerful ways inwhich you can support a good
cause for the good of the world.Because we're in an environment
now where freedom of speech is being held up as the rival to
truth, as you would, as you would portray it.
And and that's the right to say what you want on the media or on
(22:37):
a platform is held up as a virtue in itself.
You know what, your suggestion, yes, starve them out.
Don't give them viewers. Take away their advertising, you
know, funding all that kind of stuff.
You know, make it hard for the media that doesn't try to tell
the truth would be seen, particularly in America, as a
straightforward assault on freedom of speech.
Well, no, they can say what theywant.
This media can say what they want.
(22:57):
It's just that no one's going tono one's going to buy it.
No one's going to churn into it.All right?
It's just like ask yourself who you want to be influenced by.
But. Do you think advertising we cost
for a good idea, for example, you know, because that's been
tried in different, you know, indifferent media brands where
there have been campaigns aroundlet's starve them out because
they don't try to tell the truth.
I think advertising has got a lot to answer for.
(23:18):
I mean, you know, the, the firsthalf of this bit that we perhaps
haven't talked much about, whichis, which is fine.
But you know, is, is about the nature of this Poly crisis and
how we're in it and what we might do to get out of it.
Because one of the great pieces of news is that actually we've
more or less got the technology to live better than ever, not
have a climate crisis, get through the plastics problem,
restore our nature, all the restof it, you know, whilst having a
(23:40):
well-being, you know, an improvement in human well-being.
There's nothing not to like about it.
And one of the things that's oneof the forces that's really
holding us back from that is an advertising industry, which a
lot of the time is persuading usto want things and to buy things
that are actually against our interests.
And actually we could be so liberated from that.
(24:02):
So one of the things I support now, I don't talk about it in
the book, but I'm supporting theidea of ABSI standard on
advertising, which can at least create some criteria around, you
know, some of the worst and mostpoisonous products being
advertised. Just, you know, if we could just
get rid of that, that would actually help to move our
culture in a way that would be so good for humanity.
(24:23):
But that's not all you want, is it?
When it comes to advertising, you basically want us to stop
wanting new things all the time.Well, I want, I think the, I, I
talk a little bit about what, what good industries look like
in a kind of movement in a, in aworld that's transitioning
towards sustainability. And the idea of an industry that
(24:44):
most of the time is making its money out of persuading people
to believe and to want things, whether or not it's in their
interests, is just fundamentallywhat it's worse than immoral.
You know, it's, it's worse than immoral.
It's it's taking us in a bad direction, OK.
It's it's something that it shouldn't be socially
acceptable. If you've got friends in that
(25:06):
industry who are working in thatway, that shouldn't be socially
acceptable. That shouldn't be something that
they can just turn up at a dinner party and nobody talks
about it because it's uncomfortable.
So, so, so there should be social pressure on the
advertising industry also to tell the truth.
I think we have to because it creates a point of greater
leverage on all this. So, you know, you, if you've got
friends who read traditional or,or get involved in social media,
(25:34):
that's, you know, it's clearly has a corrupting influence, then
we need to challenge them on that because we need to create a
culture in which everybody's thinking about this stuff.
And it's like, oh, you read thatpaper.
You know what, what is it about that?
Is it because you don't mind being taken for a ride or you
haven't noticed? Is it your critical thinking
skills aren't that great? Or is it that you just don't
(25:55):
care? Or what is it?
It needs to be something that isnot socially normal in the same
way that you'll get the sack if you're a fan to have groped
somebody. You know that we need the same.
We need that. We need to bring that same
culture in around deceit. When it comes to advertising and
sort of acquisitiveness, then there are standards of truth.
You know, there is an Advertising Standards regime
(26:15):
which makes sure that, you know,adverts cannot straightforwardly
lie. But that's not really what
you're talking about, is it? You're what you're talking about
is the truth around whether you really need this new piece of
consumer goods, right? So let's go.
Back and what the impact of thatis.
Sure. So let's go back to what honesty
really looks like, right? When you're being honest with
somebody, you are helping them to understand reality as best
(26:39):
you possibly can. You know, within the
practicalities of the situation,right?
So if you have an advert that iscreating the impression that you
have to be dissatisfied with your life if you don't buy an
oversized gas guzzling car and that if you buy it, that's it,
your life will be a dream, right?
And that's not actually the reality of how it's going to
(27:00):
play out for that person. And you're also distracting
them, you know, not mentioning anything about the wider, wider
negative impacts of, of, of spending your money in that way,
then that's fundamentally a dishonest, that's fundamentally
dishonest and deceitful proposition.
Now there there were lots of sort of suggestions that you
give in the book for how people can live their lives.
(27:20):
I mean, how you know, what proportion do you think of of us
is up for this? Oh, all of us, right?
This is a cultural change we canhave.
There's plenty of evidence that humans are capable of creating,
of cultivating the cultural values that we need in order to
(27:42):
thrive. And here we are now in this
Anthropocene accelerating into acrisis, right?
We're on this fragile planet together.
We've globalized. We need to do decision making in
ways that we've never had to do it before.
And there's, there's actually, Iactually talk in the book about
3 core values that we absolutelyneed to cultivate.
And one is much greater respect for the environment.
(28:04):
I think that kind of goes without saying.
Another one, which I do want to touch on because it it when I
first started talking about this, it felt like this is so
this is too obvious to need saying, right?
But we need to treat all people in the world with equal respect,
right? As humans.
That is that right? There's 8 billion of us on this
planet together. We will either thrive together
or we won't. And right now there are
(28:26):
narratives growing that really challenge that right that are
really starting to say maybe it's white men that should be
the decision makers. Maybe it's, you know, maybe
people in one country are worth more than people in another
country. Maybe it's this country first
over that country. All of that is deeply poisonous
and we need to we need to challenge that.
And then the third value is truth for its own sake.
(28:48):
And that's because it's requiredfor the quality of decision
making that we need. And it's becoming ever easier to
hide it. So we need a kind of, there's a
little bit of maths in the book that says if you the price to be
paid for being found out for having been deliberately
deceitful over a matter of policy needs to be greater than
(29:12):
the benefit you thought you'd get.
You'd get if you got away with it.
Times the ratio of how much workit takes to flush out deceit
divided by how much effort it takes to sow the deceit.
And that ratio is a very high number because it's so easy to
be deceitful and it's so hard toput it back in the bag.
So we need to create that very high price.
And the way to pay that, to create that price is to have a,
(29:35):
a normal acceptance that if you find out that a politician has
been wilfully deceitful with thepublic, it tells you you can't
trust them ever on anything at all that you might care about.
And it also tells you that you can't trust any of their
colleagues who were seen to havestayed quiet in the knowledge of
(29:57):
their deceit. And it's very clearly not a
party political book that I've written, but I do pull out
examples that were relevant at the time.
And I wrote most of that book with one government was in power
that was just being so routinelydishonest that there was not one
MP left standing. Of what exact criteria?
Isn't the problem you still comeback to this question of will
will deceit, the judgement on willful deceit and who decides?
(30:18):
Because, you know, even in your book, as you say in the examples
we've talked about, you lay it off slightly, say, well, either
either they're very stupid or they're very bad.
And it's, and it's difficult to be the person who says, well, I
think they are actually very bad.
And that this is a deliberate lie.
And, and all the examples we canthink of, whether it's around
the bus or the Iraq or, or whatever it might be, there's
(30:41):
still an argument about whether this was willful deceit or not.
Yeah, sometimes we have to make judgment calls.
Sometimes. Sometimes it actually doesn't
matter. Sometimes you're left with a
choice that says either this person's critical thinking
skills are so poor that they shouldn't be in the job they're
in, or they're not honest enoughso.
Either way, you get them out. Either way, they're out.
So if somebody starts saying climate change isn't a big,
(31:02):
we're not in a climate crisis, it's not a big deal, right?
And there's one party in particular, there's really few
parties are really pushing that line.
That tells you that they're either they don't know how to
think or they're not being straight with the public.
Either way, don't even think of voting.
So how? How do you answer then the
question of sort of that is the problem, I suppose, with the
cops as well and individual climate action by any country,
(31:26):
which is, well, what's the pointof us doing this if everybody
else isn't? So if everybody who read your
book started behaving like this,at what point do you get to a
stage where you actually start changing the world?
OK, so I don't want to sugar coat this.
There's some big, you know, I wouldn't say we're heading in a
(31:46):
good direction at the moment. It does look extremely
challenging and the urgency of the Poly crisis.
I mean, we don't, you know, we don't.
There are no hard and fast sort of lines in the sand that tell
us we know at this point we're really in trouble in it, but if
we can stay below that then we're fine.
We're just exposing ourselves toever increasing risk and the
rate at which we're exposing ourselves to them is, you know,
getting faster and faster. So we're just going to hotter
(32:09):
and we're throwing the dice evermore every year.
So it's very, very challenging. And right now, if you look on
both sides of the Atlantic, there's all sorts of things
there's not going in the right direction.
So it's an enormous challenge. Does that mean it's provably not
one that we can get through? No, it doesn't mean that.
What gives me hope. What gives me hope is that
(32:31):
social tipping points can happenvery, very quickly.
You can think that you're miles away from the change that you're
looking for and actually the conditions are carefully being
put in place and then suddenly things tip.
And we might be quite close to that.
Now, I can't tell you what the mechanism will be by which
America regains democracy and starts to and gets itself a
(32:56):
culture in which the truth is really prized and mattered and
the quality of decision making goes up and climate gets back on
the agenda and so on. But I can believe in the
possibility of that mechanism and I can.
And I do think that the results of the post truth experiment are
going to come in. We're starting to get them in
the UK. More and more people are seeing
that. You know, I like to think we're
(33:16):
ready for a movement in that direction in this country.
You know, that's what I'm pushing for for sure.
It seems further away at the moment in the US, but when one
country does it and they show how it's done, if we can do
something really clever in this country that shows we can, you
know, rise up and insist on a culture that just suddenly makes
the outcome for British people better.
(33:38):
We start getting the quality of decision making that we need,
which allows us to run our economy in a way that's
Anthropocene fit. That sorts that starts to sort
out our health service and inequality and just all kinds of
things. The air gets cleaned up,
whatever. Other countries can look at that
too. These, you know, we're a
globalized world. We can learn from each other far
faster than ever before. So I can't tell you the exact
(34:00):
mechanism. It does.
You know, we are heading for a dark place.
If I was a betting man, I would probably bet against us getting
by without having a very nasty time in the next decade or two.
But it's definitely not proven and the more we can move in this
direction, the better placed we will be to deal with whatever
(34:21):
situation we find ourselves in. Can we just come back to talk
about the media a little bit? I don't know how many interviews
you've done on this book, but I can imagine the reaction of most
media is yes, but come on, When are you going to live in the
real world? Most people are not like this.
Most people aren't prepared to make the sacrifice that you're
asking from them because you're saying, you know, to, to, to the
affluent, stop buying things. Ask yourself whether you really
(34:44):
need that. Don't travel on, you know, 10
international holidays a year ifyou don't really need to, you
know, stop ruining the climate in terms of your own personal
behaviour. And you know, as we've as, as
it's obvious, it's a big, it's abig ask.
So, so how, how you know what, what, what is the problem, if
you like, in terms of saying, well, come on, you know, we live
(35:08):
in the real world. Yeah, we do live in the real
world. Let's have a look at what that
real world is like, because we're being given this narrative
that we'll all not enjoy life asmuch if we don't get on those
ten flights. And that, you know, GDP growth
has to be the big master metric that we let govern our lives.
And there are all sorts of things, there are all sorts of
narratives going around that have pushed pretty hard and
(35:29):
don't get challenged all that much in mainstream media and in
mainstream politics. And they're actually not right.
OK. It's pretty frustrating.
And what I'm advocating is not ahair shirt.
It's not, you know, this is what's so frustrating, right, is
I'm actually advocating a quality of life improvement and
it's just let's take GDP right, as the as the central measure
(35:52):
for economic success, right? Well, the argument that that
doesn't track well at all with well-being and definitely not
with the well-being of the planet is so clear cut, so
robust and not that difficult that it is astonishing that
there's still barely a mainstream politician who's
(36:13):
ready to challenge it. So the emperor's just not
wearing any clothes on this and we need to call it out.
I've got, I have got some other good news just to just to be
optimistic about this for a second, is that more and more
people see this but don't see that everybody else sees this.
So I do quite a lot of talks to business audiences and I've been
(36:36):
carrying out a little experimentand I've probably, I've probably
carried it out with about 10,000people now across, I don't know,
30-40 talk, something like that.Or I spell out what I think's
going on in the Poly crisis and how I think we're getting on.
I look at the, I show the climate curves accelerating, the
plastic curve accelerating even faster, the end of crime
disruption, all the rest of it. I lay out what I think is a
(36:58):
pretty a very serious situation and I just ask everyone.
Sometimes I do this with a secret ballot as well.
So just put up their hand if they think I've in broad terms,
I've got things about right, that it's about as serious as
the situation as I've described.Or in broad terms, do they think
I've fundamentally exaggerated or if I fundamentally think I've
(37:20):
underestimated it. And every single time, the vast
majority of people think I've got it about right.
And there's always more people who think I have undirect it
then I've exaggerated it. So everybody gets it.
And so I get people to look around and look at everybody
else. And these aren't, you know, just
because now you can see that youwill get it.
(37:41):
And isn't it funny because we'renot acting as if we will get it?
So, so, so again, in terms of the way the media should behave
responsibly, you see where if I,if I, if I do an interview with
a, you know, with Ed Miliband about the government's plans on
climate change, it's my job to challenge him and put the other
side of the argument. Sure is.
Now what that means sometimes isthat if he's broadly right about
(38:04):
something, I will be sowing seeds of doubt in some viewers
and they people will wonder, well, is he talking rubbish or
not? And I will be raising the other
side of the argument. Do do you think that is that is
a good or a bad thing? Well, if you're going to raise
the other side of the argument, don't do it in a spurious kind
of way. Don't.
Don't cook. I I think it's unhelpful to cook
(38:25):
up an argument that you know isn't robust, you know, in case
you can catch them out or something.
I mean, I think Ed Miliband, youcan challenge him in lots of
ways. He's trying to do the right
thing within the constraints of certain things.
But you know, you could, you could equally challenge him the
other way. So I think it's definitely not
healthy to present two sides of the argument as equal when one
(38:46):
side's got when one side's got all the evidence in it, then ask
challenges around the details ofthat side of the argument.
What about the the generations? Do you see a generational
difference between people's attitude or demand for truth or
susceptibility to lies? I think we are, we're in danger
(39:11):
of having normalized things. I mean, I think different
generations do things, react in different ways.
I mean, I think a few years ago some of the kids protesting on
the streets were making helping to make a real difference.
And they, you know, they, they helped the UK to improve their
climate targets and so on. And they cooled things out and
they were very good at sort of standing.
Yeah. The.
(39:31):
Greta Tunberg. Yeah, the Greta Tunberg kind of
thing. You know, she comes at the world
with fresh eyes and she says, hang on, the emperor's not
wearing any clothes, is it? Right.
So kids can be very good at that.
But equally, you know, we're bringing up a generation in
which we've been normalizing dishonesty, right?
We've actually allowed a situation in which, you know,
somebody had been sacked a couple of times for dishonesty
(39:52):
in his previous job as a journalist, got asked by a major
political party to become allowed to become a
parliamentary candidate, right? At that point, we should have
all been holding our, we should have all been questioning what's
going on, what's going wrong in that party, right?
Then finds his way to being an MP, then gets elected party
leader. All the rest right?
And all this stuff is being normalized.
(40:12):
And I've talked to, you know, perhaps I won't name them this
time, but, you know, I've talkedto radio presenters and so on,
you know, and challenged them on.
Or when you have somebody who you know is being dishonest with
the public, why don't you just hold their feet to the fire, you
know, until, until it's properlyflushed out and they've
apologised or you know, or something.
(40:33):
If it's clear cut and they've just said, well, you know.
Well, look, well, they'll, they'll probably say, well, look
at what happened when Channel 4 did that.
OK there. Well, what I got was what I got
was when you had public doesn't like it enough.
But you know, if you've got a remit that says your job,
you're, you know, you're given money by the government, you
know, in order to and by the public in order to educate,
(40:56):
entertain and inform, right thenyou've got to do the educate and
inform bit properly and seriously.
And you know what's frustrating at the moment, And one reason
why we don't all act in the way that we kind of know deep down
when we start to think about it,we should be, is because you
turn on the radio in the morningand you pick up.
You'll occasionally hear a mention of something to do with
climate, maybe something to do with nature, but you will pick
(41:18):
up a whole flavour that says theappropriate response to this
situation is broadly to carry onas normal.
And we've got to snap out of that.
But have you seen any evidence that young people who mostly get
their information and news from social media and mobile phones
these days, are you know any anybetter or any worse or
discerning what truth is? I think it has a full spectrum.
(41:40):
I think, I think there are really loads of really smart
young people. I know loads of young people who
are very, very smart at this, you know, and they, you know,
they, they, they properly ask critical thinking questions.
And, and if you know, if there'sany teachers listening to this,
I would say one of them, you know, you could do a lot worse
than just running some classroomsessions with kids of any age.
(42:02):
Just, you know, put people in front of adverts and ask them,
what is this advert trying to make you think and want?
What techniques are they using? Do you think it's in your best
interest? And then put them in front of
some media and ask them, you know, to go and, you know, teach
them the skill of working out what you can trust and what you
can't trust. And I think we all need, all of
us, every age group needs to develop that skill and encourage
(42:25):
each other to develop that skill.
It's like a, it's like a collective, a collective
standard raising and we can do it.
And do you think we're in a sortof a unique time, a moment in
history, or is this a sort of a cyclical thing where society
sort of correct themselves eventually over time when they
when they go too far? That's a really good question.
I think we need to be really clear.
I think it's easy for any, any generation to say, Oh yeah,
(42:47):
we're in a special age, right? This is why this is such a
critical age. It really is very, very special.
So I've talked about this Anthropocene, right?
So human energy use has been going up and up and up.
We've been getting more power atour disposal every year for
millennia. And that didn't matter that we
were getting more and more powerful for a very long time
(43:08):
because the planet was still bigand robust to what we could do
with it. And then we started getting to
be oh, and by the way, as we develop our energy supply, we
also develop more technologies so we can through more things
with this power, this and it it gives.
And through our use of energy and technology, we influence the
ecosystem through a mixture of accident and design in a greater
and greater way has taken us into the Anthropocene.
(43:31):
And we've had a few decades of being able to get away with
living as if we are not in it. But what's absolutely critical
about right now is we're throwing the dice so hard that
if we don't make a transition toan Anthropocene fit way of
carrying ourselves as a species,we are going to experience a
very, very nasty crunch. And I can't tell you exactly
(43:53):
what year, I can't tell you exactly how it's going to
manifest itself. But I do articulate, you know,
the evidence that this is comingnot too far away.
I very much expect to see it well within my lifetime.
And I'm 60, you know, well within my lifetime.
So, you know, now is the moment where we make a deep transition
(44:14):
or we experience a very nasty time.
So what I want to say is there'severything to play for.
But if we just carry on going, oh, business as usual.
Oh no, we can't change the economic framework because it's
too, because it's too set in stone and everybody lies in
politics and this is the way it's always been done.
If we just go along in that dopey half asleep way, then
(44:35):
we're going to, you know, we're going to wake up with a very
nasty shot. Mike Berners, Lee, thank you
very much indeed. Pleasure.
Thank you for sharing your ways to change the world or many ways
to change the world. I hope you enjoyed listening to
that. You can watch all of these
interviews on the Channel 4 NewsYouTube channel.
Our producer is Sylvia Maresca. Until next time, bye bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.