Jeremy Clarkson, climate change and the problem with changing minds

Jeremy Clarkson is probably not the first person most people would associate with the environmental movement.

For decades, his public persona was built around fast cars, large engines and a healthy scepticism towards anyone suggesting we should feel guilty about enjoying them. Around ten years ago, he described climate change as “a bit boring”. It was entirely consistent with the Clarkson we knew: V12 engines were exciting; climate warnings considerably less so.

Then he bought a farm.

Anyone who has watched Clarkson’s Farm will have seen the transformation. Farming put Clarkson directly at the mercy of the weather. Too much rain, not enough rain, excessive heat or an unseasonal cold spell are no longer abstract environmental statistics. They affect what he can plant, what he can harvest and whether the numbers at the end of the year add up.

His commentary has consequently become much more concerned with the weather and the changing conditions affecting British agriculture.

There is an interesting lesson here, and it is not really about Jeremy Clarkson.

It is about all of us.

Clarkson is an intelligent, successful and charismatic man. Yet, like the rest of us, his perception of an issue is inevitably influenced by his own experience. When climate change had relatively little direct impact on his life, it was easier to dismiss. When the weather started determining whether his crops survived, the subject suddenly looked rather different.

We like to believe our opinions are formed entirely from facts. In reality, we all construct narratives that fit our experiences and, occasionally, our interests.

Businesses and consumers do exactly the same thing.

Companies defend established ways of working because those systems created their previous success. Executives can dismiss disruptive technologies because accepting them means questioning decades of accumulated knowledge. Consumers defend habits because those habits have become part of what they consider normal.

Changing someone’s mind therefore involves more than presenting them with another set of statistics.

You are asking them to overwrite an existing mental imprint.

The problem with waiting for personal experience

Eventually, reality has a habit of changing people’s minds for them.

A farmer experiencing repeated crop failures is likely to think differently about changing weather patterns. Someone whose home has flooded may suddenly become considerably more interested in flood defences and climate resilience.

But we clearly cannot wait for everybody to experience the consequences of climate change personally.

This is one of the biggest challenges facing governments, environmental organisations and sustainable businesses. How do you persuade millions of people to change established behaviours before the consequences become personal?

Fear is one option, but it has obvious limitations.

Tell somebody repeatedly that their lifestyle is destroying the planet and they may change their behaviour. They may equally decide that they do not like the person delivering the message and stop listening.

There is also a commercial lesson here.

Businesses trying to change consumer behaviour frequently spend too much time attempting to convince the people least likely to buy their product.

The theory of Diffusion of Innovations, developed by American sociologist Everett Rogers, offers a useful way of looking at the problem. Rogers divided adoption into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.

Most entrepreneurs will recognise the pattern.

Innovators are prepared to experiment. Early adopters see an opportunity before it becomes mainstream. The early majority want evidence that something works. The late majority require much greater reassurance, while the final group may resist until the alternative has virtually disappeared.

The post Jeremy Clarkson, climate change and the problem with changing minds appeared first on Elite Business Magazine.