Awesomely Awesome Article on Celebrity Green Hypocrisy

Definitely read the whole thing.

Even Leonardo DiCaprio, generally regarded as a serious sort not given to excessive grandstanding, came up short in May when quizzed about his travel habits: "I try as often as possible to fly commercially," he offered.

"As often as possible"—as though there are times it's simply impossible to avoid flying private. As though forces beyond his control occasionally abduct Leo, drug him, and drag his limp body onto an executive jet.

It's always galling to be exhorted to curb your consumption by people who are living the poshest lifestyle imaginable. But the problem here goes beyond aesthetics. Eco-hypocrites undercut the very message they're trying to peddle. How desperate could the planet's plight be if the people who present themselves as most concerned about it consider flying first-class commercial an unacceptable sacrifice? Why should anyone bother to carpool when Streisand requires her own convoy? Or forgo A/C for a fan when Edwards is chilling in the largest house in his county? The implication of the hypocrites' behavior is that we must take all measures to fight global warming short of those that would reduce our quality of life. But a reduction in quality of life—or at least a redefinition of it—is exactly what Americans are going to have to accept to make a meaningful dent in greenhouse gas levels.

Just to mention, yet again, that a 1% reduction in their lifestyle excesses would do more to lower CO2 production than a 20% reduction by any 100 working-class to middle-class people. And yet they refuse to do so. Just flat-out refuse, and when you call them on it, they get very angry at you about it.

They like scolding everyone else to do "their share," but when anyone says "Hey, maybe you should do your share too, especially given that your heated pools, air conditioned stretch limos, and luxurious private jets produce more CO2 in a week than my relatively-meager lifestyle produces in a year," they scream that you're trying to hurt the environment.

Really? What are they doing when they tell us all to reduce our carbon footprints? I thought it's good to scold and hector people into reducing their carbon impact. But apparently not. It's good when your betters scold you, but very bad -- and very ungreen -- when you attempt to scold them back.

And carbon offsets -- give me a break. Now that we know that An Inconvenient Truth was made, supposedly, carbon "neutral" by spending $480 -- apparently $480 offests all the carbon produced private-jetting around the country for a few months, lighting and heating large lecture halls, lighting and heating production offices, etc. -- I think we're all hip to the "carbon offset" scam.

You know their real carbon offset? Their carbon offsets are gained by telling other people to reduce their carbon production, so that they can continue living their lavish lifestyles without more than the most trivial adjustment. If they can convince you to accept a lower quality of life, then they've "helped the environment" enough, and they won't need to sacrifice themselves.

Thanks to Hot Air.

$480 to make an entire movie production "carbon neutral." Right.

What does that work out to -- 20 seedlings planted? Maybe 30, tops?

If that's what it takes to make an entire (admittedly low-budget) movie production, including all power used by staff in pre- and post-production "carbon neutral," then I think it's pretty obvious the rest of us need only plant one or two seedlings a year to cover our entire year's worth of carbon output.

If that's the game, fine-- I'll plant one seedling for my meager lifestyle per year, but I expect celebrities, in turn, to make proportionate sacrifices -- like $100,000 a year in carbon offsets, at least.

And I expect something else, too: For you all to shut the fuck up and never dare to lecture me again.

posted by Ace at 05:14 PM

| Access Comments