Celebrity Eco-Hypocritique

Despite the very saintly-looking photographs above, I don't think there's much reason to write celebrities a pass. Flying around the world with a laptop and PowerPoint makes a big impact -- an impact in changing minds, and an impact in smogging up the planet.

hypocrisy, n.
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

Unless these people are claiming one thing about how they personally live, or condemning specific things in others yet doing it themselves, it's not hypocrisy.

This idiotic obsession with the personal consumption levels of people who act on a large stage is so petty it's hard to describe. It either comes from people whose ox is being gored (yes, that's a pun) by environmental progress, or by very small-minded people who think everyone should both consume the same amount and that we should ignore the quality of the consumption (eg, ignoring that Gore's electricity is carbon-neutral).

While I think the net result of celebs like these is certainly positive and would be happy to see more use their influence to help, it really does surprise me that they let themselves be set up as hypocrites in the first place.

Why doesn't Al want to live in a cutting edge zero emission house in the first place? It's not enough to slap on some PV if the house underneath chews through far more energy than they produce.

Why don't the jetsetting eco-warrior-celebs show conclusively what/where/how their offsets are, and not only that, why can't they do something like a pledge that for every 1 ton of flight-based CO2, they'll offset by far more (like 10 tons for example) in their very visible and above board programs.

We shouldn't rely on celebrities as a model for our own lives anyway. Despite Gore, who is educated, the vast majority of Actors don't have educations in any sort of valid sociological area. They went to school to act, they aren't the smartest people in the world, they just make tons of money, and can get around the world promoting what others have told them to promote.

No matter how good of an actor someone is, that doesn't mean they have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to the ecosystem, animal rights, politics, religion, whatever else they jump on with their limited brain power. They are powered by trends, and rarely have original ideas of their own.

Celebrities are nothing special, they just make tons of money (sometimes). Listen to the more informed and educated, not your favorite rock band, or the guy who played some character so perfectly.

This is hyperhypocrisy. Are you kidding me? This is more disgusting that Sen. Craig legislating against gays while himself being one -- or any example of hypocrisy I can imagine.

Being green isn't about talking the talk, it's about walking the walk. Phooey on Sienna, Leo and Al.

What with global warming, the core idea about being green is sacrifice to save the planet. It isn't about "the little people" doing with less while the royal, elite celebrities party and promote themselves, using "green" wholly as a PR device.

Shame, shame on treehugger for putting up this disgusting article.

Again and again, opponents of environmentalism try to equate it with communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's nothing wrong with people making money, and spending it, provided they're responsible, and pay for their excess consumption.

Everyone agrees we're facing a crisis, and carbon mitigation fees integrated into the price system are the best way to deal with it. Most critics suggest that we do nothing. Since everyone agrees that global warming is happening and its going to be bad, that's not an alternative.

So these celebrities are being excoriated for proposing a solution. Hardly logical !

Our system of laws works to limit the destruction of publicly held assets by charging fees and taxes. Environmentalists merely want to define the waste of resources as a destructive activity, so that it can also be limited, by imposing fees for things like CO2 mitigation. These people are willing to pay such fees, as well as me. And the more people required to contribute, the less pain caused to our economy.

And the sooner we get started, the less painful it is.

idiots that criticize people that try to make the world better- they should drink a nice glass of shut the fuck up and remove the electrodes from their asshole faces.

and in case noone sees the obvious legitimate "excuses" that these celebrities have... al gore buys carbon offsets for his flights, and doesnt his home electricity come from renewable sources, which has to be especially requested and are more expensive than just using electricity from conventional means? dunno about leo though. but if theyre trying to do the right thing... give them the benefit of the doubt. idiots that try to advance their careers by having something controversial and antagonistic to say certainly arent doing the right thing.

and the knowledge and interest they spread through their works is worth a few carbon emissions. especially if they offset them.

Their popularity is what has them traveling so much, you could say the same thing of summer rayne oakes... or any model or actor or activist who is shuttled back and forth to high paying gigs... which raise money for their respective causes... Their short coming, is in their singularity of issues... they don't connect the dots, they don't associate one benefit outweighing a short coming... this is the work the people I work with have been quietly doing for many years... while everyone draws limelight for single issue hooplah, while in the end, it's how all these issues relate to each other that makes a whole, draws the big picture, and gets the job done.

If you're a celebrity, then you should indeed be working with the airlines you travel with, to make certain these companies are investing into alternatives and solutions... what's easier for a band on tour... a biodiesel bus, or a junket via sky blue... How many limo companies have they contracted urging them to build biofuel/electric models? Which celeb is out there, advocating a National Hitchhiking Club?

We're all in this together, but the cult of personality makes it that these folks, like Leo, Al and company, have their entourage, handlers... how much control do they have on these people... It's up to outfits like TreeHugger to identity the "teams" surrounding these eco-leaders, not always focus on the celebrity itself? Who does the heavy lifting around these beautiful people?

I haven't seen 11th Hour yet... I have issue with it because it mentions nothing about nuclear power, which I consider to be the worse pollution facing mankind today... spreading cancer... rates are through the roof... nukes are run by folks who employ strong arm tactics, green design fashionistas who read this blog have too much to lose than to tackle with people who hurt people for a living!

Bringing attention isn't enough... we've had awareness to the problems for decades... the difficulty is in motivating the junkie to drop the needle, pick himself up, start taking care of himself, it's hard when car culture is in bed with sexy... we harp for a time when we could enjoy driving around this country without gridlock surrounding every American city.

We're in dire straight... celebs are victim of circumstance, only trying to take care of one issue at a time, when we should all be doing, is identify the real culprits, skull and bones (as Robert de Niro did in his movie the good shepherd... he's been around the New York mob long enough to know the score!) The Bohemian Grove where Boner graduates congregate once a year, the Federal Bank reserve charging interest on the US dollar, investing profits in war, secret labs, and nuclear power!

Wake up treehugger, time to galvanize, regroup, learn some history lessons, new tricks, renew... yes it's made an immense dent to have grown green consumerism and LEED architecture be a new found religion... but now's the time to tackle some unfinished business, Shut Down Indian Point, make David Rockefeller pay for his organic farm few miles away.

> "idiots that criticize people that try to make the world better- they should drink a nice glass of shut the fuck up and remove the electrodes from their asshole faces"

Everybody wants to make the world better, Charles. Even people like Bush, who do a very, very bad job of it. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll get over your anger.

These types of articles will keep coming up because they are relevant commentaries about the moral fiber of eco-celebrities. The point that I see made ubiquitously on this blog is if you want to make an impact, avoid unnecessary consumption--that excess and greed, as exemplified by many American cars, are a leading cause of environmental harm. So if you are public personality advocating change, why can't you subscribe to these values? Why does Al Gore need a giant house? Why can't Leonardo DiCaprio take a goddamn commercial jet to a film festival? The fact is these people think themselves too important to be subject to the environmental rules of John Q. Everyman. The fact is, I will never defend Al Gore on this matter, because he is dead wrong. He is a hypocrite. And don't mention carbon offsets. How viable are carbon offsets in the long run? You can only plant so many trees. Reminds me of buying indulgences from the Catholic church.

Practice what you preach, or shut up. There are plenty of genuine environmentalists out there.

I like Al Gore, I applaud his efforts to bring the environment front and center where it should be. I think he went a little too far making everyone recite a pledge at a rock concert to reduce CO2 emissions.

My main grip is the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude especially from the super wealthy in this country. After all, they are the ones that can easily afford renewable energy technologies. I am scraping by on a single income trying to feed a family of four, pay the mortgage, pay the medical insurance, put a little away for the kid's college funds and I still can find a little extra money to install solar panels on my house. It is not easy for me, but I feel it is important to set a good example, I wish other, more influential people felt the same way.

"This idiotic obsession with the personal consumption levels of people who act on a large stage is so petty it's hard to describe."

What about the obsession of the consumption of those who act on the small stage? Why are these celebrities obsessed with our consumption? My consumption doesn't matter because I'm important, but yours does. One sheet of toilet paper? Give me a break. When celebrities do things only when they are exposed as hypocrites, it is hard to give them credibility. Ed Begley; now he has some credibility.

And Senator James Inhofe can club and eat baby seals after cooking them in polar bear fat without any risk to his reputation but Al Gore is a big, fat hypocrite.

to the last comment:

i'm sure we're on the same side, but i have some disagreemens with what you said.

i think a lot of people "connect the dots", especially people making comprehensive documentaries, which might be the only way to get enough people to care about these issues. 11th hour is in fact, about connecting the dots and going over a whole system that is unsustainable and polluting, going into a bunch of different related issues.

and nuclear is not the worst kind of pollution, by any standard. it has a bad name for obvious reasons, but think about this. nuclear power stations produce no carbon emissions. nuclear power, especially in the US, has an impeccable safety record (off the top of my head) the chernobyl incident was one mistake a world away, which since have brought about improvements in the design of nuclear power plants that would prevent that particular kind of accident. and nuclear power plants produce less radiation than the amount of radiation you're exposed to in daily life. also, coal plants have released more nuclear radiation to the public than nuclear plants. coal has small amounts of radioactive materials in them, not to mention heavy metals like mercury, and there aren't any regulations that force them to make sure their smoke stacks aren't radioactive. and don't forget that coal fired plants are one of the greatest sources of greenhouse gases. theres a bunch of articles on treehugger about the negative effects of using coal.

and think about this- nuclear is definitely a clean sources of energy, as far as greenhouse gases are concerned, but it can also be considered a renewable source of energy. nuclear waste can be processed into different kinds of radioactive elements, which can be used as nuclear fuel again and again. france does this. why the US just stockpiles its nuclear waste and tries to build huge underground storage facilities for its waste is beyond me.

but yeah, think about these things... no offense intended, but just providing info where i think it can be used. haha~

I like the 4 reasons you have given though I would like to unpack the notion of "heroes". I would add that people are envious of celebrities that can have the best of both worlds: enjoy the benefits of wealth and celebrity status (people see only the upside of all the attention that celebrities get and not the downsides) and also a relatively clear conscience. This is an enviable position by any standard. So there will almost always be a market for this type of journalism.

A similar thing happened during the Vietnam era and afterwards when working class people saw that students from wealthy families were critical of society and the war yet enjoyed the material benefits of that culture.

I don't think that celebrities should be criticized for not doing more than driving a reasonably efficient vehicle, buying offsets, and doing the advocacy work they may be doing. If they spend their efforts in the latter area, it will have greater impact than with obsessing about what to do with their homes and travel.

On the other hand, it would better if they were also lifestyle pioneers in some area or another in the area of green living, given that they have the disposable income to make investments in this area and lead the market.

Hey.... if u wanna claim you are green, u better actually act green. Especially when ur career doesn't depend on the use of machines/technology/etc. If I were a celebrity it would be alot easier to live green. They have the money to do so.

Okay,

I realize we don't have the same political bent, but I am very interested in practical conservation, as you might find on my URL. I think what you miss by your 4 reasons is a basic human reaction to being told "do as I say, not as I do." It is at best acceptable as children, but being told that by a privileged supposed equal citizen is not only cheek-chafing, as you cleverly put it, it is condescending and "holier than thou." I don't think that liberals by and large get that. Don't get me wrong, I think liberals hearts are in the right place in so many things, but you seem to want to excuse "do as I say not as I do" behavior from your leaders to a fault. I would not follow a man or woman into battle that has lost the kind of credibility Gore loses for his hypocrisy. I do think there are a lot of things we could be doing better as consumers than worrying about Al Gore pumping tens of thousands of lbs. of CO2 into the atmosphere, but as a self-sufficient adult, I will not bow and be lectured to by someone who thinks he is above his own preaching. I don't discount the value of what he is saying, only who is saying it.

DV

Two points on this.

1. Someone recently talked to me about one of there relative who is stupidly rich and the difficulty in making positive 'green' sugesstions. Virtually everything that you can spend large ammounts of money on is highly energy intensive. Planes, Speed Boats, Fast Cars,. Electronics...seriously what do you spend your cash on? Sounds like a good point, basically to be wealthy at the moment means to be a high carbon emitter. This would change if these forms of tranport used renewabley generated hydrogen or electricity and if manufactured goods werent made with fosil fuels...the system has to change, hopefully thats what these people are saying.

2. In a capitalist society the wealty consume more of everything and that will most likely also include carbon. If we get a system of tradable energy quotas then they will have to pay for this right but will probably still do the emitting therefore it is unrealistic for wealthy people even in a future system to emit the same as the average person (atleast under capitalism) so a fairer comparison if we where to consider individuals not the system they are changing would be between people of a given income bracket.

We as a people walk a very slippery slope. We want a healthy planet but we also want to keep living with the daily comforts we’ve become accustomed to using. It’s human nature to resist change and we tend to not change until the disaster becomes fully realized. We cannot expect celebrities to be any different than your neighbor down the street.

The discontentment with “eco-celebrities” and their questionable environmental actions is understandable. We hear the “preacher” telling us that Armageddon is less than 10 years away and we need to do everything we can to reverse our course and create a new one. Many of us hear the sermon and work hard to find a way to change our lives, even if it means sacrificing convenience. When someone who makes $20,000 a year and pays $4.99 for a pound of organic apples versus $.89 a pound for conventional apples because they believe it will help heal the planet turns around and sees a $20 million dollar celebrity not completely practicing what they preach, she/he becomes frustrated with that celebrity’s seeming lack of commitment.

The problem isn’t the inaction of celebrity. The problem is we turn to celebrity for advice in the first place. Yes, celebrities make getting the message out much easier, but that’s where our dependency on them should stop. We need to turn to scientists, teachers and local community leaders. We need to learn from them and work with them to make real change in our neighborhoods.

I'm sure green celebrities are just as aware of their opportunities for improvement as we all are.

And I don't think the celebs are pointing fingers saying "You suck because you are wrecking the environment and I am not." I think they are on the same page as we are, trying to let everyone know what kinds of problems we face.

I think it comes down to being a celebrity, as well. No one would publish a report on my carbon footprint; but theirs? Oh yes!

I also think the author nailed the reasons we get so, especially with the last point: it gives us (some) an excuse not to act. "But mom....he started it!" A lot of people are affraid to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. It's easier to pass the buck.

I wish celebrities would use their mouthpiece in their own sphere of influence ie the making of movies themselves. studios are known for wasting enormous amounts of paper for printing scripts & movie crews use enormous amounts of styrofoam & plastic dining ware not to mention plastic water bottles... maybe instead of asking for sorted red m&m's in their contract they could ask for environmentally friendly generators & corn based plastics...

I understand your point, it is better to have these celebrities behind such a good cause, and we should not expect them to be perfect. However, these individuals are constantly in the public eye, and they have chosen to take a stand for the environment, and we expect them to make the best choices possible. Most of them have the money and the means to always make the best choice regarding the environment. If we cannot set and expectation level for celebrities, how can we expect the average individual to step up and make the right decision. My point being it is much easier for a celebrity to pay for a $200.00 pair of organic jeans than it is for a normal family of five to dress themselves in organic, natural clothing. We have to expect the best from Hollywood, maybe not perfection, but absolutely their best.

"Even people like Bush, who do a very, very bad job of it. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll get over your anger."

honestly... who believes that bush and his handlers are trying to make the world a better place? as much as id love to say something constructive to counter that... i dont know what to do with such a ridiculous statement... i'm not even going to go into how wrong that is... it should be pretty obvious...

In 20 or 30 years after the democrats and envirowackos have forgotten all about Bush then this will become clear: During Clinton's 8 years, nothing was done about energy. During Bush's 8 years, the energy transformation was set into motion and got well under way.

Would you rather these celebrities not have made their movies or use there celebrity to influence people on these issues?

If Al Gore or DiCaprio had not made their movies they would still be doing more than most people do to slow down global warming.

I suppose Al Gore isn't a perfect size 6 either. (Oh, I think it's size 2 or 0 now).

Why do they have to be perfect in order to have something valid to say?

My suspicion is that this has a little bit to do with the political environment right now. People are grasping at straws.

An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.

There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.

I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.

But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.

Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.

We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.

Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?

Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.

Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.

There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.

Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.

Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.

You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.

Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

If I remember correctly, Leo did use commercial air to Europe. Only in todays day and age do those trying to make a change simultaneously destroy their own leaders. I sat in a bar with 20 blue collar workers who watched the concert, maybe one of them will do something different now, isn't that the real point. To make big change you need to get to the individual and sometimes that means flying to Europe.
On a side note, airlines are working to reduce pollution. The newest generation of superliners carry more passengers (less planes in the air, despite the larger engines does mean less pollution) and have designed more fuel efficient engines. Now their motive may have been a financial one to spend less on fuel but if the results are better engines then we should support them not tear them down.

Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.

As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.

Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.

I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.

As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.

You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.

As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.

I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.

Wow, this is one of the longest comments list ever. It just illustrates the 'tabloid' awareness that humans are attuned to. Too bad that all of this awareness is not channeled into the 'Engineering' of new technology to bring about change to our environment. Mathematics would be a great start. From there ,the 'Sciences' and of course 'Engineering'. One other little item, Geology and the History of our planet Earth.
http://interglacial.wordpress.com/
http://cretaceous.wordpress.com/
http://blogengeezer.wordpress.com/