AGW Hypocrites

[Roy]

Or Prince Charles urging people to drive less to reduce motor pollution, then having some-one drive his Bentley across Europe so that he could use it during a visit to the Balkans.

Or a British minister claiming he was being environmental by cycling to the Houses of Parliament but not mentioning that he had his chauffeur follow in the ministerial car.

[Darth Ovious]

seer's vanity is really bad then I guess?

OK, I meant sheer.

[mossrose]

Or like our Premier telling us if we don't like the carbon tax that her socialists put into place here January 01 we should take the bus.

Of course, most of this province is rural, and many if us don't have public transit.

Meanwhile she and her cabinet jet about in chauffeured vehicles and private jets.

Meanwhile they are shutting down coal in this province and putting thousands of people out of work when unemployment is at an all-time high due to the petroleum industry downturn.

Meanwhile, the carbon tax has added undue financial pressure on said unemployed thousands as well as those on fixed incomes and even those with good employment. It added $13 to my monthly natural gas bill in Jan-Feb and that doesn't count fuel for my car. And that will triple over the next 3 years that they remain power.

Meanwhile, the province is running a 10 billion dollar deficit just this year because of the socialist government mismanagement.

[rogue06]

Or Prince Charles urging people to drive less to reduce motor pollution, then having some-one drive his Bentley across Europe so that he could use it during a visit to the Balkans.

Or a British minister claiming he was being environmental by cycling to the Houses of Parliament but not mentioning that he had his chauffeur follow in the ministerial car.

Always fun watching advocates for something walking the walk so to speak

[Sparko]

Definitely a bit OTT. I prefer to deal with eyebrows by using a French braid. They keep the back of my neck nicely warm in winter.

11375944_1428015930853194_1038741817_n.jpg

[Bill the Cat]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21163[/ATTACH]

64190316.jpg

[Leonhard]

I agree that for purely publicity reasons this is a bad move on Leonardo Di Caprio. It doesn't have good symbolic value.

However, in the world of cold hard facts and objective knowledge, we can show pretty simple that the impact he has as an individual is completely negligible. It doesn't do in any way delegitimize the points made in favor of carbon taxes, or a move to renewable energy.

[Sparko]

I agree that for purely publicity reasons this is a bad move on Leonardo Di Caprio. It doesn't have good symbolic value.

However, in the world of cold hard facts and objective knowledge, we can show pretty simple that the impact he has as an individual is completely negligible. It doesn't do in any way delegitimize the points made in favor of carbon taxes, or a move to renewable energy.

Great so please tell the environmentalist tree huggers to stop telling me I need to stop polluting, stop burning fossil fuels, that I need to recycle, etc, etc, etc. Since I am only one person, my impact on the planet is completely negligible. It doesn't matter what I do.

[Leonhard]

Great so please tell the environmentalist tree huggers to stop telling me I need to stop polluting, stop burning fossil fuels, that I need to recycle, etc, etc, etc. Since I am only one person, my impact on the planet is completely negligible. It doesn't matter what I do.

Why? That doesn't follow from what I said. I don't get why what some environmentalists say bothers you so much. I agree we should all, politicians and celebrities, et al. do more to minimize our footprint. I'm just a realist, just as basically any of the political suggestions have been nothing but realistic.

Should Leonardo Di Caprio be called a hypocrite. Of course.

Are we therefore excused to start pollutting and accelerating global warming (so you can buy more stuff cheaply). No, that's idiotic and selfish.

[Sparko]

Why? That doesn't follow from what I said.Why? That doesn't follow from what I said.

yes, it did. You (and Adrift earlier, I believe) were excusing his behavior because he is just one guy and his impact isn't going to change anything.

"However, in the world of cold hard facts and objective knowledge, we can show pretty simple that the impact he has as an individual is completely negligible. It doesn't do in any way delegitimize the points made in favor of carbon taxes, or a move to renewable energy."

I don't get why what some environmentalists say bothers you so much. I agree we should all, politicians and celebrities, et al. do more to minimize our footprint. I'm just a realist, just as basically any of the political suggestions have been nothing but realistic.

Should Leonardo Di Caprio be called a hypocrite. Of course.

Are we therefore excused to start pollutting and accelerating global warming (so you can buy more stuff cheaply). No, that's idiotic and selfish.

And that is all we are saying about someone who would fly an eyebrow artist 3000 miles while being an outspoken proponent of protecting the environment: it is idiotic and selfish. and hypocritical.

[Leonhard]

yes, it did. You (and Adrift earlier, I believe) were excusing his behavior because he is just one guy and his impact isn't going to change anything.

Sparko, you're making a logical fallacy. It's like trying to excuse tax fraud by admitting that a handful people doing so would have a negligible impact. It doesn't work like that.

And that is all we are saying about someone who would fly an eyebrow artist 3000 miles while being an outspoken proponent of protecting the environment: it is idiotic and selfish. and hypocritical.

No, if you were simply decrying that De Caprio was being a hypocrite, then that would be fine. But you're also decrying the entire project of getting global warming under control, limiting our CO2 amounts. It's this latter logic I don't follow.

[Sparko]

Sparko, you're making a logical fallacy. It's like trying to excuse tax fraud by admitting that a handful people doing so would have a negligible impact. It doesn't work like that.

no. that is what YOU and Adrift were doing. Not me. I was pointing it out to you by making an analogy of if that is true then it means I can pollute as much as I want to since I am only one person, and everyone else can too. Eventually it all adds up and we destroy the planet. So arguing that it is OK for him to fly an eyebrow artist over in a private plane for the oscars because it won't really affect anything, THAT is the fallacy.

No, if you were simply decrying that De Caprio was being a hypocrite, then that would be fine. But you're also decrying the entire project of getting global warming under control, limiting our CO2 amounts. It's this latter logic I don't follow.

huh? where was I doing that?

[Leonhard]

no. that is what YOU and Adrift were doing. Not me. I was pointing it out to you by making an analogy of if that is true then it means I can pollute as much as I want to since I am only one person, and everyone else can too. Eventually it all adds up and we destroy the planet.

Your argument isn't making sense. "and everyone else can too".

I'm not sure you know what Adrift thinks is the right solution to global warming. We all agree we have to get the carbon footprint down. But no one serious, at least no one actually involved in the politics, are campaigning for draconian measures. In the future, we'll all still have washing machines and iPads. We'll still go to Barbados for our vacation.

But we'll be doing stuff like incentivizing shifting to energy-efficient LED bulbs, or adding a carbon tax to fossil fuels to incentivize the transition to renewables, etc, etc...

You can still call out Leonardo DiCaprio as a flaming hypocrite, though I know he plants twenty tons of forest every year to offset his private jet (though frankly, it isn't enough). It still wouldn't somehow legitimize polluting for the sake of cheaper luxury goods.

So arguing that it is OK for him to fly an eyebrow artist over in a private plane for the oscars because it won't really affect anything, THAT is the fallacy.

I don't think Adrift said it was okay for him in the sense, that it wasn't hypocritical. Just that it was okay in the sense that it didn't matter.

I doubt he'd be flying around as much if the price for fuel went up enough. None of us would. And yes the super-ultra-rich could still afford it and flaunt it, and so what?

Why should I be against that beyond calling them out on not leading by example, which I already do?

Why would that suddenly mean that we shouldn't pursue environmental goals and policies?

huh? where was I doing that?

I meant you, as the "environmentalism is stupid" crowd here.

It was the general gist I got from the following quotes, which all seemed to say "Environmentalists are hypocrites, they don't get to tell us how to live our lives. Etc..."

"And you wonder why they have lost all moral authority when chiding us about Global Warming..." seer

"Al Gore and his huge mansion and the electricity and energy he was using, while campaigning for carbon credits. Michael Moore denouncing the 1% while living in a huge mansion and BEING the 1%. And the Occupy Wallstreet trust fund babies protesting rich people while on their iphones and ipads and wearing designer clothes." - Sparko

"Or like our Premier telling us if we don't like the carbon tax that her socialists put into place here January 01 we should take the bus. ... *long rant about how environmental policies makes things cost more*" - Mossrose

"Great so please tell the environmentalist tree huggers to stop telling me I need to stop polluting, stop burning fossil fuels, that I need to recycle, etc, etc, etc. Since I am only one person, my impact on the planet is completely negligible. It doesn't matter what I do." - Sparko

[Adrift]

Great so please tell the environmentalist tree huggers to stop telling me I need to stop polluting, stop burning fossil fuels, that I need to recycle, etc, etc, etc. Since I am only one person, my impact on the planet is completely negligible. It doesn't matter what I do.

Honestly, I'm okay with you, a lone private citizen, burning fossil fuels. While there are small things we could all do to reduce our global footprint, most measures don't seem very realistic to me, and don't really matter much to the majority of the working class population who are just trying to eke out a living. Real change won't happen until the fossil fuel industry itself is directly undermined, and moves are made to replace it altogether with renewable resources. That's going to take the work of governments, not some guy who hasn't changed out his bulbs yet.

[Darth Executor]

Honestly, I'm okay with you, a lone private citizen, burning fossil fuels. While there are small things we could all do to reduce our global footprint, most measures don't seem very realistic to me, and don't really matter much to the majority of the working class population who are just trying to eke out a living. Real change won't happen until the fossil fuel industry itself is directly undermined, and moves are made to replace it altogether with renewable resources. That's going to take the work of governments, not some guy who hasn't changed out his bulbs yet.

You still don't understand that you can't undermine the fossil fuel industry without also screwing over the lone private citizens. Fossil fuel companies aren't burning fossil fuel because they like to see things burn, they do it because it's cheap and efficient. What Adrift says is that he wants to hammer private citizens with higher costs, but instead of being honest about it he tries to redirect all the hatred to evil corporations. This is a common way for people to deflect their own feelings of guilt, like the study I quoted in the other thread:

https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/m...s-self-serving

Having the opportunity to express outrage at a third-party decreased guilt in people threatened through "ingroup immorality." Study participants who read that Americans were the biggest drivers of man-made climate change showed significantly higher guilt scores than those who read the blame-China article when they weren't given an opportunity to express anger at or assign blame to a third-party. However, having this opportunity to rage against hypothetical corporations led respondents who read the blame-America story to express significantly lower levels of guilt than the China group. Respondents who read that Chinese consumers were to blame had similar guilt levels regardless of whether they had the opportunity to express moral outrage.