Why do the most vocal advocates of global warming use the most energy?

Question

I'm not going to give my opinion on the global warming theory. My question is, why are the politicians and celebrites who are so vocal about the urgent need for everyone to conserve and cut back on energy usage the very ones who waste the most energy?

They seem to all live in very large houses, ride around in big expensive cars, show up at lavish parties where no expense is spared, and fly all over the country on private airplanes, the whole time telling the rest of us that if we don't change our light bulbs and shut off our computers at night we're going to bring about the end of civilization.

I guess my opinion is obvious. They believe that they are superior to us "common folks" and that they are doing the right thing by raising awareness. We are greedy and selfish. They are wise and elite.

The same holds true for someone who talks about the need to help starving children while wearing five thousand dollars worth of clothes and jewelry. Their message is honorable, but why do they not practice what they advocate?

Answer 1

I don't think your original assumption is correct - the "most vocal" do not use the most energy. I believe you are confusing "most vocal" with "most visible" (to you) which is a product of your culture. In many Western cultures, the most visible people are celebrities or public personalities. Almost by definition, these people are rich and enjoy affluent (high energy consuming) lifestyles.

Please understand that to the majority of the population on this planet, you also live in a very large house, ride around in an expensive car, enjoy lavish parties, etc. It all depends upon your perspective.

Doing something about AGW does not mean that everyone must stop all harmful activity. Human nature being what it is means that we have to be realistic in our expectations in what people do: any desired action must not be too onerous for people otherwise they won't do it. For example, we ask people to turn off their lights when not using them. We are not asking people to live without electric lights at all!

It is also recognised that there are, and will always be, people at different levels of affluence. The "visible majority" (celebs et al) are not expected to live like people in municipal housing nor do we expect people living in municipal housing (in the US, UK, Australia, etc) to live like the masses in India. To a farmer in Chhattisgarh, the lifestyles of even the poorest American is as extravagant and wasteful as the politicians and celebrites you mention are to us.

Look at your own lifestyle and ignore other people - whether they be better or worse off than us. It starts with ourselves and if everyone on this planet did one or two small things - insulating the house, taking the train, thinking twice before flying, etc - then we would be well on our way to making the future a nicer place for our children.

Obviously what we can do depends upon our original circumstances so the rich and famous could install solar panels or "plane pool" (like car-pooling!), whereas the "common folks" could ensure that they don't leave appliances on standby and the Chhattisgarh farmer could use an efficient mud oven instead of an open fire for cooking...

Answer 2

I agree with what Richard wrote about politicians and celebrities vs. the "common folk" who do the most work in the environmental movement.

Some Green celebrities, notably Al Gore, do enjoy the lifestyles of the rich and famous.  But it's not clear they use "the most energy," not compared with similarly rich & famous people who aren't environmentalists.  

I always feel that when someone attacks Gore, say, for hypocrisy, they're really attacking him because he's telling the truth -- not because he may be living a lie.  When some corporate CEO or some big Hollywood celebrity squanders even more energy, no one says much.  I don't think people would remark on Gore's lifestyle, either, if they weren't trying to stop his mouth concerning the real risks of climate change.

As an environmentalist myself, I try to avoid flying in airplanes, don't own a big house, and haven't owned a car for the past 40 years of adult life.  I'm now trying to cut back on meat use, too, because I think our whole society has a big CO2 emissions and energy use problem.  I want to help solve it, no matter what the celebrities and politicians do.                                    

And I do want Green advocates attending some international conferences, even if it means flying there, if that's needed to get global action on what is clearly a global problem.

Answer 3

IMHO it's easy to look at the exterior acts, but we really don't know what these people do in their homes and every day lives. Some (stress on some) may have less net waste than a "common folk" person if they're using solar, green design, or eco-friendly products.  

I can't criticize the wealthy for being successful. They're allowed to enjoy it.  It's possible they have enough to make the donations, do the work, AND wear the digs.

It all boils down to it's none of my business what they do. The only thing I can control is what I do. Just because they may be wrong doesn't give me permission to be wrong too.

Answer 4

Good point!!

Another fine example of climate change hypocrisy is the Climate conference in Bali, when between 12 and 15 thousand 'man-did-it' global warming groupies and media stuffed their phony butts into pollution-spewing jet planes to fly to luxury resorts so they could discuss how WE.... NOT THEY.... should be more responsible in our use of energy.

If they are so stupid as to not realize that a 'clean' video-conference would accomplish the same result, then why on earth should they expect us to believe anything that they say??!!

This one act told me right away that the 'man-did-it' global warming cause was total bunk!

Answer 5

Seeing Al Gore contemplating global warming while flying on a plane in "Inconvenient Truth" was proof of how inconvenient it is to properly apply science to resolve an observation.

I think the answer to your question lies somewhere in the very real point that the energy versus global warming matter is not yet completely understood.  Perhaps for the first time in history has a such a potentially devastating phenomena been glimpsed and sensationalized without the application of scientific method.  This is evidenced because it is extremely difficult to find unbiased and statistically valid data on global warming, yet it is extremely easy to find .orgs with "all the answers".

Yet, I do think their hearts are in the right place, but they simply lack the wisdom to realize politicians and .orgs are probably not the best suited to provide unbiased information.

Answer 6

Gore is telling us how to live but it doesn't apply to them.It is because they think we will run out of fossil fuels. They want you to save the fuel for them, so they could fly their plain.

  The Democrats will do anything to block us from drilling or doing anything that might help. It is getting very critical and if they will not drill we need to get someone in there on our side.

Answer 7

Well, you are taking an example from a very small cross section of society. I wouldn't concentrate on celebrities or politicians, because the "common folk" are doing most of the work. And some do practice what they advocate. Jay Leno, for example, has invested in a lot of solar energy. He has a building covered with them.

Anyway, concentrate on what you can do to be cleaner and stop worrying about what the powerful are doing.