Poor example. A doctor overworking physically injures only their body while uber-rich persons flying in private jets, rather than simply flying first-class, hurt everyone. A doctor doing such research adds to our understanding but celebrities simply add to their own celebrity much more than they contribute to any consciousness raising. Also if one takes the premise that celebrities can have such an impact then their hypocrisies will only serve to undermine it. Either shut the fuck up about how "others" need to change their ways in order to reduce carbon emissions or serve as an example. Since the wealthy have greater resources at their disposal they can physically reduce their carbon output more easily from a financial standpoint since the technology to do so is currently expensive. Celebrities can do more to affect change in regards to the climate by serving as early adopters of green technology and helping to drive the costs down for others than they can as hypocritical mouthpieces moaning about the excesses of others. Exempting yourself from significantly reducing your carbon-footprint (which is significantly greater than the average) because one is considered such an important messenger is counterproductive.
> The bottom line is that News Outlet Y is not adding anything of real
> value to the discussion, but indulging in "Gotcha" gossip. You get
> this sort of shallow journalism and analysis on a frequent basis: the
> "exposé"s on rockers who "rock the vote" but do not vote themselves,
> the Henwoods (and others listed by Heartfield) who believe in global
> warming but use aeroplanes, the "leftists" who are unwilling to spend
> their money on charity for those (the poor, the working class, etc)
> they claim to argue in favour of, etc, etc.
>
> Hypocrisy is over-rated as a technique for hypothesis verification,
>
> --ravi
The Henwoods (and Heartfields) who fly commercial jets are contributing significantly less than someone in a private jet. Like it or not jet travel is the fastest way to cross significant space. Taking a ship across the Atlantic is not always or even usually a realistic option. When you add up the fuel, food etc consumed during a transoceanic voyage and compare the carbon output necessary to the carbon output of a few hours aboard a jet are the differences really so great? Is the answer to ban long distance travel?
Individual consumption choices are generally indeed nearly meaningless. However when one excoriates others for their carbon output while being directly responsible for a significantly larger output one is being massively hypocritical. If one prattles on about the importance of reducing carbon output, even without the finger wagging, but refuse to put such measures into practice oneself is also being massively hypocritical. Massive hypocrites generally offer society very little. It isn't about a technique for hypothesis verification. It is about how effective someone can be in raising the consciousness of society. Hypocrisy undermines effectiveness.
John Thornton