The application of this principle works even better who has devoted a lot of their life to the cause, and is pretty good at educating people about it, like Al Gore. I don't care if Al Gore uses more electricity and jet fuel than I do...it's being used to promote the good for all.
I suppose, though, that one might differentiate between the carbon that is going into good-cause-promotion, and that which is luxury... Amy Goodman uses a lot of jet fuel too, though in her case I suspect the luxury aspect is less important. It is really her fans who are using it, in small portion each, to get information and global community.
One other thing largely (and often I think unfairly) criticized, but worthwhile, are various forms of carbon offsets. I know they are compared with indulgences, etc. But the wind farms, etc., being subsidized will be around for a long time. A small amount of such subsidy can be leveraged by bigger investors to do far more than the subsidizers ever could. So, it could actually be more important than cutting one's own consumption. Of course, not all these offset credits are equal, as studies have shown.
There are important issues such as additivity. But it's surely one thing a celebrity could do which would mitigate the gotcha moments. Al Gore offsets his carbon footprint, and so do I. But most people, by nature, aren't going to go for offsets, they'll simply make the choice that saves money instead of costing money. Fine. So this is an excellent choice for a global warming celebrity.
Ultimately, global warming cannot be solved by individual choices, it requires collective action and forced change. In that ultimate fight, getting the word out is more important than anything.
Charles Peterson San Antonio, TX
____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/