[lbo-talk] green fakers

[John Thornton]

Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> John:
>
> "The celebrity who excoriates others to spend more of their already 
> meager income purchasing more environmentally benign products and take 
> public transportation rather than an SUV while they fly in private jets 
> will not be perceived as the above Dr. in your example. That is why it 
> is a poor analogy.  [JT][WS:] "
>   
> Which is followed by:
>
> " In addition people are more likely to alter their behaviours to emulate 
> the behaviours of others (especially those of the classes they perceive 
> as above them) than they are to change their behaviours because of the 
> admonitions of people who do not follow their own advice."
>
>
> [WS:] Are not these two statements contradicting each other?  If the latter
> is true, and I believe it is, then all that matters is the celebrity status.
> Whether the celebrities are hypocrites, as most of them are anyway, is of
> lesser importance.
>
>   

I don't see the contradiction. Maybe you could point it out?
Mostly all that matters is the celebrities status but as I said people 
emulate celebrities behaviours not their admonitions.
If Barbara Streisand really cared about carbon-footprints she would ship 
her equipment via UPS, reduce her entourage to the minimum necessary, 
and fly commercial.
She doesn't do that and it is a fair question to ask why she doesn't if 
she publicly claims this is an important issue to her. She brought the 
issue to the forefront, not hack writers.
If she wants to attach her name to a cause then her behaviours 
referenced against that cause are relevant. Her personal behaviours 
otherwise are not and if she had never made a point to label herself an 
environmentalist her environmental impact would be a non-issue.
One need look no further than Barbara's attempt to shut down the 
California Coastal Records Project by suing them for $50 million in a 
totally bogus invasion of privacy suit. Why would an "environmentalist" 
want to do such a thing?
She recommends "ordinary people" use recycled content toilet paper, and 
use it sparingly, yet when she travels she insists on color coordinated 
super soft toilet paper according to hotel staffers who have waited on her.
If she would just shut the fuck up about others individual choices 
concerning the environment no one will care about her personal 
carbon-footprint.


>  Therefore, it is safe to assume that most appeals against hypocrisy are
> themselves prima facie hypocrisies - thinly veiled propaganda campaigns
> aimed to smear the messenger rather than debate his/her message.  In my
> mind, self-styled Leftist agitators (Cockburn, for example) using gotcha
> tactics and populist appeals to advance what amounts to the most reactionary
> corporate agenda simply do not pass the smell test.
>
> To sum it up, personal life styles should not, and usually do not matter.
> Most people simply do not give a shit how others live their lives.  Life
> styles of political figures become an issue only when hack propagandists
> start using them in their smear campaigns.
>
> Wojtek

Most appeals against hypocrisy do indeed look like smear campaigns but 
that does not invalidate all of them. In the case of Barbara she is 
advocating, not systemic change but individual change to address the 
environmental issue. If she primarily advocated systematic change her 
personal consumption choices would be mostly insignificant. She gives 
them primacy with her focus on individual consumption as relevant to the 
environmental issue. It is not hypocritical to lament the current state 
of and work for systemic change in environmental regulations while not 
necessarily giving primacy to your individual carbon output.

John Thornton