Beverly Hills: Climate Hypocrite DiCaprio Expands Carbon Footprint.

Its an incredibly lame excuse for sure. But individual inaction is no excuse for not enacting effective global action that will make the lives of our children better. How do you think future generations who are living in the world we created will see your excuse for not enacting effective policies to fix the problem? "Oh, those guys over there didn't do anything so I oppose any laws making them and everyone else do it. Sorry about what we did to you."

 

This is about the BS of trying to sustain a LIFESTYLE. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Decide what you want, and make peace with your choice.

If you refuse to give up your 'stuff', then don't pretend to care. Honesty in this is incredibly important, because you're hoping to influence others.

 

Granted that being carbon neutral and living sustainably will require cutting back. But if we change our civilization we can make it possible to live sustainably through investment in bike friendly cities, clean energy, public transportation, EVs, banning cement, local farming, and a whole lot more. Like the way we structure our cities makes it basically impossible to live sustainably. Ever tried to get anywhere without a car in a reasonable timeframe?

 

I'm agreeing that we all should take individual action and that we all should be a part of climate action. But this needs to be done alongside policy changes.

 

They will see that in the 21stC, millions of people claimed to be desperately worried about the planet - yet those same people kept travelling, and buying new clothes, and eating imported foods, and living alone in apartments and houses which could house a family and thus use a fraction of the resources, and etc etc etc. They will see that we couldn't stay in one place, and that we insisted on spreading ourselves and our footprints all over the globe like ADHD children. They'll see that we insisted the Mega Corps keep producing the dross we lusted for.

It MUST come from the ground. Politics and industry do our bidding. They only exist because we give them permission to exist. And they exist under the terms we give them.

 

Can't be done. You can't retrofit Star Trek into the chaos we have.

What CAN be done, is the much more organic and therefore much more likely, people-centred and people-driven morph into lifestyles which resemble something like that, but in an adaptive and mammalian-friendly form. More people creating cottage industries in smaller cities where walking and biking commutes are possible, more people making the effort to produce food in urban settings (all very possible, but few bother), more people choosing not to do anything that involves travelling long distances, etc etc.

And yes. It's much harder to get across a city in a car, than it is by public transport - at least in my country.

 

Knowing human nature the vast majority of middle class people will live just like rich people if they had the money. Come on, you know its true. And its probably true for you and I. I'd be the first to admit that if I had the money a private jet would be really tempting with how much air travel sucks.

 

I'm saying its not either or. Why do you have to choose between individual action and societal action? Thats like saying that you can only support the military voluntarily or with tax dollars. Why can't we do both? Lets enact global policies to cut carbon and educate people about how they can life more sustainably. But what is important is significant personal action is only practical when we make societal action to make that a lot easier. Like more biking paths and public transportation.

 

Yes, I'm sure there will be chapters devoted to people who preached and didn't change. But what will be most decried will be the total lack of effective policies implemented to actually make a real difference. I'm saying it doesn't just have to come from the ground, it can come from everywhere. Both the top and the ground.

 

Actually my favorite recreation was a sail boat and I have owned a couple of light aircraft. Economy wise, they were about the same as a car.

Whether I would be tempted or not is not relevant. If they think I should give up a few gallons of gasoline, they are going to have give up a lot of barrels of JP-4. I owe no more to this effort than they do.

 

The problem is that nobody is talking about actual ways to make a difference. The republicans fail to see the problem and the democrats just want to steal everyone’s money to fix the problem. No amount of money will fix it.

the climate is going to do what it does no matter how much money of mine gets stolen by the government. Let’s make cleaning up the planet a priority, instead of trying to use money to cool the planet. The next major volcano will cool the planet. Our oceans are filled with plastic.

 

Why is government spending to fix climate change "stealing" but doing the same for infrastructure, military, and schools somehow okay. If you believe that taxes are stealing you are not a conservative, you are an anarchist.

 

Nah. If you take my money for infrastructure, you’ve used my money for something valid. If you take my money to bribe the planet to stop warming, that’s theft.

 

Trump will always be known as a businessman, not a celebrity. He became a “celebrity” because he was the most well-known businessman out there. Celebrities are typically athletes and actors/actresses.

 

You could look up the definition for celebrity, and post it here. I advise against it, though, as it won’t serve your point.

 

the homes and habits of humans are not the cause of climate change

below is a list of the worlds largest polluters

https://energy-analytics-institute.org/2021/01/02/20-companies-the-biggest-polluters-in-the-world/

these companies are the reason for climate change and NOT regular people

maybe the movie stars have a bigger carbon print than most people..but a hollywood mansion has little to do with climate change

movie stars have a platform that few have...so naturally many will be frowned upon and accused of being a hypocrite

it would take millions of households to match even one of the companies on the list to equal the amount of pollution created

people consume what is being sold

so when a person drives a gas guzzling car and practically every food product sold is wrapped in plastic

is pollution the fault of the consumer??

or the fault of the large corporation that sells polluting products for the sake of higher profit margins??

movie stars can influence the corporations to change the products they are selling

that is the only hope we have

 

Or you could avoid the whole businessman thing. Your choice.

 

"Blah, blah blah!"

 

How much more energy does a 14,000-sf home take to heat, cool, and electrify than a 1,400-sf home? The answer: quit a lot. A private jet with a few people on it vs. a commercial airliner with a few hundred? See above. The elite consume far more carbon than the average person but have the nerve to bloviate about all "doing our part."

 

This is what we call a champagne socialist. Somebody who wishes to tell other people how to live but refuses to live that way themselves.

I'm happy these people are hypocrites because if they weren't then they would probably have a little more traction in our social environment.

Nobody listens to DiCaprio about anything he's an actor. All he's doing is ****ing himself by running his mouth.

Never know maybe one day he'll accidentally shoot a producer of photography on some washed up project he's doing.

 

I do. Laugh derisively at watermelons.

 

BIG corporations just love to know people have these thoughts about climate change

BLAME THE MOVIE STARS!!

obviously a 14,000 square home used more energy than a 1,400 square foot home ,,

with new technology and building codes, my guess is the mansions use less energy per sqaure foot than the smaller homes

and yes, the elite do use more energy and create more pollution than regular people

but I stand my point that it is NOT the habits of the common man or movie stars that is creating climate change

it is the BIG corporations that continue to create products that cause climate change..

if man could/would create a nuclear powered world, then climate change would not be a problem

people drive gas burning cars for the simple reason it was the only choice to buy for many years

buy a car, create carbon emissions...

now that cars are being sold that have less an imprint, people are buying them instead of gas guzzlers

the public will/can only consume what is being sold by these big corporations..

have coca-cola start selling soda in biodegradable bottles would be a start

sell food that is not wrapped in plastic

most plastics are made from petroleum, it is not just the airplanes and cars and ships that are the problem

 

The climate hypocrites who live in 14,000-sf houses and fly around the world in private jets to collect "climate awards
should just shut the **** up.

 

Why does the expansion of a person's real estate portfolio make them a hypocrite? I understand that he is a mouthpiece for climate change, but how does his buying a new house affect his views on the subject? Is he supposed to live in a hovel?

 

I shouldn't have to explain this. He (and his ilk) should practice what they preach. But they don't - making them hypocrites. Homes use energy. Leo (and his fellow Hollywood elites) own several properties around the world totaling tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of square feet of real estate sitting vacant for most of the year - as the laws of physics dictate a person cannot occupy more than one space at a time. They consume far more carbon than the average person. Yet they have the nerve to chastise us unwashed about our climate practices.

He can live where he wants. But he ought not judge us unwashed for also not wanting to live in hovels. Pretty simple stuff here.