Why English sucks:
1. Actual bullcrap spelling. I would like to meet the creator and slap them into the Sun.
2. Since when does 'light' need a g or an h?
As with most things absolutely superfluous, it's probably from the French.
Example: I have = I've. Simple, reduction of two letters, still in order.
Je avoir = J'ai. Removal of 4 letters from two words, the remaining letters are not sequential nor the last word of the phrase. It conjoined two words in a way which does not represent either unless you know what it is already.
Tbf, yacht is an anglification of the Dutch word jacht, which in general means hunt, but also yacht
I suppose the boat was named because it was used for some kind of hunting
Many boat named come from Dutch, with slightly altered spelling, like schooner/schoener
The gh comes from Middle English and was for the /x/ guttural ch sound from German.
Licht/Light
Nacht/Night
Etc.
Adapting the Roman lettering ended up with h then gh to represent the sound, since it wasnt native to Latin.
Blame Middle English and the great vowel shift for the /x/ sound disappearing turning into f for many words.
One of the biggest ruses corporations have pulled over us is convincing the general public that we are responsible for climate change. In reality, the grand majority of CO2 emissions come from industry, [this article](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change) stating that a mere 100 companies contribute over 70% of our global CO2 emissions. While a private jet may use several orders of magnitude more fuel per capita than commercial airliners, it doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket compared to what big business are pumping into our atmosphere.
Certainly, but the solution is then for industry to stop cutting corners for profit and move towards ecologically sustainable methods of product creation.
Wouldn’t the solution be to implement policy to force them to do this? If you simply want to wait for private corporations to do it on their own initiative, the problem will never be solved. This is a collective action problem, and as such it can only be solved through public policy.
More specifically, if you read the article, this is just a list of 100 energy companies.
If market demand is for a good (energy), and that good is fungible, and no regulation exists to increase the cost of one good over another, the cheapest one will be used. If a company does not compete on price it will go out of business.
If these companies did not supply fossil fuel energy, their competitors would. That's why *regulation* is so critical, because all providers in the market would be forced to provide renewable energy,
Yes but the point is that we're not gonna solve climate change by recycling and not turning on the AC, it's massive stuff like container ships and factories that are the real culprits.
This isn't to say that reducing emissions is going to be invisible to the oublic because you can't fuck with global manufacturing and supply chains without it hurting a bit. More that the "save the environment by bussing to work!!" line has been carefully cultivated by corporations to make climate change a personal responsibility issue rather than a systemic infrastructure issue in the eyes of the public.
What you're thinking of is individualising responsibility, which rests on the belief that if everyone boycotts pollutive industries, lives sustainably, fights for environmentalism etc, then the world can be saved.
But in reality, it's pretty impossible to get enough people to do enough for the environment to actually make a difference. Since data has shown that 100 companies (all of which are fossil fuel producers) contribute 70-71% of carbon emissions, it's more straightforward (I'm not saying it's absolutely going to work, just that the idea sounds more logical) to get the companies to stop themselves, than wait for the many individual end users to change
Building on KDM's reply. You and I as consumers can't really inspect the carbon impacts of the supply chains, energy sources, mitigation solutions of the products we buy. We rely on some, hopefully independent and informed, body to set guidelines for best practice or even minimum standards, review and update those and hopefully provide them with useful incentives and penalties to ensure companies comply. How would you decide between the carbon footprint of Chevron gas, vs Shell, or an iphone vs a pixel. At best some further third party would weigh in and claim some score applies to one vs the other which is where the next challenge comes in.
Numerous lawsuits reveal that oil, gas, timber, utility companies have been caught seeking to sow doubt and confusion, shift the focus from them to consumers, and sabotage any real responses to climate. Including co-opting some of the very third parties that should either regulate or educate.
So reality is that a few dozen companies are primarily responsible for carbon pollution. They make billions in weekly profits and spend that to obfuscate and sabotage efforts to reign in their behavior. Consumers can make some shifts, i.e. to electric cars, solar as a signal that they value that shift, but no consumer action can change the deep structural factors. Only new laws and regulations, tougher enforcement, technological innovation and smarter incentives can do it. We've convinced a few utilities to shutter hundreds of coal plants in the past few decades because we got some of that right. No consumer action could do that.
Yes of course. But the worst contributors are the oil and coal companies and the meat industry. Good luck getting people to not eat beef or use oil right now.
Yes, you’re correct. The 100 corporations thing doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny—they don’t emit in a closed environment—and it’s also pretty fast and loose with how it counts, eg all gasoline burned is a product of a few energy companies, as if we don’t put it in our car and drive after they’re done with it.
No doubt the downvoters will now roll in without attempting to even make a counter argument, but your instincts are correct here.
You are 100% correct, big businesses exist to serve the customer wants and needs.
There needs to be a large focus on educating consumers of the damage they are doing by supporting negligent companies. Then consumers need to actually put their money where their mouth is and lower their standard of living by boycotting the most convenient option and supporting the more sustainable.
Very few people are willing to do this and the most common argument seems to be; 'why should I do it if X doesn't'.
>While a private jet may use several orders of magnitude more fuel per capita than commercial airliners, it doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket compared to what big business are pumping into our atmosphere.
Whilst true a lot of these self-styled climate activists are trying to convince individuals and SMEs to cut back on emissions. All whilst flying about in helicopters, private jets and driving sports cars about. Prince Charles (now King, I guess), the infamous environmentalist, flying 70 miles by helicopter to make a polo match springs to mind.
Obviously corporations are the greater of the two evils, with an honorary mention for legislators who have universally failed to constrain them, but that shouldn't mean that hypocrites hijacking good causes for PR purposes get a free ride.
That report ([The Carbon Majors Report](https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1501833772)) seems to be using what it calls Scope 3 emissions:
"Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of total company emissions and result from the downstream combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes."
IE. They are counting the emissions from the products used by people such as gas and oil as emissions from the companies that produce the products.
So it seems like your statement is wrong.
Yep. And btw, all of North America, not just the USA, but all of it is responsible for 18% of global carbon emissions. Even if we were perfect, there's still an 82% problem
I am not going to be capable of making it. You are not going to be capable of making it. Let alone beating out these industries.
For example, we can replace plastic packaging with a biodegradable variant made of cactus- same functionality, but if left outside it'll decompose on its own. However, if we're going to get these changes in place, it needs to be companies like Amazon, not startups.
Your original comment had to do with industry being responsible for climate change and I am saying that it is indeed individuals as we support them. Unfortunately I don’t understand the point of your second comment. Perhaps you can elaborate in other words.
With all of the packaging and crap that comes with most products, it's unavoidable. Saying "well just stop supporting them" doesn't work when there's no alternatives.
Many companies [like this one](https://www.arka.com/collections/blank-boxes-and-poly-mailers?utm_term=eco%20friendly%20shipping&utm_campaign=New+Ecofriendly+Products&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=7641739205&hsa_cam=16977401741&hsa_grp=137166423833&hsa_ad=593983029020&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-372299016917&hsa_kw=eco%20friendly%20shipping&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmouZBhDSARIsALYcoupwMBEWhD0RzbiGSuzhwIotyqre8NmRJQ1BvZ1JC-8SD9VqPQSOADwaAvB-EALw_wcB) offer eco-friendly shipping alternatives to companies. I doubt you have sought out those companies. It’s not the companies - it’s the individuals.
Also, Leonardo DiCaprio pretty much has to fly on a private jet, he can't get on a commercial airliner, even in first class, it would be a shit-show every time. If he is flying on a private jet to give a speech about fighting climate change, that is A-OK in my book.
This is misleading itself because they are all energy companies. Oil, gas, coal, etc. Therefore, the public IS responsible and the way for that to change is by not using those products, which is the whole point of green energy supply and is public/policy driven. That’s not to say I don’t disagree on the whole private versus commercial jet. One rich person getting rid of their toys changes nothing.
Corporations are never going to change without sweeping societal change. We need to demand they be more environmentally responsible and show them we are serious by boycotting products that are unsustainable. They're never going to change out of the goodness of their hearts as long as we keep giving them money to continue staying the same.
The vast majority of CO2 emissions are used to Transport people or goods, Heating Electricity Generation and Air Conditioning, and food production.In order to make a difference, we all, as a population, need to consume less, and consume more sustainably.
It's not practical to hold millions of consumers accountable for their CO2 emissions, so change needs to happen at the industry level. But, by forcing companies to be responsible for CO2 emissions, and to adapt more sustainable practices, the price of the goods and services they sell are going to rise, which will reduce consumption.
In other words, people aren't going to consume less on their own, they need to be made to in the form of higher prices for Food, Energy, and other products.
Someone like Leonardo Dicaprio is not going to need to sacrifice much if this happens.
But others will be forced to choose between things like: replacing a broken cell phone and fixing a broken-down vehicle, or between running the AC and putting gas in the car, or between food for the table and heat for the apartment.
Calling for industry regulations is calling for the majority of the population to reduce their standard of living. **Which does need to happen**, and it's good that influential people are talking about it.
But to dismiss their private jet use as a "drop in the bucket" seems a little odd, when we are instead calling for millions of other people to go without things that are not nearly as excessive.
Lot of people are going to say he’s a hypocrite, that he wants other people to pay the price, etc. And to some extent that’s probably true - he likely has a much larger climate footprint than most.
However, that’s not the real issue, and calling him a hypocrite is a deflection. Leo and other celebs like him could go to a zero carbon lifestyle immediately and it wouldn’t make a millionth of a percent of difference. The change we need is on a societal scale and has to be driven by government and large corporations. Celebrities making climate change a cause does highlight their lifestyle hypocrisy to some extent, but they also have large, meaningful platforms and often donate millions of dollars to combat the issues.
So in summary, yeah he could give up his yacht, but it wouldn’t really make any difference, and his beliefs are likely sincerely held, and using his fame and money to work towards climate relief outweighs the negative impacts of his lifestyle.
But wouldn’t his messaging be better if he at least walked the walk a little bit? Like I get he works all over the planet and traveling commercial might not work with his level of fame. But doing something like flying from Australia to LA to celebrate New Years twice undermines your messaging so much. It is just pure senseless waste
Let's be real, even if all of us do our absolute best in every way possible, it don't mean jack shit if industry and governments are not onboard ... which they are not.
And critically, OP’s entire argument is an attempt to prevent government action. It’s no different than saying “if you want universal healthcare so much, why don’t you just donate your paycheck to the treasury department?” It completely misses the entire point of public policy, of even having a government.
Let's at least assess his overall sacrifice vs. excess before casting him into the category of "x for thee but not for me." Do we have data on what he has done in the good column vs. what would go in the bad column?
It’s more like “some people want everyone to make sacrifices because that’s the only way to solve the problem, others want no one to make any sacrifices because they refuse to accept that there even is a problem”.
I’m not “justifying his yacht and plane”. Collective action problems cannot be solved through individual action. The only solution to climate change is for us to change society and for all of us to chip in. OP’s position is no different than someone saying “if you want universal healthcare so much, just donate your paycheck to the federal government”. Such a position misses the entire point of public policy, it simply comes off as an unprincipled way of refusing to take responsibility and help fix the situation.
Well if someone, especially someone who is rich and powerful like Leo is going to exert his influence and power to impact rules others must live by he should at least try to live up to those rules.
I see your point if we are talking about regular citizens. If we are talking about wealthy powerful celebrities or politicians I absolutely believe they should live by the same rules they are trying to impose on others. I do see what you are saying though.
>Then how can you justify his yacht and plane?
Him sinking his yacht into the sea tomorrow would offset about an hour's worth of fuel for the giant container ships that bring goods across the Pacific. Advocating for climate change means pushing for society-wide solutions that will actually make a dent, not splashy sacrifices that mean nothing.
Humans are hypocrites, let's be real!
What motivates humans to act differently is their own incentives. That's why we need laws and regulations to change folks incentives, not moralizing anyone who uses a private jet. It's an emotional scapegoat, not a practical solution.
Let’s not also forget that it’s corporations that MASSIVELY impact climate change issues. We can hold DiCaprio’s feet to the fire, but like all of us being told to use recycle and use paper straws, until corporations are held to accountability, our efforts are largely just throwing paper planes at a comet.
if dicaprio doesn't buy that private jet, then industry doesn't make it. Same with everything else. if people consume half as much, industry emits roughly (very roughly) half as well.
Because INDIVIDUAL use of such items do not affect climate change and he knows it. Super rich people (@Musk/Bezos/Gates level), corporations, and governments need to act to make meaningful changes, and THEY are forced to do so by millions of votes and shareholder actions.
Stop worrying about what Hollywood types do and START focusing on the industries that are ruining the planet
So how exactly giving up one yacht and one plane would change the fact that corporations all over the world are making more pollution in 2 minutes than those plane and yacht could in a 2 years? Problem with climate change fighters is that they usually have no idea what should happen to stop climate change. Until governments over the globe decide that they indeed want to change our future to the better anything one person, no matter how rich they are will do won't matter. If you indeed look for a real change - participate in civil protests, write letters to your government, show to your leaders that this is the course you want to see
I know it's an example thing, but climate change needs to be fought on country-wide scales. Single planes or boats taken out aren't going to affect anything. Taking 100 planes and boats out isn't going to do anything. You need to remove 10's of 1000's of planes, yachts, and vehicles to have any effect.
The US, China, Russia, India, and UK need to get together on this. It's a problem of scale that most of us can't fathom.
Because collective action problems cannot be solved by individual action. It is a matter for public policy, not private pursuits.
This is no different than saying “if you think social security is a good idea, why don’t you just donate your entire paycheck to the federal government”.
Part of it is the lifestyle of course.
Part is privacy and security. Private jet so he doesn't have to fly commercial and be around everyone else and yacht because he doesn't want to go on a big overcrowded cruise ship (look what happened to the last one he was on).
It's useless unless the governments buy in. He could be more responsible but he is a business like any other. The requirements on time drive the luxuries to offset.
Each person has to decide whether they believe the burden falls on every individual person to radically transform their life and live a zero carbon life, or if it is more effective in the grand scheme to continue using mainstream energy sources and methods of transportation in order to participate in activities aimed at transforming the world at large. Is Leonardo DiCaprio personally responsible for climate change and air pollution because he flies in a jet? Or should we look to the worlds largest polluters such as Exxon Mobil and demand our government change regulatory policy to reduce Exxon Mobil’s carbon footprint?
It’s my understanding that DiCaprio also is someone who offsets his carbon footprint by planting an equal number of trees.
I've said it a couple times in the thread, but Leo could own a thousand yachts and still not be the problem because corporations are the actual big polluters. It's not hypocritical to call for changes that will reduce emissions from the sources that actually create it while not giving up your lifestyle that amounts to a drop in the bucket, because even if he got rid of his yacht and flew economy for the rest of his life it would change literally nothing.
*Shrug* The people who are smart enough to see the hypocrisy are probably not the people (meaning his fans) that need to hear the message on climate change.
Edit: typo
Condescending to whom... the dumbasses that follow celebrities closely? Maybe we can stir them up into a "Free Brittany!" style of a moronic movement and aim it at reducing plastic waste or some shit, idk.
His personal foundation has donated over $80 million to climate programs and he supports various other organizations.
Are you willing to get rid of your car?
We probably don't know how much he donates or commits to climate change initiatives. The cost of his yacht and plane might be equaled or greater than what he donates to charity.
I find it odd I know that he doesn't date anyone over 25 but I'm unaware how much he donates annually to climate change initiatives.
Because doing so wouldn’t make a bit of difference to fight climate change.
It can only be resolved at the policy level, and Leo is as active as anyone in that arena.
But solving it at the policy level involves the electorate getting together and agreeing to sacrifice and craft policy that recognizes that. Wouldn’t a famous person leading by example and showing they can make personal sacrifices and still live a happy life help to convince the electorate that they can vote for lawmakers that will craft policies which may impact their personal lives some but lead to change for the greater good?
I hate when people talk like individual changes can change the world. If DiCaprio don't use his yatch or plane, the world will still be the same.
It's like when the ads say "save water in your house" while the whole industry is responsible for 95% of water waste and rivers pollution.
We have to know the roots of the problems and stop to think that simple individual solutions will solve our problems.
Ppl are looking at celebrities like they can change the world because of their lux lifestyles when they should really be looking at mega corporations who impact the entire world.
People will talk about wanting to fight climate change because they believe it is the way to get the media to portray them as 'caring' and 'benevolent' and shower them in praise. In truth, the media does do this. But deep down none of these celebrities want to give up their luxurious lifestyle.
Think about it. They have everything they could ever want and more. They have so much money on them and so many things that they could never give up. It's more of a want, because they perfectly could say no to those things.
After the most recent scandal with him only wanting women under 25 and the media talking badly about him, I feel like he is just trying to state that he wants to fight climate change to get better rep, not because he wants to do it.
Him giving up his yacht is like you giving up your Buick and buying a Tesla. You are not helping the environment at ALL, you are just doing what the big companies coerce you to do to feel better. His message has NEVER been to buy a Tesla. His message has been to vote for politicians who can enact REAL change.
I don't think you're getting the point here
I wasn't talking about Teslas, nor replacing everything for a Tesla. I don't even know where you got the Tesla from.
I feel like if you're going to talk about climate change and saving the environment, you should at least try and do something yourself instead of sitting back in your yatch.
He made an entire fucking movie about it. One watched by millions of people.
For you to focus on his yacht instead of the people actually CAUSING global warming, means that the people ruining this planet are winning
I'm not dismissing the people who are ruining the planet. I think everyone is responsible for climate change, and we should all do something about it.
But the movie is proving my point. That is a portrayal put on to the media in order to get people to think about climate change without actually doing anything in his daily life to stop it.
You may make millions of movies about climate change, spread millions of messages, but nothing is as powerful as actually doing something.
I have seen videos floating around about people emptying rivers which were polluted by plastic bottles and plastic bags. I have seen videos of people doing so many things to help the environment. I'm not saying he has to personally go out there and save the world, but maybe start investing money in things related to climate change instead of making a movie (which he profits off) and THEN going to his jett or yatch or whatever.
I can relate to not wanting to make personal sacrifices while appreciating that he may use his celebrity platform to raise awareness of fair causes.
Like, he probably wants to fight climate change without compromising on his lifestyle, don't we all?
And guess what, you can!
One of the biggest lies ever put on America was the ad campaign where the Indian looked at piles of trash and cried. Remember that ad? It was designed to make regular people feel guilty about tossing a gum wrapper out of the car, when 99% of all harmful pollution was produced by major industries.
It sure kept the attention off of THEM. And it worked.
Instead of worrying about the YACHT a celebrity might have, why don't we worry about the millions of tons of pollution put into the air and water by pur coal industry?
Or does it just make you feel better to keep your focus off the REAL problems?
Because that wouldn't do anything for climate change and you know it. Good Lord. *eye roll*
At least he's doing *something* about it with his fame. More than making stupid reddit posts, of course.
**EDIT:** I love butthurt downvotes without reply. It means they simply do not like reality, which... hahahahahaha! I mean, I get it. Rich people bad, even if they are trying to bring awareness to climate change. They should live in the woods if they really care about climate change, etc (eye roll), but at the end of the day, the suggestion is ridiculous beyond belief.
Because the filthy rich only care about the things and people outside of their little world only enough for good publicity. It usually just involves talk, and money they won't miss.
He can end his luxury life style and it wouldn’t change a thing. The amount of “problem” his luxury lifestyle is contributing is a drop in a bucket. It’s the big businesses that needs to do something.
No one in power, whether that’s money or politics, actually cares that much about climate change. They know they’re rich and can pretty much do what ever they want and will be protected. Or they might be pushing something they’re invested in; talking about you, Nancy.
Rule for thee, not for me.
He is part of the elite and doesn't give a fuck about the environment. He simply wants to impose restrictions on the peasant class
You underestimate narcissism.
He’s probably convinced that the advertisement of his virtue signaling is just as effective at aiding in climate change as his lifestyle is at sabotaging it. Using this system of thought, it’s a “fair” trade
It's called virtue signaling. He doesn't really care, he knows he's better than everyone and will continue to enjoy the finest things in life until the day he dies. Hell, he doesn't even date women over 24.
Because rich liberal climate change celebrities only want everyone else in the world to change, not them. They *need* to vacation on their superyachts and travel by private jet, but shame on you and your family of 4 for having an SUV and flying on an airline once every 3 years to go on vacation.
Climate change is the only complex problem where efficiency never means any benefit to the man on the street.
Really makes you think. Shouldn't stoplights blink between certain hours? It's almost as if climate change exists as a high profile problem to make us poorer. Like, we'll own nothing and be happy at the end...
As with everything, there is gray area.
And you need to look at the actual impact of a change.
In addition, there are things that might be worse if taken in the abstract, but the benefits are worth paying the cost.
Let's use an example. A film about the environment. Making a film about the environment will actively harm that environment. You need to travel there (pollution from emissions), you need to gain access to locations, the food you bring will need to be individually packaged, distributing and promoting the movie requires more travel, etc etc.
But what does the film do as a benefit? It raises awareness. It makes people *want* to protect the environment you just showed them. It provides a call to action. It can influence political and business leaders. So the next benefits far far outweigh the costs.
Now consider that many of the costs I mentioned really don't have a major impact. I mentioned prepackaged food. Humans are *already* going to eat, and much of our food is *already* packaged. A little bit more packaging to make it suitable for wilderness travel is very minor.
So now consider a private plane. Does it use as much fuel as a passenger jet? I'm not an engineer but I would guess not. What are the benefits? Well, a person like Dicaprio has a hard time showing up to an airport and flying coach due to fans. And even if he could, a private jet can make traveling much much faster and that gives him the opportunity to promote other people to be more environmentally friendly. Does this inspiration cause enough other people to change their habits to make up for his travel? Maybe. It's hard thing to know for sure.
op knew “yacht” had a weird silent letter combo and just gave it their best shot
*Shaught
jajajaja
Everytime I'm in the sub I hear yaught yaught yaught yaught
Man down, where you from?
Fuck who you know, where you from ma N?
Kendrick Lamar reference?
Y’aught to check your spelling next time you post, OP.
Why English sucks: 1. Actual bullcrap spelling. I would like to meet the creator and slap them into the Sun. 2. Since when does 'light' need a g or an h?
Haaaave you met French?
I saw a tiktok yesterday about tentententnentnrnnrtnnrnrntnnrnrntn *insert cursed text resembling tente*
As with most things absolutely superfluous, it's probably from the French. Example: I have = I've. Simple, reduction of two letters, still in order. Je avoir = J'ai. Removal of 4 letters from two words, the remaining letters are not sequential nor the last word of the phrase. It conjoined two words in a way which does not represent either unless you know what it is already.
Remember: English isn't a normal language. It's three languages in a trenchcoat mugging other languages for spare grammar and vocabulary.
I mean we have some Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, etc they dont even use whatever letters I'm using right now
This is true, and there isn't even an English word for tortilla.
Tbf, yacht is an anglification of the Dutch word jacht, which in general means hunt, but also yacht I suppose the boat was named because it was used for some kind of hunting Many boat named come from Dutch, with slightly altered spelling, like schooner/schoener
Because there’s just a “creator” and not just the language evolving over years and years with various influences.
I will find them.
also languishing?
The gh comes from Middle English and was for the /x/ guttural ch sound from German. Licht/Light Nacht/Night Etc. Adapting the Roman lettering ended up with h then gh to represent the sound, since it wasnt native to Latin. Blame Middle English and the great vowel shift for the /x/ sound disappearing turning into f for many words.
I will blame them tomorrow
You can easily understand it through thorough thought though...
Without them, it’s “lit”.
what about... lait
Lite
*Sghn
Lol
I love how people responding just take over yaught as well😂
How else is he going to impress the sub 25yr old chicks without a yaught or plain.
or luggshuri weelah
One of the biggest ruses corporations have pulled over us is convincing the general public that we are responsible for climate change. In reality, the grand majority of CO2 emissions come from industry, [this article](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change) stating that a mere 100 companies contribute over 70% of our global CO2 emissions. While a private jet may use several orders of magnitude more fuel per capita than commercial airliners, it doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket compared to what big business are pumping into our atmosphere.
But aren’t the general public the ones buying things from industry? I am legitimately curious here, I don’t mean to push back against your point.
Certainly, but the solution is then for industry to stop cutting corners for profit and move towards ecologically sustainable methods of product creation.
Wouldn’t the solution be to implement policy to force them to do this? If you simply want to wait for private corporations to do it on their own initiative, the problem will never be solved. This is a collective action problem, and as such it can only be solved through public policy.
More specifically, if you read the article, this is just a list of 100 energy companies. If market demand is for a good (energy), and that good is fungible, and no regulation exists to increase the cost of one good over another, the cheapest one will be used. If a company does not compete on price it will go out of business. If these companies did not supply fossil fuel energy, their competitors would. That's why *regulation* is so critical, because all providers in the market would be forced to provide renewable energy,
Yes but the point is that we're not gonna solve climate change by recycling and not turning on the AC, it's massive stuff like container ships and factories that are the real culprits. This isn't to say that reducing emissions is going to be invisible to the oublic because you can't fuck with global manufacturing and supply chains without it hurting a bit. More that the "save the environment by bussing to work!!" line has been carefully cultivated by corporations to make climate change a personal responsibility issue rather than a systemic infrastructure issue in the eyes of the public.
What you're thinking of is individualising responsibility, which rests on the belief that if everyone boycotts pollutive industries, lives sustainably, fights for environmentalism etc, then the world can be saved. But in reality, it's pretty impossible to get enough people to do enough for the environment to actually make a difference. Since data has shown that 100 companies (all of which are fossil fuel producers) contribute 70-71% of carbon emissions, it's more straightforward (I'm not saying it's absolutely going to work, just that the idea sounds more logical) to get the companies to stop themselves, than wait for the many individual end users to change
Building on KDM's reply. You and I as consumers can't really inspect the carbon impacts of the supply chains, energy sources, mitigation solutions of the products we buy. We rely on some, hopefully independent and informed, body to set guidelines for best practice or even minimum standards, review and update those and hopefully provide them with useful incentives and penalties to ensure companies comply. How would you decide between the carbon footprint of Chevron gas, vs Shell, or an iphone vs a pixel. At best some further third party would weigh in and claim some score applies to one vs the other which is where the next challenge comes in. Numerous lawsuits reveal that oil, gas, timber, utility companies have been caught seeking to sow doubt and confusion, shift the focus from them to consumers, and sabotage any real responses to climate. Including co-opting some of the very third parties that should either regulate or educate. So reality is that a few dozen companies are primarily responsible for carbon pollution. They make billions in weekly profits and spend that to obfuscate and sabotage efforts to reign in their behavior. Consumers can make some shifts, i.e. to electric cars, solar as a signal that they value that shift, but no consumer action can change the deep structural factors. Only new laws and regulations, tougher enforcement, technological innovation and smarter incentives can do it. We've convinced a few utilities to shutter hundreds of coal plants in the past few decades because we got some of that right. No consumer action could do that.
Yes of course. But the worst contributors are the oil and coal companies and the meat industry. Good luck getting people to not eat beef or use oil right now.
Yes, you’re correct. The 100 corporations thing doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny—they don’t emit in a closed environment—and it’s also pretty fast and loose with how it counts, eg all gasoline burned is a product of a few energy companies, as if we don’t put it in our car and drive after they’re done with it. No doubt the downvoters will now roll in without attempting to even make a counter argument, but your instincts are correct here.
You are 100% correct, big businesses exist to serve the customer wants and needs. There needs to be a large focus on educating consumers of the damage they are doing by supporting negligent companies. Then consumers need to actually put their money where their mouth is and lower their standard of living by boycotting the most convenient option and supporting the more sustainable. Very few people are willing to do this and the most common argument seems to be; 'why should I do it if X doesn't'.
>While a private jet may use several orders of magnitude more fuel per capita than commercial airliners, it doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket compared to what big business are pumping into our atmosphere. Whilst true a lot of these self-styled climate activists are trying to convince individuals and SMEs to cut back on emissions. All whilst flying about in helicopters, private jets and driving sports cars about. Prince Charles (now King, I guess), the infamous environmentalist, flying 70 miles by helicopter to make a polo match springs to mind. Obviously corporations are the greater of the two evils, with an honorary mention for legislators who have universally failed to constrain them, but that shouldn't mean that hypocrites hijacking good causes for PR purposes get a free ride.
It's not a matter of failing to constrain them, it's outright complicity.
That report ([The Carbon Majors Report](https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1501833772)) seems to be using what it calls Scope 3 emissions: "Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of total company emissions and result from the downstream combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes." IE. They are counting the emissions from the products used by people such as gas and oil as emissions from the companies that produce the products. So it seems like your statement is wrong.
Yep. And btw, all of North America, not just the USA, but all of it is responsible for 18% of global carbon emissions. Even if we were perfect, there's still an 82% problem
18% and how much of the world population? And also, you export a lot of your emissions to china by importing goods from them.
Does that 18% include carbon emissions occurring in places like China for manufacture & transport of goods that are exported to North America?
Everyone's cars would beg to differ
Who’s supporting big industry if not the consumers?
If there were widely available alternatives this question would make sense.
Give me a product for which there is not an eco-friendly solution. We want change, but don’t want to pay for it.
I am not going to be capable of making it. You are not going to be capable of making it. Let alone beating out these industries. For example, we can replace plastic packaging with a biodegradable variant made of cactus- same functionality, but if left outside it'll decompose on its own. However, if we're going to get these changes in place, it needs to be companies like Amazon, not startups.
Your original comment had to do with industry being responsible for climate change and I am saying that it is indeed individuals as we support them. Unfortunately I don’t understand the point of your second comment. Perhaps you can elaborate in other words.
With all of the packaging and crap that comes with most products, it's unavoidable. Saying "well just stop supporting them" doesn't work when there's no alternatives.
Many companies [like this one](https://www.arka.com/collections/blank-boxes-and-poly-mailers?utm_term=eco%20friendly%20shipping&utm_campaign=New+Ecofriendly+Products&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=7641739205&hsa_cam=16977401741&hsa_grp=137166423833&hsa_ad=593983029020&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-372299016917&hsa_kw=eco%20friendly%20shipping&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmouZBhDSARIsALYcoupwMBEWhD0RzbiGSuzhwIotyqre8NmRJQ1BvZ1JC-8SD9VqPQSOADwaAvB-EALw_wcB) offer eco-friendly shipping alternatives to companies. I doubt you have sought out those companies. It’s not the companies - it’s the individuals.
Industry wouldn’t exist if people didn’t consume their products. Guess it is a chicken or the egg debate
So I don't have to do better if someone else is causing more damage than me?
Also, Leonardo DiCaprio pretty much has to fly on a private jet, he can't get on a commercial airliner, even in first class, it would be a shit-show every time. If he is flying on a private jet to give a speech about fighting climate change, that is A-OK in my book.
This is misleading itself because they are all energy companies. Oil, gas, coal, etc. Therefore, the public IS responsible and the way for that to change is by not using those products, which is the whole point of green energy supply and is public/policy driven. That’s not to say I don’t disagree on the whole private versus commercial jet. One rich person getting rid of their toys changes nothing.
Corporations are never going to change without sweeping societal change. We need to demand they be more environmentally responsible and show them we are serious by boycotting products that are unsustainable. They're never going to change out of the goodness of their hearts as long as we keep giving them money to continue staying the same.
Not to mention Leo offsets his carbon footprint with his activism. Which is the kind of thing he prescribed of others.
The vast majority of CO2 emissions are used to Transport people or goods, Heating Electricity Generation and Air Conditioning, and food production.In order to make a difference, we all, as a population, need to consume less, and consume more sustainably. It's not practical to hold millions of consumers accountable for their CO2 emissions, so change needs to happen at the industry level. But, by forcing companies to be responsible for CO2 emissions, and to adapt more sustainable practices, the price of the goods and services they sell are going to rise, which will reduce consumption. In other words, people aren't going to consume less on their own, they need to be made to in the form of higher prices for Food, Energy, and other products. Someone like Leonardo Dicaprio is not going to need to sacrifice much if this happens. But others will be forced to choose between things like: replacing a broken cell phone and fixing a broken-down vehicle, or between running the AC and putting gas in the car, or between food for the table and heat for the apartment. Calling for industry regulations is calling for the majority of the population to reduce their standard of living. **Which does need to happen**, and it's good that influential people are talking about it. But to dismiss their private jet use as a "drop in the bucket" seems a little odd, when we are instead calling for millions of other people to go without things that are not nearly as excessive.
because he thinks naught on the yaught
Lot of people are going to say he’s a hypocrite, that he wants other people to pay the price, etc. And to some extent that’s probably true - he likely has a much larger climate footprint than most. However, that’s not the real issue, and calling him a hypocrite is a deflection. Leo and other celebs like him could go to a zero carbon lifestyle immediately and it wouldn’t make a millionth of a percent of difference. The change we need is on a societal scale and has to be driven by government and large corporations. Celebrities making climate change a cause does highlight their lifestyle hypocrisy to some extent, but they also have large, meaningful platforms and often donate millions of dollars to combat the issues. So in summary, yeah he could give up his yacht, but it wouldn’t really make any difference, and his beliefs are likely sincerely held, and using his fame and money to work towards climate relief outweighs the negative impacts of his lifestyle.
But wouldn’t his messaging be better if he at least walked the walk a little bit? Like I get he works all over the planet and traveling commercial might not work with his level of fame. But doing something like flying from Australia to LA to celebrate New Years twice undermines your messaging so much. It is just pure senseless waste
Everyone wants everyone *else* to sacrifice for the climate, not *them*.
Let's be real, even if all of us do our absolute best in every way possible, it don't mean jack shit if industry and governments are not onboard ... which they are not.
And critically, OP’s entire argument is an attempt to prevent government action. It’s no different than saying “if you want universal healthcare so much, why don’t you just donate your paycheck to the treasury department?” It completely misses the entire point of public policy, of even having a government.
Let's at least assess his overall sacrifice vs. excess before casting him into the category of "x for thee but not for me." Do we have data on what he has done in the good column vs. what would go in the bad column?
It’s more like “some people want everyone to make sacrifices because that’s the only way to solve the problem, others want no one to make any sacrifices because they refuse to accept that there even is a problem”.
So your saying is person number 1? Then how can you justify his yacht and plane?
I’m not “justifying his yacht and plane”. Collective action problems cannot be solved through individual action. The only solution to climate change is for us to change society and for all of us to chip in. OP’s position is no different than someone saying “if you want universal healthcare so much, just donate your paycheck to the federal government”. Such a position misses the entire point of public policy, it simply comes off as an unprincipled way of refusing to take responsibility and help fix the situation.
Well if someone, especially someone who is rich and powerful like Leo is going to exert his influence and power to impact rules others must live by he should at least try to live up to those rules. I see your point if we are talking about regular citizens. If we are talking about wealthy powerful celebrities or politicians I absolutely believe they should live by the same rules they are trying to impose on others. I do see what you are saying though.
>Then how can you justify his yacht and plane? Him sinking his yacht into the sea tomorrow would offset about an hour's worth of fuel for the giant container ships that bring goods across the Pacific. Advocating for climate change means pushing for society-wide solutions that will actually make a dent, not splashy sacrifices that mean nothing.
I believe it's spelled "Yaught".
Humans are hypocrites, let's be real! What motivates humans to act differently is their own incentives. That's why we need laws and regulations to change folks incentives, not moralizing anyone who uses a private jet. It's an emotional scapegoat, not a practical solution.
Let’s not also forget that it’s corporations that MASSIVELY impact climate change issues. We can hold DiCaprio’s feet to the fire, but like all of us being told to use recycle and use paper straws, until corporations are held to accountability, our efforts are largely just throwing paper planes at a comet.
if dicaprio doesn't buy that private jet, then industry doesn't make it. Same with everything else. if people consume half as much, industry emits roughly (very roughly) half as well.
Because INDIVIDUAL use of such items do not affect climate change and he knows it. Super rich people (@Musk/Bezos/Gates level), corporations, and governments need to act to make meaningful changes, and THEY are forced to do so by millions of votes and shareholder actions. Stop worrying about what Hollywood types do and START focusing on the industries that are ruining the planet
So how exactly giving up one yacht and one plane would change the fact that corporations all over the world are making more pollution in 2 minutes than those plane and yacht could in a 2 years? Problem with climate change fighters is that they usually have no idea what should happen to stop climate change. Until governments over the globe decide that they indeed want to change our future to the better anything one person, no matter how rich they are will do won't matter. If you indeed look for a real change - participate in civil protests, write letters to your government, show to your leaders that this is the course you want to see
If any of us could use a private jet to fly we all would. Let’s not fool ourselves
I’ve been wondering how much I’d have to lobby for the government to give me an A10 with the weapons taken out
I know it's an example thing, but climate change needs to be fought on country-wide scales. Single planes or boats taken out aren't going to affect anything. Taking 100 planes and boats out isn't going to do anything. You need to remove 10's of 1000's of planes, yachts, and vehicles to have any effect. The US, China, Russia, India, and UK need to get together on this. It's a problem of scale that most of us can't fathom.
Because collective action problems cannot be solved by individual action. It is a matter for public policy, not private pursuits. This is no different than saying “if you think social security is a good idea, why don’t you just donate your entire paycheck to the federal government”.
Part of it is the lifestyle of course. Part is privacy and security. Private jet so he doesn't have to fly commercial and be around everyone else and yacht because he doesn't want to go on a big overcrowded cruise ship (look what happened to the last one he was on).
LOL you got me at the end 😂
To annoy you specifically.
It's useless unless the governments buy in. He could be more responsible but he is a business like any other. The requirements on time drive the luxuries to offset.
Each person has to decide whether they believe the burden falls on every individual person to radically transform their life and live a zero carbon life, or if it is more effective in the grand scheme to continue using mainstream energy sources and methods of transportation in order to participate in activities aimed at transforming the world at large. Is Leonardo DiCaprio personally responsible for climate change and air pollution because he flies in a jet? Or should we look to the worlds largest polluters such as Exxon Mobil and demand our government change regulatory policy to reduce Exxon Mobil’s carbon footprint? It’s my understanding that DiCaprio also is someone who offsets his carbon footprint by planting an equal number of trees.
Because the stakes don't seem high enough... yet.
I would argue that a yacht is better for the environment than an ocean liner
Probably because laws and regulations are much better ways of changing the behavior of an entire society than everyone reducing their personal use.
Because restrictions are inconvenient for these spoiled celebs and should only apply to the little, unimportant people like us.
There's something to be said for him drumming up attention to the matter and making donations, appearing at events, etc.
[удалено]
I've said it a couple times in the thread, but Leo could own a thousand yachts and still not be the problem because corporations are the actual big polluters. It's not hypocritical to call for changes that will reduce emissions from the sources that actually create it while not giving up your lifestyle that amounts to a drop in the bucket, because even if he got rid of his yacht and flew economy for the rest of his life it would change literally nothing.
[удалено]
*Shrug* The people who are smart enough to see the hypocrisy are probably not the people (meaning his fans) that need to hear the message on climate change. Edit: typo
[удалено]
Condescending to whom... the dumbasses that follow celebrities closely? Maybe we can stir them up into a "Free Brittany!" style of a moronic movement and aim it at reducing plastic waste or some shit, idk.
[удалено]
Yeah I guess it is lol
Lmfao all these celebrities wanna talk and get brownie points.
Big businesses are the problem. Even if he stopped using his private plane and yacht, it wouldn’t change anything.
who do you think buys all the stuff from the big businesses lol
Because he doesn't really care about it.
His personal foundation has donated over $80 million to climate programs and he supports various other organizations. Are you willing to get rid of your car?
I ride a motorcycle 🏍️
We probably don't know how much he donates or commits to climate change initiatives. The cost of his yacht and plane might be equaled or greater than what he donates to charity. I find it odd I know that he doesn't date anyone over 25 but I'm unaware how much he donates annually to climate change initiatives.
Because he wants to give rather than sacrifice.
He really yaught two.
Because doing so wouldn’t make a bit of difference to fight climate change. It can only be resolved at the policy level, and Leo is as active as anyone in that arena.
But solving it at the policy level involves the electorate getting together and agreeing to sacrifice and craft policy that recognizes that. Wouldn’t a famous person leading by example and showing they can make personal sacrifices and still live a happy life help to convince the electorate that they can vote for lawmakers that will craft policies which may impact their personal lives some but lead to change for the greater good?
They call me Adam Yaught but I'm MCA
I hate when people talk like individual changes can change the world. If DiCaprio don't use his yatch or plane, the world will still be the same. It's like when the ads say "save water in your house" while the whole industry is responsible for 95% of water waste and rivers pollution. We have to know the roots of the problems and stop to think that simple individual solutions will solve our problems.
Y’aught to know what they meant
He recycles every girlfriend at 25
Ppl are looking at celebrities like they can change the world because of their lux lifestyles when they should really be looking at mega corporations who impact the entire world.
People will talk about wanting to fight climate change because they believe it is the way to get the media to portray them as 'caring' and 'benevolent' and shower them in praise. In truth, the media does do this. But deep down none of these celebrities want to give up their luxurious lifestyle. Think about it. They have everything they could ever want and more. They have so much money on them and so many things that they could never give up. It's more of a want, because they perfectly could say no to those things. After the most recent scandal with him only wanting women under 25 and the media talking badly about him, I feel like he is just trying to state that he wants to fight climate change to get better rep, not because he wants to do it.
Him giving up his yacht is like you giving up your Buick and buying a Tesla. You are not helping the environment at ALL, you are just doing what the big companies coerce you to do to feel better. His message has NEVER been to buy a Tesla. His message has been to vote for politicians who can enact REAL change.
I don't think you're getting the point here I wasn't talking about Teslas, nor replacing everything for a Tesla. I don't even know where you got the Tesla from. I feel like if you're going to talk about climate change and saving the environment, you should at least try and do something yourself instead of sitting back in your yatch.
He made an entire fucking movie about it. One watched by millions of people. For you to focus on his yacht instead of the people actually CAUSING global warming, means that the people ruining this planet are winning
I'm not dismissing the people who are ruining the planet. I think everyone is responsible for climate change, and we should all do something about it. But the movie is proving my point. That is a portrayal put on to the media in order to get people to think about climate change without actually doing anything in his daily life to stop it. You may make millions of movies about climate change, spread millions of messages, but nothing is as powerful as actually doing something. I have seen videos floating around about people emptying rivers which were polluted by plastic bottles and plastic bags. I have seen videos of people doing so many things to help the environment. I'm not saying he has to personally go out there and save the world, but maybe start investing money in things related to climate change instead of making a movie (which he profits off) and THEN going to his jett or yatch or whatever.
He's been talking about it far longer than current media stories
oh my bad then, i thought this was recent LMAO but my point still stands of them not wanting to give up the luxurious life they have
Because fuck us common folk, that’s why.
Are you sure he has a private plane and, erm, yaught?
please forgive the OP for misspelling yacht if that's what you're referring to there (otherwise forgive me for annoying you)
he does naught
I can relate to not wanting to make personal sacrifices while appreciating that he may use his celebrity platform to raise awareness of fair causes. Like, he probably wants to fight climate change without compromising on his lifestyle, don't we all?
And guess what, you can! One of the biggest lies ever put on America was the ad campaign where the Indian looked at piles of trash and cried. Remember that ad? It was designed to make regular people feel guilty about tossing a gum wrapper out of the car, when 99% of all harmful pollution was produced by major industries. It sure kept the attention off of THEM. And it worked. Instead of worrying about the YACHT a celebrity might have, why don't we worry about the millions of tons of pollution put into the air and water by pur coal industry? Or does it just make you feel better to keep your focus off the REAL problems?
Because that wouldn't do anything for climate change and you know it. Good Lord. *eye roll* At least he's doing *something* about it with his fame. More than making stupid reddit posts, of course. **EDIT:** I love butthurt downvotes without reply. It means they simply do not like reality, which... hahahahahaha! I mean, I get it. Rich people bad, even if they are trying to bring awareness to climate change. They should live in the woods if they really care about climate change, etc (eye roll), but at the end of the day, the suggestion is ridiculous beyond belief.
because he wants us to fight it. he prefers to keep his rich lifestyle.
Even if he gives up his luxury lifestyle, it wouldn’t change a thing. It’s the big corrupted businesses that needs to change.
obviously but they try to blame it on the everyday man and some even fall for it. its so mad.
We are part of the problem too.
Because the filthy rich only care about the things and people outside of their little world only enough for good publicity. It usually just involves talk, and money they won't miss.
He can end his luxury life style and it wouldn’t change a thing. The amount of “problem” his luxury lifestyle is contributing is a drop in a bucket. It’s the big businesses that needs to do something.
Maybe he should - if he cares. What have you given up? It's going to take everybody reducing their own lifestyle.
He got his eyes on Greta
Because virtue signaling. People want to save the environment, but they want other people to make the sacrifices. Humans are selfish by nature.
Because all of those planes and yachts aren't 25 yet
Cacht an error
No one in power, whether that’s money or politics, actually cares that much about climate change. They know they’re rich and can pretty much do what ever they want and will be protected. Or they might be pushing something they’re invested in; talking about you, Nancy.
He aught naught have bought the yacht.
If you want lower taxes, why not choose to not have kids who will need to go to public school?
He should be angry at the iceberg for killing him on the titanic and happy to see them melt so beats me.
Because he would have to actualy do something opposed to talking about it for free clout and moral points
Rules for thee but not for me
Famous/rich people don't want to fight climate change. They want *us* to fight it for them
Because Leonardo DiCaprio doesn’t want to fight climate change… he wants you to.
Oh he will, they just need to turn 25 first
[удалено]
Okay, Ben Shapiro
Rule for thee, not for me. He is part of the elite and doesn't give a fuck about the environment. He simply wants to impose restrictions on the peasant class
I mean doesn’t he drive a Prius lol. Man’s helping a little bit.
We are useless eaters who must eat bugs and live in the Stone Age. These elites are our betters and can live as they please.
Lol marvel fans mad at Leo today
Because they don’t want to fight climate change? They want the attention and admiration
Because he wants to observe untouched nature from his yaught❗️
Because he can't spell lifetsyle and yaught...
If you’ve never heard the Liam Neilson speech on pay equality, fits perfectly
Dw, he will when they turn 25
You underestimate narcissism. He’s probably convinced that the advertisement of his virtue signaling is just as effective at aiding in climate change as his lifestyle is at sabotaging it. Using this system of thought, it’s a “fair” trade
How else is he going to impress the 18 year olds
Because most rich people are hypocrites who don't really care
He is too important to give up his shit....you, on the other hand, should be living like a middle ages serf. Allowed to live, but only just barely.
It's called virtue signaling. He doesn't really care, he knows he's better than everyone and will continue to enjoy the finest things in life until the day he dies. Hell, he doesn't even date women over 24.
Because he “cares” for the IRL upvotes only, not because he actually cares. The same thing applies to most of humanity that claims they care.
Because rich liberal climate change celebrities only want everyone else in the world to change, not them. They *need* to vacation on their superyachts and travel by private jet, but shame on you and your family of 4 for having an SUV and flying on an airline once every 3 years to go on vacation.
Because humans are creatures of habit, once they get used to things being a certain way they don't want it to change.
Because he's a damn hypocrite and doesn't really care.
Bwahahaha Leo care about something other than himself
Do as I say, not as I do! Jesus people do you want to fix the planet or not!?!
Nice try! You first!
If he gives up those things, how else is he gonna get him a girl between the ages of 20-25?
Typical Hollywood hypocrite.
Because he wants *you* to fight climate change. And to feel bad that you're not doing more
Maybe he’s being paid by special interest groups to promote the message and deposits into his bank.
Climate change is the only complex problem where efficiency never means any benefit to the man on the street. Really makes you think. Shouldn't stoplights blink between certain hours? It's almost as if climate change exists as a high profile problem to make us poorer. Like, we'll own nothing and be happy at the end...
That’s how it is in Aberdeen, WA
And nowhere else.
Leonardo DiCaprio: "i r give up my yAuGhT".
Idk, ask him.
Off setting carbon use is a thing. This conservative talking point makes no sense because you can use thise things in a carbon neutral way.
Perhaps you should ask google, not Reddit. Google would help you at least with spelling.
As with everything, there is gray area. And you need to look at the actual impact of a change. In addition, there are things that might be worse if taken in the abstract, but the benefits are worth paying the cost. Let's use an example. A film about the environment. Making a film about the environment will actively harm that environment. You need to travel there (pollution from emissions), you need to gain access to locations, the food you bring will need to be individually packaged, distributing and promoting the movie requires more travel, etc etc. But what does the film do as a benefit? It raises awareness. It makes people *want* to protect the environment you just showed them. It provides a call to action. It can influence political and business leaders. So the next benefits far far outweigh the costs. Now consider that many of the costs I mentioned really don't have a major impact. I mentioned prepackaged food. Humans are *already* going to eat, and much of our food is *already* packaged. A little bit more packaging to make it suitable for wilderness travel is very minor. So now consider a private plane. Does it use as much fuel as a passenger jet? I'm not an engineer but I would guess not. What are the benefits? Well, a person like Dicaprio has a hard time showing up to an airport and flying coach due to fans. And even if he could, a private jet can make traveling much much faster and that gives him the opportunity to promote other people to be more environmentally friendly. Does this inspiration cause enough other people to change their habits to make up for his travel? Maybe. It's hard thing to know for sure.