Joakim Book: The Real Reason Nobody Takes Environmental Activists Seriously

nvironmental activists are weird. Filled with a deep-rooted desire to do good, to save the world from imminent destruction, and to preach the ecological gospel to anybody (un)willing to hear it, they wield a surprising amount of influence — in the media if not in the halls of power. They get a lot of cred and admiration for their efforts, but perhaps they shouldn’t.

Most people agree with their creed: humans greatly impact our environment, perhaps to the detriment of fundamental ecological systems, and we ought to reduce that. Few of us accept their unrelenting extremism and unwillingness to accept trade-offs. What bothers the opponents of environmental activism is not the environmentally conscious goals or even facts presented, but the activists’ blatant hypocrisy and aura of sanctimonious religiosity.

In the activists’ eyes, every action is classified as “good” or “bad” if it has easy-to-understand first-order environmental benefits or harms: recycling plastic is good, littering is bad; planting trees is good, one-use takeaway bags are bad; heating your house with “renewable energy” is good, burning gasoline is bad; etc.

The trouble begins when these individually good actions are coupled with bad ones. What if I drove my gasoline-gobbling car to the tree-planting site? What if recycled plastic, as in the U.S., ends up in the same landfill as the other trash, neutralizing my “good” efforts? What if I discard (or lose) my sustainable metal straws before I’ve used them enough times for the CO2 emissions to break even compared to single-use plastic?

The inability to see these chains of decisions is a qualifying criterion for becoming an environmental activist. For the rest of us, it is too much to stomach a sermon about the essential virtue of reducing one’s climate impact while knowing that the preacher, in other domains of their life, completely negates the minor climate benefit of whatever action they implore us to take. The hypocrisy is real.

Illustrative Anecdotes Abound

Mike Munger’s writing on recycling is a splendid example, concluding that for most commodities, recycling is a religious ritual, done for feel-good reasons rather than actual impact. Stories like these show the cognitive dissonance of do-gooders:

“I once watched a young woman in Vitacura, Chile, wait in line in her idling auto for more than 10 minutes so she could park and put two two-liter plastic bottles into a recycle bin. That’s not economics, that’s a religious ceremony. Without scale, most recycling harms the environment.”

If we need to reduce our climate impact to save the environment (it’s always unclear what the environment is, and what exactly we’re saving it from), it is the sum of our impacts that matters. If we do enough “bad” in some part of our lives, we shouldn’t applaud ourselves for doing some “good” elsewhere, especially if the impact of the bad completely dwarfs the impact of the good.

Even the celebrated wonderchild St. Greta falls prey to this. In pledging not to fly because of aviation’s outrageously large emissions (per-person emissions, mind you, not in aggregate, where aviation only accounts for 3 percent of global emissions), she famously took a high-tech wind-powered sailing boat across the Atlantic to speak before the UN. The only trouble was that she outsourced the flying emissions to the boat’s crew, several of whom flew back across the Atlantic after delivering St. Greta to the UN’s doorsteps, where she continued to lambast the world’s emitters of climate gases. The total emissions of Greta’s highly politicized non-carbon journey were, in other words, much higher than had she simply bought a standard plane ticket.

International travel, too, is cherished by the very people whose ideals should preclude them from visiting places much further away than their neighboring villages. In a wholly representative picture of the righteous environmentalist traveler, I recently met a vegan girl who carried her own non-plastic straw, tablet-format toothpaste, and wooden toothbrush so that she could avoid the horrors of plastic. The irony had not dawned on her that her microscopic climate impact from these efforts was completely swamped by the emissions needed to make possible her five-week vacation across the Atlantic.

Roughly estimated, the emissions of her round-trip flights add about 3.3 tons of CO2 equivalents to her climate footprint, increasing her average annual German per capita figure by more than one-third — or an entire year’s worth of CO2 emissions for the average person in Botswana. In comparison, eating a plant-based diet saves about 0.8 tons of carbon-equivalent emissions a year according to the Guardian’s rundown.

Taking the most extreme carbon life-cycle-analysis figure for plastic, and presuming that my travel companion’s toys used no resources, her annual climate savings likely amounted to about 800 grams (minus the energy and resource cost going into her toys). Had she stayed home, she could have safely consumed plastic as usual for something like 4,000 years before reaching her emissions from this one round-trip flight. Put differently, it takes about 4,000 years for her reduced plastic use to pay off the climate damage of her five-week Caribbean adventure (or much more if we take into account the energy use and resources going into producing new toothbrushes and straws when they wear out and/or need cleaning).

In another instance of this extraordinary doublethink, I had a flatmate that defended her twice-a-year trip across the Atlantic, London to Vancouver, with some serious mental accounting. Since she would have studied abroad in this phase of her life regardless, the emissions were a sunk cost, as if the environmental damage caused by her behavior were somehow mitigated by her rationalization. Like the vegan traveler above, the meager attempts of biking, reducing plastic use, and eating plant-based foods were entirely swamped by her frequent air travels.

With environmental activists, we can do this all day. A German friend of mine working for DHL, a partly government-owned postal and delivery service, frequently observes criticism about the company’s CO2 footprint — ignoring, of course, that had their customers individually driven to brick-and-mortar stores instead of making their purchases online, the amount of emissions would most likely have been much higher.

Yesterday, like most days during turtle hatching season, volunteers with the ASVO marine preservation organization in Montezuma, Costa Rica, eagerly helped 50 or so newborn turtles into the Pacific. Almost literally rolling out a red carpet — raking the sand to even it out — for these apparently endangered turtles, a handful of mostly European volunteers and a few dozen foreign spectators enjoyed the wonders of seeing these adorable creatures crawl toward their first swim.

The moment the first turtle reached the alluring waters of the sunset-colored waves, a bird of prey swooped down and ate it. So much for a helping human hand: evolution 1; environmentalist do-gooder 0. The artificial concentration of turtles had created a feeding frenzy for predators. The first of many, it seems, as something like only one in every thousand turtles will avoid predators and reach adulthood.

An info brochure from Tambor Bay Turtles proudly states that they have released over 15,000 turtle hatchlings over the last three years. Countless human work hours, eagerly provided by Western environmentalist activists, were spent in ensuring — at best — a permanent increase of the world’s adult turtle population by around 15 animals. All that, purchased with some exorbitant number of flights across the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean.

I don’t know what the biodiversity benefit is from 15 extra adult turtles, but I imagine that it’s less than the damage from even a single flight across the Atlantic. Safe to say, if these activists truly cared about the environment as they claim, they would refrain from these sorts of sanctimonious activities. But they don’t. And they feel good about themselves and require praise from their peers.

What angers most people about climate activists is not their goals, but their elaborate system of doublethink, their profound cognitive dissonance, and the truly fascinating ability to rationalize their own behavior; they ignore their own seriously harmful actions while praising themselves for the meager and largely inconsequential benefits of their climate activism.

They view themselves as part of the solution. Perhaps they should reconsider.

Joakim Book is a writer, researcher and editor on all things money, finance and financial history. He holds a masters degree from the University of Oxford and has been a visiting scholar at the American Institute for Economic Research in 2018 and 2019. His writings have been featured on RealClearMarkets, ZeroHedge, FT Alphaville, WallStreetWindow and Capitalism Magazine, and he is a frequent writer at Notes On Liberty. His works can be found at www.joakimbook.com and on the blog Life of an Econ Student.

Originally published at AIER.

This entry was posted in Cross Post, Global warming and climate change policy, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Joakim Book: The Real Reason Nobody Takes Environmental Activists Seriously

  1. Tel

    What if one person gets sick from a metal straw that wasn’t thoroughly cleaned inside? You have ambulance resources used, plus hospital resources, time off work, cost of producing medicines, etc. Equivalent to about a million plastic straws.

  2. thefrollickingmole

    every action is classified as “good” or “bad” if it has easy-to-understand first-order environmental benefits or harms

    On our minesite we sort bale and send off cardboard on a 1000km trip to Perth for “recycling”.
    Our medical waste, previously incinerated now gets the same treatment. (except its flown out)

    Ive had discussions with our enviros and it never gets beyond “burning releases CO2” its seriously dumb.

  3. Iampeter

    If you think environmental activists are not being taken seriously then I don’t think you’re reading what’s going on in the world today very accurately.

  4. Percy Popinjay

    The only positive impact these tiresome hypocritical imbeciles could have on “da voiroment” would be if they topped themselves en masse.

    It’s a global tragedy they haven’t.

  5. hzhousewife

    “burning releases CO2”

    No doubt the CSIRO are calculating the volumes released in the last week, in order to lambast us on the news next month about how deplorable we are.

  6. max

    I believe is inescapable concept, meaning Religion Is Inescapable Concept
    It is never Religion vs No religion
    It is question of which Religion is going to guide your society.

    Environmentalism is a religion
    Written by Michael Crichton (September 15, 2003)

    I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

    Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion?

    facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

    …because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

    they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view.

    With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it’s a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn’t quit when the world doesn’t end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

  7. egg_

    “I once watched a young woman in Vitacura, Chile, wait in line in her idling auto for more than 10 minutes so she could park and put two two-liter plastic bottles into a recycle bin. That’s not economics, that’s a religious ceremony. Without scale, most recycling harms the environment.”

    Around Ryde, the Chinese seem to have adopted the Arabs’ custom of sitting in an idling air conditioned vehicle/4WD monstrosity whilst the pack horse wife does the shopping with ALDI reusable shopping bags, for the ‘vironment, ‘course.

  8. max

    It goes same for communism, statism democracy, fashism …. it is faith

  9. I_am_not_a_robot

    The author criticises environmental preachers but his piece itself is an overlong sermon.
    There is no ‘good’ global average temperature, the ridiculous notion is teleological.
    There is no evidence that human CO2 emissions are on balance harmful, on the contrary.
    Paleo-climate evidence shows that for the past mere 500,000+ years the planet has been very cold during which life on Earth was seriously challenged punctuated by brief interglacials like now.
    The evidence also suggests that within the next few thousand years, if not sooner, extensive glaciation will recur.
    Plastic wastes, genuine air pollution etc. are all manageable and merely serve as a distraction from the main game viz. power (not the electrical kind).

  10. Tel

    There is no ‘good’ global average temperature, the ridiculous notion is teleological.

    So if the world was, let’s say 30 degrees hotter than today, it would be equally good … am I right?

  11. struth

    If you think environmental activists are not being taken seriously then I don’t think you’re reading what’s going on in the world today very accurately.

    Is that the ones who stick themselves to the road, or Antonio Guterres and his cronies?
    Because the first aren’t taken seriously and the second are only taken seriously by our traitorous left wing governments.

  12. Rossini

    Tel
    #3210436, posted on November 13, 2019 at 9:57 am
    Your comment was lost on me!

  13. max

    Tel
    #3210436, posted on November 13, 2019 at 9:57 am
    There is no ‘good’ global average temperature, the ridiculous notion is teleological.

    So if the world was, let’s say 30 degrees hotter than today, it would be equally good … am I right?

    Nothing we can do about it Tel it is not human problem

  14. max

    Freeman Dyson:

    The average ground temperature of the Earth is impossible to measure since most of the Earth is ocean…So this average ground temperature is a fiction.

  15. This sorta misses the point.
    So much of the regressive constraints enforced by the ecoloons is based on the evil CO2.

    The questions:
    Can we examine the impact of human generated CO2 on the earth’s temperature? (raw data please BoM)
    Is the impact (if any), catastrophic, or even harmful?

    The end is not nigh.

  16. max

    A glacial period last ~ 100 000 years
    and wormer periods lasting between 10 000 – 20 000

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

  17. global average temperature

    Rectal thermometers work on humans.
    So we need to insert a global rectal thermometer somewhere around Melbournistan.

  18. Tim Neilson

    I_am_not_a_robot
    #3210432, posted on November 13, 2019 at 9:54 am

    Yes.

    A lot of what the piece says is good sense, but the premise is still flawed.

    What bothers the opponents of environmental activism is not the environmentally conscious goals or even facts presented, but the activists’ blatant hypocrisy and aura of sanctimonious religiosity.

    Actually the so-called “facts” presented are the root of the problem.

  19. Roger

    …they wield a surprising amount of influence — in the media if not in the halls of power.

    Clearly this chap is not familiar with Australia, where, pressured by Green activists, an ostensibly conservative government began foisting climate change measures on us almost 20 years ago and the PM recently gave $1bn to the renewables “industry”.

  20. Iampeter

    It goes same for communism, statism democracy, fashism …. it is faith

    Exactly. Since you embrace faith you can’t oppose…faith.
    That’s why conservatives can’t oppose socialism, fascism, environmentalism, etc.

  21. struth

    Exactly. Since you embrace faith you can’t oppose…faith.

    But socialism can oppose conservatism?

    You utter wombat.
    All faiths are equal, but some seem more equal than others?

  22. Sydney Boy

    Excellent article.

    Also can’t seem to get the Greens to understand the carbon footprint required to make solar panels or Tesla batteries containing tonnes of toxic lithium.

  23. Tim at 10:32 AM beat me to it.

    What bothers the opponents of environmental activism is not the environmentally conscious goals or even facts presented, but the activists’ blatant hypocrisy and aura of sanctimonious religiosity.

    This is exactly where I have a problem with environazees.
    If their facts were accurate, I’d be shoulder to shoulder with them. I like the environment and I want it to be “clean” for me, mine and all Gaias creatures.
    But environazees lie through their teeth. They are fraudsters and scamsters.
    The average housewife (and sundry harpies) are just unthinking useful idiots for the environazees.

  24. John A

    What angers most people about climate activists is not their goals, but their elaborate system of doublethink, their profound cognitive dissonance, and the truly fascinating ability to rationalize their own behaviour; they ignore their own seriously harmful actions while praising themselves for the meagre and largely inconsequential benefits of their climate activism.

    As Max said (first?), it’s not about Religion vs No Religion but which religion: Gaia or God.

    Romans 1:18-23 (NASB):
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

    I can’t recall if I have said this here, but environmentalism and climate change is a fully-formed heresy of the Christian faith, in the same way as collectivist Marxism, which expresses the heresy in economic terms. Each holds the false notion that there is no God Who created all that exists. Consequently, they each see humanity as less than worthwhile since mankind in their view is a cosmic accident. But we all recognise within ourselves a drive to be purposeful, meaningful and we intuitively sense that life matters somehow.

  25. mem

    I’m still waiting for someone to inform the public as to how much the temperature has changed due to the millions/billions of dollars spent on climate mitigating actions such as renewables.

  26. I_am_not_a_robot

    So if the world was, let’s say 30 degrees hotter than today, it would be equally good … am I right?

    Rudd declared that climate change to be “the great moral challenge of our generation”.
    Climate change™ has become a quasi-religion and adherents apply moral judgements to everyday activities.
    The term virtue-signalling is used implying a moral dimension.
    There is nothing moral or immoral about the purported GAT, whatever it is.

  27. Mark M

    We’re gonna need a bigger ocean to cross …

    Greta Thunberg leaves US with simple climate crisis message: vote

    “Thunberg is heading back to Europe on a catamaran with Riley Whitelum and Elayna Carausu, a YouTube celebrity couple known as Sailing La Vagabonde who live on the boat with their baby.
    They have heating, solar panels and a water turbine.
    The journey from Hampton, Virginia, could take around three weeks, depending on weather.
    Thunberg asked for help getting to Spain on social media, and said she got only a few responses because of the time of year.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/12/greta-thunberg-climate-crisis-message-vote?CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1573600880

    >> UN to fund planet-destroying fossil-fueled travel for 100 young climate cultists attending a UN anti-fossil fuel event!

    100 Young Climate Champions Awarded ‘Green Tickets’ to Attend First Ever UN Youth Climate Summit

    https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/08/100-young-climate-champions/

  28. grumpy

    @ Tel 9:57

    That is a meaningless statement. The average temperature of the earth is a fiction.
    There are parts of the earth that are currently 30 degrees hotter than other places.
    Some places can vary that much in temperature in a single day.

    Also, not even the most rabid warmist is claiming that the entire world is going to be 30 degrees hotter.

  29. Lee

    If you think environmental activists are not being taken seriously then I don’t think you’re reading what’s going on in the world today very accurately.

    That is exactly the problem; they are being taken too seriously, unfortunately.

  30. IainC

    …the emissions of her round-trip flights add about 3.3 tons of CO2 equivalents to her climate footprint, increasing her average annual German per capita figure by more than one-third — or an entire year’s worth of CO2 emissions for the average person in Botswana.

    This is how carbon offsets work for Green Theologians. CO2 emissions caused by the Green haute bourgeoisie flying from A to B are offset by preventing Botswanans from developing the infrastructure to do the same by campaigning fiercely against cheap electricity, dams, high yield GMO crops, crop-boosting fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and the like. Oppressing the Third World is far more effective than planting a tree.

  31. calli

    On Greta, here are the “zero emissions” Aussies who will “sail” her from Virginia to (landlocked) Madrid.

    It’s all about the Carbon Footprint, you know.

  32. Zatara

    Does anyone recall the term ‘conservationist’?

    A conservationist might go out on a Saturday morning with a bin liner and fill it by picking up roadside rubbish from their neighborhood or a nearby highway. An environmentalist wouldn’t be caught dead doing so, preferring instead to protest that the bag was made of plastic, the rubbish not properly sorted for recycling, and the attitude being entirely too bourgeois.

    One has to merely look at the trash the environmentalists leave behind one of their protests to know they couldn’t give less of a damn about protecting the planet.

  33. Phill

    Who cares? According to them we are all dead in 12 years. If true, why worry?

  34. RobK

    So if the world was, let’s say 30 degrees hotter than today, it would be equally good … am I right?
    Tricky question. I’d rather 30deg hotter than 30 deg colder. However that’s not the point. The temperature record is better explained like this:
    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/john-reid-2017-1.php

     Only atmospheric CO2 concentrations resemble the observed increase. Unsurprisingly they conclude that increases in greenhouse gases must be causing the observed temperature changes.

    Unfortunately the authors seem unaware of the simplest and most obvious correlation, i.e. the correlation of global average temperature with its value in each preceding year.
    {Figure 2 demonstrates this graphically.

    Figure 2: Top: HadCRUT global average temperature
    (solid line) and previous year’s global average
    temperature (dotted line). Bottom: Scatter diagram
    of global average temperature vs previous year’s
    global average temperature. The sample correlation
    coefficient is 0.916.}

    The correlation between temperature values in successive years is 91.6%. This may seem trivial and unimportant, but it is not. It reveals that the temperature time series is either a “random walk” or is close to being a random walk, that it has a “pole near zero frequency”. It shows that a large fraction of the total variance is associated with low frequencies and long time scales and that we must be therefore be very cautious about assuming overly simplistic causes for the observed variations.

    These ideas are well understood by researchers versed in signal processing theory or Econometrics but not, it appears, those working in climate science. In order to understand this more fully we need to first understand the difference between “deterministic” and “stochastic” world views.

    Evidence suggests average earth temperature is a centrally biased, bounded random walk .
    Conclusion is there is no significant trend. No need to panic. CO2 is innocent.

  35. David Brewer

    Few of us accept their unrelenting extremism and unwillingness to accept trade-offs.

    That’s not really right, and this also misses the mark:

    What bothers the opponents of environmental activism is not the environmentally conscious goals or even facts presented, but the activists’ blatant hypocrisy and aura of sanctimonious religiosity.

    But no, the real point is not that enviros are hypocritical or unwilling to accept tradeoffs. It is that they are too stupid to see that there are tradeoffs, and too lazy or incompetent to do the sums when the obvious tradeoffs are presented to them. What is irritating is that, as adults, they are still thinking like children.

    There are many possible explanations for this, from inadequacies in the educational system, to the mendacity and oversimplifications involved in political debates, to the sheer complexity of modern life and the practical difficulty of making many tradeoff calculations.

    But having recently spent one month in Australia, I would like to point to a particular national factor: the 7 o’clock TV news on the ABC. Now I know it’s not the only infantilising process going on in the country, but just consider how many citizens who think themselves environmentally aware watch this programme every night. And what do they see? Half an hour of heroes and villains, and every story provided with a suggested emotional response. You can’t stuff yourself with this sort of drivel every night and retain an adult mind.

  36. Mark M

    Awkward: Boat owner/skipper? Riley “was working on OIL RIGS as FLY IN/FLY OUT worker off the west Australian coast…went on holiday to South America..broke his neck”

    via [email protected]: https://twitter.com/tan123/status/1194402957963468802

    [email protected]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYdy9TjRzPc#t=1m35s

  37. Roger

    Each holds the false notion that there is no God Who created all that exists.

    In that case, John, they are each instances of apostasy rather than heresy; i.e. a falling away from Christianity (Marx was a Christian during his youth, as I expect were most Greenies) rather than a distortion of its teachings.

  38. Roger

    What is irritating is that, as adults, they are still thinking like children.

    We’ve regressed as a society from a time when even the working man took the time to educate himself via the Mechanics’ Institutes to a sort of pre-Enlightenment mentality when the authority of the high priests of the new religion is unquestionable on pain of death…or at least social ostracism.

  39. David Brewer

    Thanks Mark M

    Also note how Greta’s new boat captain broke his neck in South America – in a “freak” bodyboarding accident. Yeah sure, go to the other end of the earth, practice a dangerous sport, injure yourself…some freak.

  40. Overburdened

    https://youtu.be/5znh58WITU8

    Joe South’s contemporary yet prescient song from 1969.

  41. Nob

    What angers most people about climate activists is not their goals,

    Their goals anger me, but I guess I’m not “most people”.

    Hypocrisy I can live with, it’s a human condition.

  42. Nob

    All environmentalism is rubbish because it posits humanity Vs The Environment.

    There is no such separation. We add all our works are as much a part of the environment as any tree or turtle.

  43. Andre Lewis

    The woke band U2 is currently touring Australia with concerts in most major cities. At the Brisbane one yesterday they shouted their usual climate change/green ecobabble cant to the audience.

    The sound stage, lighting and giant screen used during the concert used more electrical energy to set up and run during the performance than a small town and they, their large entourage and equipment require 4, yes 4, 737 sized planes to get around.

    Monty Python at their ironic best could not have thought up anything as silly as this.

  44. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    The woke band U2 is currently touring Australia with concerts in most major cities. At the Brisbane one yesterday they shouted their usual climate change/green ecobabble cant to the audience.

    The sound stage, lighting and giant screen used during the concert used more electrical energy to set up and run during the performance than a small town and they, their large entourage and equipment require 4, yes 4, 737 sized planes to get around.

    let them eat climate change

  45. aidan maconachy

    The comment by Andre Lewis re U2’s eco-unfriendly performance excesses is typical of leftist hypocrisy on the environment.

    There is a large distance between the left’s marching, protesting and the travels of St Greta and what the left is actually prepared to do on a personal level to affect these changes. Lots of big talk but not so much on the personal-sacrifice end of things. This applies to everything from renewable-energy credits (RECs) to non-essential air travel.

    An article in the National Review includes the following interesting finding:

    A study by researchers at the University of Michigan and Cornell University found that those who are “highly concerned” about climate change are “least likely to report individual-level actions” to reduce their environmental impact. Those who considered themselves “skeptical” of climate change “were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.