Climate change is a global societal problem - any one persons carbon footprint doesn't really matter. Living the life of a carbon saint does very little to solve the problem, it just eases the individual's conscience in a misguided way.
I've heard this rebuttal many times, but that's not what anybody means when pointing out the hypocrisy. We're not talking about Joe Smith off the street. Obviously Al Gore's heated swimming pool or Obama's beachfront vacation mansion or some celebrity ski weekends to Switzerland have near zero global-scale environmental damage. That's not the point. We're not talking about the physical things or the physical result of the things but the public's psychological response of these people's actions and how other's perceive it. That matters perhaps millions of times more than the physical and chemical interactions of these people moving atoms around physically during their lives. That kind of behavior sure doesn't seem congruous with an individual who holds true conviction and lectures the rest of us about the massive dangerous of our wasteful lifestyles. Instead, they look like the behavior of an opportunist who is using the cause du jour to increase personal power.
Tons of people will notice this and conclude it is a giant crock of shit. And they would be correct that the facts and behaviors are not congruous here with the claimed conviction about the severity of the "crisis" these people claim. When the stated program requires coordinated behavior changes from all over but the leaders who actually have a leveraged ability to both impact policy and public relations through absolutely minimal and trivial self sacrifice of not buying a mansion show total disregard in their personal actions, it becomes pretty clear they just don't care and are more interested in power.
Humans don't like unfairness, and they don't like hypocrisy in their leaders. These are actually pretty good heuristics because if leaders can't sense this and formulate a plan without those problems, they're probably pretty shitty leaders because those traits don't tend to go along with leaders who get results.
Sure, it would be nice if the UN staff lived low carbon lifestyles, but if by some miracle they managed to actually do something about the problem, it would be more than worth their unavoidable hypocrisy.
See my point above. It's not like these people are getting results despite their hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, nonexistent principles, greed, etc and shitty results tend to be correlated. And we as "commoners" shouldn't defend out team's bad behavior just because we believe in the cause. Ultimately we pay a bigger long-term cost by alienating others from the cause by showing that we ourselves don't really believe in integrity and truth. The same applies to failing to call out shitty "science" and fear mongering journalism too, but this comment has already gotten long enough.
We're not talking about the physical things or the physical result of the things but the public's psychological response of these people's actions and how other's perceive it.
These are actually pretty good heuristics because if leaders can't sense this and formulate a plan without those problems, they're probably pretty shitty leaders because those traits don't tend to go along with leaders who get results.
That sounds nice, but I think our leaders are corrupt hypocritical scum - it doesn't stop them getting stuff done when those who matter want it. We end up following orders regardless of the hypocrisy, their moral standing, and whether the particular laws are popular or not. People mostly do what their told (often via ideas they're fed by the media), and that includes being offended by whatever hypocrisy we're supposed to be offended by.
If we had hypocrites who somehow wished to do the right thing about climate change, I think they technically could get stuff done. Leaders with integrity would of course be leagues better, but they don't seem to be on the menu - we have been lost for a long time.
That sounds nice, but I think our leaders are corrupt hypocritical scum - it doesn't stop them getting stuff done when those who matter want it.
A good rule to understand what's going on is to look at their actions and ignore their words. Their actions--both in their personal life and the policy they implement--suggest they don't care about the environment but do care about corporate profit and increasing their own power. It's that simple. This is why the hypocrisy matters because if you really believe in a cause, it tends to have observable results in their actions. To rise to these kind of positions, you optimize for wealth, influence, social standing, power, etc. None of that matches their feigned concern. So why are they lying and putting on the public show? Is it more reasonable to conclude that these people really believe and somehow made it to the top of institutions that are made up of people and culture focus and reward endlessly increasing growth, power, and wealth, or does it seem more likely that these are just power-hungry opportunists who will say whatever they think will give them more power?
This is the exact same principle of the stupidity of corporations on social issue. Nike really is a great company that cares about equality--which is why they also love abusive child labor sweatshops and human slavery. It's hilarious really, but lots of dumb people apparently can't see through the show.
If we had hypocrites who somehow wished to do the right thing about climate change, I think they technically could get stuff done.
They could probably get at least some tiny amount done theoretically, but the whole scenario falls apart with a reasonable amount of thought. They'd also be far less effective than a non-hypocrite, all other factors equal, for the social leadership reasons. And who are these hypocrite leaders that truly believe but simultaneously do nothing about it? I'd like names. I'm not aware of any. We need to shun hypocrities and phonies, not just ignore their bad behavior because it happens to pander to us and the other "side" is ignoring our pleas. Covering up bad behavior from fake allies doesn't help in the long run.
It makes no sense. What would happen to a church led by a pastor who preaches against gays but turns uses male hookers and smokes meth? Most people wouldn't just follow orders and accept the official story. It would create chaos. They'd drop out and it would impact recruitment. For any extended project, it would definitely compromise success. People want to follow orders from a real, genuine, committed leader--not a hypocrite.
But of course we're being quite hypothetical here because I bet most of the Davos crowd isn't really worried or believe in it. Their personal actions, investments, and policies suggest that they're not just hypocrites but rather power-hungry egoists finding a channel to increase their own standing.
Climate change is a global societal problem - any one persons carbon footprint doesn't really matter. Living the life of a carbon saint does very little to solve the problem, it just eases the individual's conscience in a misguided way.
Sure, it would be nice if the UN staff lived low carbon lifestyles, but if by some miracle they managed to actually do something about the problem, it would be more than worth their unavoidable hypocrisy.
The vast majority of our leaders are scum, and we don't seem to care to elect better ones...