Britain's The Independent has got into the spirit of bashing celebrities for their ungreen antics ...
Liz Hurley's long-haul wedding has produced a carbon footprint so large that it would take the average British couple more than 10 years to contribute as much to heating up the planet as she and Arun Nayar have done in little over a week. It would take a typical Indian couple a massive 123 years.
According to an Oxford-based footprinting consultancy, Hurley's celebrations will result in the release of around 200 tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon emissions really do mount when you charter Learjets. Only the bridal party flew by chartered jet from the Cotswalds to Mumbai -- everyone else had to go commercial. But there were seven Learjets to ferry important guests from Mumbai to Jodhpur. And then Elton John did fly his personal helicopter to Gloucestershire (sort of rhymes with Worcestershire). And the flowers and caterers were flown in too. It all adds up, I guess.
I'm not a big fan of Al Gore, but I was among those who reacted negatively when false accusations against the former VP picked up from USA Today were dragged into this forum. But I confess I'm warming to the idea of the press focusing more attention on celebrities, politicos, and every-day billionaires when their unnecessary carbon excesses reach the truly grotesque.
Two hundred tonnes of carbon for one celebrity wedding may be extraordinarily wasteful, and publicizing this may help shift public awareness toward a greater acceptance of needed measures like a carbon tax, but we also need some perspective. Peat and forest fires in Indonesia, where I live, are responsible for an estimated 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, according to a Wetlands International report cited on Mongabay.com, and may have exceeded 2.5 billion tonnes during the extreme El Nino year of 1997. See also this report in National Geographic. The U.S., the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, is responsible for 7-8 billion tonnes every year.
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 11:55 pm
10 Mar 2007
But this is just the latest partisan shot in a very much low-heat, back-burner controversy that comes up in Grist from time to time, and is a curious sociological phenomenon generally within the environmentalist community: Do our personal life-style choices, regarding being green, loving the environment, trying to conserve, actually matter? ("Paper or plastic?"); do they help, at all, really? Or, should we acknowledge that only inconceivably huge systemic changes, on the part of governments and globalized economic entities, can effect a truly positive movement?
It would probably be unfair to say that David Roberts is a "systemicist," while Umbra Fisk is a "personalist." Actually, that would probably be OK for DR (though, noteworthily, he seems to have gone vegetarian recently, for aesthetic as well as environmentalist reasons). On the other hand, UF seems to accept the systemicist point of view, while still believing that the personalist emphasis has value.
In that connexion, I am delighted that the traditional resentment on the part of us commoners toward ostentatious displays of wealth on the part of the rich-and-famous has taken on a solid environmentalist dimension, with the coverage of this ridiculous wedding. The powerful moral is this: Not only are the R-and-Fs insulting us, they are positively endangering us, and scientists can show how.
Whether UF actually believes what I said she believes, that position is mine. Our individual choices do indeed matter; the ethical judgments that are involved in making them provide the foundation for our support of the kind of big systemic changes that such wise leaders as DR envision.
Back to India: It was great that popular resentment expressed itself in two well-publicized events. The self-entitlement with which the Happy Couple erected a celebratory platform on a public beach in Mumbai must be slapped in the face whenever it shows itself; and I am very happy that that is what happened, when the platform was torn down amidst public outrage.
Also, I entirely understand the attitude of the Hindu priest, who refused to perform a wedding for Hurley and Arun in Jodhpur, which attitude might be expressed: "What the fuck, they were already married in England, the great colonialist power, so why the hell do they need me? I guess we Indians still don't really matter, do we. I refuse to be treated like a quaint ethnic goo-gaw, posing colorfully in one or two snapshots for their wedding album."
The "footprinting consultancy," Best Foot Forward, has done a fine job generally. But we should be just a bit suspicious, when some of their figures are very precise, while others are approximations trailing three or four zeroes. It would be unlikely that they could track the movements of everyone in the wedding party and among the guests. Also, I suspect they did not take full account of the movements of the media attending this event, definitely part of the footprint, as well as of the army of event-recorders that were the contracted employees of the Loving Couple.
On a rather different note, regarding rich celebrities, this time trying to do something good, the AP Sports reporter Eddie Pells has written a fascinating story about women's tennis great Andrea Jaeger, and her decision to become an Anglican Dominican nun. The sale of her Mercedes was apparently a big deal in her relationship with her father/coach. But he has come to accept and bless her decision. Her ministry is dedicated to the care of children with cancer.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:33 am
11 Mar 2007
If that attention is focused on all "celebrities, politicos, and every-day billionaires," then fine. What I have a problem with is the attention being focused only on those rich people who have spoken up about the need for environmental stewardship. The net effect of the latter would simply be to bully such people into silence. They wouldn't get any less rich. Their footprints wouldn't shrink. The sole result would be that the most influential and high-profile people in our society would be afraid to speak out about environmental issues.
Do we really want to get to a place where the only people we'll accept as champions of environmental issues are people who live in tiny houses, refuse to fly, and give away all their wealth to conservation organizations? That might make us feel better, but the practical effect would be that the public virtually never hears about the issues we care about.
I want as many people as possible talking about this stuff. That's my goal. Such a goal necessarily means that a lot of the people talking about it are going to be hypocrites. That strikes me as a small -- nay, negligible -- price to pay. I could give a shit about purity.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:29 am
11 Mar 2007
This kind of coverage will not cause the very wealthy to stop seeking status or spend less money (same difference).
However, it may cause them to spend it in other ways. For example, in the future, you might see the rich competing to see who can offset the most carbon by funding ecosystem carbon sink preservation, to be one-upped by the next celeb. Clooney drives his electric car, Hanks is having one built, Gore is beyond reproach and attacks on him are comical.
The rich would not make a dent in global warming by doing these things, however, people emulate the rich. If people began to emulate them, then you would see measurable changes.
It would have been nice if this wedding had asked guests to give as gifts, donations to preserve a few hundred square miles of ecosystem carbon sink: a piece of the planet spared in honor of their future children and grandchildren. Now that would have made a splash. A move like that could become a trend, even a tradition, for all weddings, not just for the rich.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:45 am
11 Mar 2007
Permalink
Robert Delfs Posted 1:28 pm
11 Mar 2007
I hardly mind a bit of hypocrisy from the "talent" when they are are willing to support the good fight in other ways. (In fact I often practice hypocrisy myself, and with that practice I think I'm getting better at it.) I do have trouble when the symbolics come to replace substance instead of promoting and driving it. Just buying the t-shirt isn't enough.
Robert Delfs
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:52 pm
11 Mar 2007
Despite my sloppy citation of an old Gore article, there is no doubt that Gore has a huge carbon footprint from his multiple mansions and his jet-setting around the world in a private jet- this is beyond dispute despite whether he buys carbon offsets or not and the thrust of the critiques of Gore DO have most of the basic facts right
I don't think this is a huge deal and I definitely agree with David that purity is an illusion that will hurt the cause of environmentalism- and always has
But...what does it tell us that our modern lifestyles are dependent on huge quantities of cheap energy? Probably a few things. First of all, if we are really going to deal with global warming energy will have to get significantly more costly, it will have to be rationed in some other way, or we're going to have to invent some amazing new technology- probably a combination of all 3 if I were to guess. This means that sacrifices need to be made- they don't necessarily have to be personal ones, but it is not going to be solved for "free"- there is no "win-win" situation- there are difficult choices ahead.
Finally, I've come to realize that just as I can look at people like Gore or Hurley and think how excessive their carbon footprint is, billions of people could look at me and my car, travel, surfboards, and long hot showers and feel exactly the same way- picking a dividing line between needs and excess is almost entirely arbitrary and gets us into touchy territory very quickly. This is what I thought was worthy of reflection a few days ago but seemed to get lost in the mix.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:31 pm
11 Mar 2007
Ah, Gore's "multiple mansions." He has one large house/office in Nashville -- 10,000 sq. ft.
It happens that both his and Tipper's parents died recently, and left behind houses, which are shuttered while the Gores decide what to do with them.
... his jet-setting around the world in a private jet ...
Gore flies commercial whenever possible, "jet-setting" on the way to giving his slide show two or three times a week to audiences around the country.
... this is beyond dispute ...
No it isn't.
... the thrust of the critiques of Gore DO have most of the basic facts right ...
No they don't. Let it go.
www.grist.org
Permalink
mihan Posted 10:39 pm
11 Mar 2007
Are you saying that you think that Uncle Al does not have a huge carbon footprint?
From where I'm standing, 10,000 sq' is more than a dozen times the space I have or want. You could fit at least two dozen graduate students into a space that size.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:46 am
12 Mar 2007
I think the author was getting warm. What is missing is a detailed study and explanation of status seeking behavior from an evolutionary psychology perspective.
Essentially, we are all shamed and ridiculed everyday for low status. God help the poor guy who goes to work in sideburns, a mullet, bell bottom pants, a wide lapel shirt with a gold chain, or a powdered wig for that matter. In the very least, we all comb our hair and wear clean clothes. We all strive, to different degrees depending on personality, to look good in other's eyes.
And, in a sense, it is addictive. The ideal that we are all looking for happiness is an evolutionary carrot that keeps us continually trying to scratch the status urge itch. NBA players play against NBA players, rich rubb elbows with rich, grad students with grad students (instead of plumbers) and on it goes. A sense of dissatisfaction sets in shortly after receiving a raise at work as one realizes others are advancing with or past you. A bachelor's degree fades, leading to a graduate, possibly a doctorate. Apartments with roommates give way to condos, spouses and children which give way to starter homes, which give way to new houses built on five acres in idyllic rural settings and on it goes until we can't pull anymore off and we hang on through old age.
It is an evolutionary treadmill that most deny, and even I wish were not true. I would differ with this author in that we should combine ridicule (poke fun at hummer drivers) and and praise (adulation of Al Gore for his film) to change what is a status symbol. In a sense the rich (rich is relative, even an impoverished grad student is rich compared to billions of others) are always giving away their money in return for status. Change what is a status symbol.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:13 am
12 Mar 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:31 am
12 Mar 2007
Buying green power from your utility doesn't count against your carbon footprint.
Buying carbon offsets doesn't count against your carbon footprint.
Retrofitting your house with solar panels, in-floor radiant heating, energy-efficient windows and appliances, and more insulation isn't enough.
Traveling tirelessly around the world raising awareness of global warming isn't enough.
The only thing that would exempt Gore from environmentalist scorn is buying a smaller house, telling his kids and grandkids to stay in hotels when they visit, and sharing one small office with Tipper and staff.
You could that argument. But why? Honestly. Why spend your time attacking the guy who's done more than anyone else alive to advance the ball on the issue you care about?
It just baffles me.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:18 am
12 Mar 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:57 am
12 Mar 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:11 am
12 Mar 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:45 am
12 Mar 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:47 am
12 Mar 2007
Is the job of Grist to be a perpetual apologist for rich CO2 spewers? I mean seriously, the reason that the 3rd World has to burn peet and stuff is so that Elizabeth Hurley and her boy toy can have a completely unnecessary Carbon Party with plenty of jute baskets.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:10 am
12 Mar 2007
(1) I find it interesting that folks are eager to lash out at someone for spending money on one thing or another. If Liz Hurely were not spending money on an elaborate second cermemony -- and, incidentally, transferring some of that money workers in a developing nation who could really use the cash for, say, food -- she would spend it on some other luxury. Perhaps the better question is... should our society allow people to accumulate so much wealth that they can afford to travel about the globe on private jets? I assume she is some actress. Perhaps those criticizing what she does should just stop going to see her movies, stop supporting her lifestyle. Ignore her.
(2) I enjoy cutting hypocrites down to size just like the next person, but I question the value of it. I've been reading a lot lately about Environmentalists not living up to their ideals, here and elsewhere. It is clear that no one is perfect. It is also clear that we never have ALL of the facts about a person. It seems like someone can behave perfectly in every way, but will be branded as evil if they happen to have one or two flaws. What's the point in living if we are not going to have any fun whatsoever? Perhaps Liz Hurely deserves the second wedding... a reward for all of her effort to... I don't know what she has done... but no one bothered pointing it out.
(3) I'd like to see more information about people enjoying life and doing positive things... demonstrating that we can experience a good life and preserve the biosphere without moving into mud huts and contemplating our navel 24/7. I have to agree with what I THINK is Dave Robert's opinion... that we can maintain a decent standard of living, each enjoy a few luxuries, AND save the environment. I still regret criticizing the LEED Platinum house. The general public is not going to be persuaded to GIVE UP STUFF, so we should focus on ensuring their STUFF doesn't destroy the biosphere. Dave, please forgive me if this is incorrect.
(4) Progressives and/or Environmentalists ripping on people like Al Gore and Liz Hurely will not shame people into being better stewards of the planet. It will only convince them to not bother trying and/or encourage the Anit-Environmentalists to continue resisting change. I think they are still hoping this wacky craze will implode so corporations can continue squeezing every last bit of short-term wealth from our dying planet.
Forward!
Permalink
Robert Delfs Posted 10:36 am
12 Mar 2007
http://www.thesevenseas.net/images/boat22.jpg
The main engine of The Seven Seas boat burns 50 L/hr, or 3.2 gals/hr - not bad for a 33 meter (108 foot) 250-tonne Phinisi schooner. Plus the outboards on the tenders, and the generators (which are on all the time). As the main engine was probably only running 8 hours a day in Komodo, let's call it a round 3000 L (800 gal) of fuel for our week-long diving adventure. Not counting our flights from Bali to Labuanbajo and back. We won't even consider the fuel your 747 burned getting you from the US to Bali, Indonesia in the first place. And back.
A Learjet consumes about 500 L/hr cruising, so the fuel we used on our dive trip could have covered about 7.5 hours flying time had we been riding with Al Gore on one of his friend's planes - enough for a comfortable coast-to-coast plus maybe a quick run up to British Columbia for some fly fishing and back, eh? Oh right, you don't eat fish. Let's make it a run to Hawaii, then.
Am I condemning you for your energy profligate ways, Jason? Hardly. I was on the boat too, nor was that my only dive trip last year. But I've already confessed to my hypocrisy once in this thread. And I do make a tiny bit of a living at this.
I guess that's the trouble with Neo Cons generally. It's not really about the truth, or solving the problem, but just finding angles to smear people you think are liberals. (cf. Newt Gingrich, and so many others.) Yes, I know, you were "just raising questions." Personally, I still think your "Dirty Al" post was dirty pool, but surely anyone whose signature in this forum identifies them as "teaching environmental economics" should be fair game. Unless, that is, you think personal lifestyle choices are not relevant.
Robert Delfs
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:05 am
12 Mar 2007
Above I was making the exact point that I am as guilty as anyone of using lots of resources- try to read the threads okay? It's the least you can do. And yes, yours and I personal lifestyles have a carbon footprint that's huge, which is why I don't think throwing stones is a good strategy. If we went point by point I almost sure that my footprint would be smaller than yours, but there's no need to go there- it's stupid. I have nothing to prove to you whatsoever. Trust me on that. And to insinuate that environmental economics is somehow a negative, places you in a fringe so far out there that I fear you may never come back down to Earth.
Anyway, my earlier piece on "An Opportunity For Reflection" was meant to be just that- to wonder how we've gotten ourselves into the situation where we are all so dependent on cheap energy and all of our footprints are so huge. I'll keep working on solutions to this and you can keep doing whatever you feel is best, but I will no longer partake in a tit-for-tat over such ridiculous nonsense- it's such a brain drain and waste of time. Feel free to trash me as much as you want if that's what gets you off. Best to you.
J.S.
P.S. David- if you want to defend Gore's carbon footprint go for it- I fully admit that I had some of the facts wrong, most definitely, but the BIG fact- that he uses huge quantities of energy for his personal life- orders of magnitude more than most rich Americans- is simply not debatable.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:11 am
12 Mar 2007
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Robert Delfs Posted 12:37 pm
12 Mar 2007
Let's not get into a discussion of definitions of liberal or Liberalism here, or anywhere, OK?
I can't imagine why you think my post about our dive trip together constitutes "trashing" you. After all, I was on the same boat, so I'm not accusing you of responsibility for a single gram of carbon emissions that week that I wasn't equally responsible for as well. Did my converting our fuel consumption during that trip into its equivalent in hours of flight time on a Learjet with Al Gore somehow seem derogatory to you?
As for "personalizing" everything, can we keep in mind that you're the one who tried to demonize Al Gore in this forum for his personal carbon footprint.."Look, I'm a policy guy and I don't think changes in personal lifestyles are the holy grail (in fact, I think they're way overrated), but this left me shaking my head." ... and taunted David Roberts by saying that his defense of Gore was tantamount to arguing that "personal lifestyle choices are not relevant."
Why should Al Gore's large personal carbon footprint be relevant, but not yours?
That's all I meant by the reference to your "teaching environmental economics", by the way. Tin men shouldn't throw can openers.
Robert Delfs
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:12 pm
12 Mar 2007
Why doesn't someone just go out and measure Gore's footprint, to put this all to rest?
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:18 pm
12 Mar 2007
Permalink
mihan Posted 10:51 pm
12 Mar 2007
You put many words into my mouth that were never there. I never said (nor never will say) that Al isn't doing a lot (more ethan most of us) for the environment, I'm just saying... damn, the guy uses a lot of resources.
Whether he reduces or mitigates his energy use or not is a separate question. Whether what he's doing is ethical is a separate question.
I eat lots of cake. I exercise a lot, so I'm quite fit, thank you very much, but I still eat lots of cake.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:58 pm
12 Mar 2007
That's what I've learned from this post about Liz Hurley.
While people debate the superiority, inferiority, hypocrisy, et cetera of the rich and famous, there are real problems demanding real solutions. I would have preferred to see Jason invest time in responding to my recent comment under "Priorities". Even if one does not agree with him, it is important to learn about his views on environmental issues. There must be some common ground out there, but we will not reveal it by engaging in personal attacks on one another. We must try to understand each other's views.
The wealthy are not going anywhere soon. Numerous cultures have attempted to purge themselves of the aristocracy and failed. In my opinion, we might want to learn to work with the evolutionary baggage we have rather than the baggage we would prefer to have.
Forward!
Permalink