I agree--sort of...

The "ideals" in this case have to do with spreading the word, not with avoiding energy consumption.  It's important to remember the subject of the discussion.  If it takes glitz to spread the word, then use glitz: it's a matter of leverage, not of specific actions.

But then, who are these "environmentalists" who "are not willing to take the first steps?" There's quite a difference between "first steps" and zero consumption--your brush is too broad.

I haven't owned a vehicle for nearly 40 years.  Are you still waiting for me to take a first step?

Where have all the horses gone?

i would file the original article in the "how far we have to go" drawer and forget it. wow, the transport infrastructure in the USA is browner than a coal-burning stove. SHOCK.

run through the list of crimes that the movie critic talked about and every one of them has a near-term policy response ready and waiting.

it WOULD be pretty easy for sundance -- one of the world's biggest media confabs -- to pass the hat to the industry and raise capital for a true push past offsets into zero-ness for the event -- consistent with redford's own environmental activism -- and it would be a good chance to highlight the work of neighboring RMI.

but i think when you look at a big event like this -- an institution -- i don't think it's quite the same as what you would expect from an individual; for instance, my home does NOT run on renewable energy but no one in their right mind would describe my advocacy of clean power as "greenwashing" -- because it's advocacy -- not public relations.

i'm not a public figure, it's not about "my image," it's about "our future."

still -- at every level you have to ask, "what have you really accomplished"  -- but once you get up to that institutional level the motives really start being important.

(al gore's rep is an open target, rightly so. he's loaded and he's heavily invested in clean tech. what he has is both a very productive commitment to a greener future and a conflict of interest. although he's also "doing good and doing right" so where's the conflict. he thinks it's the future. he's investing in the future. SHOCK.)

the main crime of the NYT writer was in not interviewing someone from the festival about their greening plans. that oversight, because the writer is not a real reporter, with a real news editor watching over.

The "energy usage to zero" catcall is of course just a stupid right-wing strawman. Nobody ever said that's what's needed to deal with climate change.

But what is needed is the elimination of high-impact luxury consumption.

And therefore a basic moral, character criterion for anyone who claims to care about climate change or energy and environmental issues and values in general is that he purge such luxury consumption from his own lifestyle.

Otherwise, he has more in common with a "family-values" republican who cheats on his wife than with a principled activist.

What's even the point of claiming a principle if it's not actually living the principle which invigorates you as a human being?

(Certainly, as a matter of flexible tactics, you do what you have to do. In a war one should not unilaterally disarm in any way.

 If it takes glitz to spread the word, then use glitz: it's a matter of leverage, not of specific actions.

This is true, although "if" is a question-begging word.)

Hypocrites, on the other hand, are just mere creatures seeking some wretched temporal gratification - money, whatever.

I fear, alas, that many among the environmental PTB revile this truth (in the past I've been attacked for expressing it).  

an entertainment section feature is not a news story. it bears no more weight than a similar story in a glossy celebrity magazine.

I agree. Sundance has evolved from an experiment into an institution, and like all institutions its basic premises need questioning from time to time. Sundance was created to foster new film-makers and give them industry exposure. Why does it need to do that in Park City? Could it be done better elsewhere? Could it be done better in a totally different way?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

The real hypocrisy is coming from the critics who claim to be patriotic nationalists but sell their own country out in the name of corporate profit.

They insist that status quo energy economy policies, like invasion, occupation, and nation building to obtain oil is good for the nation.  And that GHG climate change is a liberal hoax designed to undermine our culture.

In fact oil wars, gas guzzling, and energy policy that benefits the multi-national corporate bottomine at the expense of our economy and climate, is handing our american revolution right back into the hands of entities that began with feudal institutions like the British East India Tea Company.

How is that for hypocrisy?  It kind of makes an eco-activist riding in limos and jets, who advocates green energy indpendence, a real patriot by comparison.

We all depend upon the present combustion powered technology our culture has embraced, but some of us want to change that.  And revive the american revolution.  Meanwhile the limboobs want to cancel the constitution and live under the corporatist thumb.  Which hypocrisy hurts more?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

"No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."
- Edmund Burke

My father is a supervisor for a coal-power plant and is, obviously, an AGW denier. He calls me a hypocrite because I don't live in a mud house. I tell him I'm doing everything I can within my financial means and by helping others and my community do the same.

However, I fear that if we are able to save the climate then the deniers and polluters will just say, "Ha! Told you nothing would happen." And then nothing changes and we still have an impending crisis. Basically a delaying of the inevitable. I almost think humanity needs a good beat down to put it in its place. Of course it's not fair to the poor or the rest of the natural eco-system. I'm not very optimistic that humanity will learn in time. I think humanity will screw this up. Humans don't take the necessary precautions to prevent disasters until AFTER they occur (aka Katrina). But this time AFTER will be too late.

I find it really annoying when people try to undermine the message by expecting perfection from the messenger. I think it is far better to be a hypocrite struggling toward improvement than to hide behind the moral purity of consistent arrogance and ignorance.