“But Hypocrisy”

Nothing worse than double standards. Scientists ought to lead by example. At least those who seek to lead should. That’s the whole damn point of leadership. If climate leaders still refuse to reduce their footprints, they send themselves into irrelevancy.

Examples

Interesting to watch how media lauds the “liberal Pope” when it comes to anti capitalism/climate, but avoids issues they oppose

(Adam)

…and flying on private planes to climate-change conferences.

(Joseph)

Objections and Replies

By Your Logic.
☞ Then you must buy the biggest and meanest pick-up and turn it into roiling coal machine {}, must you?

Cities. To keep living big time in cities isn’t coherent with the belief in AGW—
☞ On the contrary, better land-use management will be needed. Let’s rewild!

Conferences. Scientists fly to exotic places to meet—
☞ We all should fly less {1}. CO2 production can be offset.

Habits. Those who want to save the planet have habits that destroy—
☞ Those who seek to destroy the planet are at least being consistent when they spread inactivism online. But are they really inactivist when they do?

Jet Set.

Mansions. Some people who lament AGW buy ocean-view mansions—
☞ When insurers will refuse to cover their property, that might change. Meanwhile, let’s bear in mind that AGW is a collective action problem.

Notes

{1} Symbols Matter. The effort of the scientific community in reducing its footprint is mostly symbolic. In a PR venture, symbols matter.

* * *

Further Readings

2018-12; Functional, symbolic and societal frames for automobility: Implications for sustainability transitions; DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.008

2018-06; Petro-masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire; DOI: 10.1177/0305829818775817