<p>I don’t kown about Celebs, but I do know there are some CEOs who fly in private jets, etc., but pay others (such as businesses) to reduce their pollution in order to offset the CEOs extra output from CEOs.</p>
<p>Rather than making the case that driving a fuel efficient car doesn’t offset jet fuel, I’d like to see a list/rankings of the number of gas guzzlers (Hummers, for example) that the celebs own. </p>
<p>I go crazy every time I see a Hummer (even the smaller ones) in my suburban neighborhood. Where do people think they are going that they need these things? Out to eat? The shopping mall?</p>
<p>Odyssey, the thing is, it’s people’s choice what they drive. They have to pay for the gas and the vehicle. </p>
<p>It’s like people who are fat, yet we see them eating supersized fries and 2 Big Macs and washing it down with an extra-large sugar-laden soda at Mickey D’s. </p>
<p>Both sets of people are harming us in their own way (more gas-dependency on foreign countries and higher health costs for all of us)</p>
<p>We make not like what either of these groups are doing (Hummer-drivers and fat people), but it’s not against the law. </p>
<p>And do we really want the government telling us what to do any more than they already do? </p>
<p>Personally, I’ve had enough of the nanny-state.</p>
<p>I disagree with the thought that if you’re not environmentally conservation-minded in every aspect of your life, and at all times, that you’re a hypocrite. That’s nonsense. Everyone should be conscious of the choices that they make but I think it’s wrong to discredit anyone’s attempts at conservation, or healthy eating habits, or doing good in any way, even if they are not 100% consistent. Glass houses here, people. I don’t recall seeing any celebrities touting the fact that they drive a hybrid, with the exception of Ed Begley, Jr. who has been involved with environmental and conservation issues for decades. </p>
<p>dadguy’s post#17 is an excellent, and honest, one. </p>
<p>fountainsiren, I’m not sure I understand your comment in post#16 about those “who could really save a buck on the puddle-jumper”?</p>
<p>alwaysamom: I absolutely agree. Everyone cannot be 100% consistent. We’re all human. </p>
<p>That’s why I cannot understand that when a conservative goes astray, everyone hammers him/her for rank hypocrisy.
But when a liberal goes astray, he/she are given the benefit of the doubt and sometimes even applauded. </p>
<p>The inconsistency is very noticeable - at least by ordinary Janes like me.</p>
<p>Uh, Brandon’s mom - did you forget which thread you were in when you wrote that post^^^^? I know you feel picked on, but this thread is about an article hammering liberals for perceived hypocrisy. My personal assessment is that accusations of hypocrisy are equally distributed - and equally pointless, in my opinion.</p>
<p><strong><em>sigh</em></strong></p>
<p>Kluge, don’t you have anything better to do than follow me around? ;-)</p>
<p>Kluge fits the classic stalker profile, but is probably carbon-neutral.</p>
<p>Driver, great point! </p>
<p>It’s okay. He makes me laugh out loud.</p>
<p>Driver - you have to stop stalking me!</p>
<p>Why is it that conservatives like the nanny state for some things (all those big bad wedge issues, on which they want government legislation) but not on others?</p>
<p>Why is it OK for someone to drive around in a big bad gas guzzling honker vehicle? That offends my sensibilities, and yet I am supposed to be worried about conservative sensibilities on subjects such as gay marriage? That makes no sense.</p>
<p>Are you equally critical of people living in energy-wasting million dollar homes in the Boston area as you are of those who drive hummers?</p>
<p>Fundingfather - I can’t speak for Boston, but I have been working hard to get a law enacted which would require people in my part of the S.F. Bay area who build McMansions to design enough photovoltaic capacity into their homes to offset the extra electricity they consume. Of course, a lot of the McMansion-dwellers drive Hummers, too. :)</p>
<p>No McMansion for me, FF. I can’t stand the things. Big wastes of space and energy. No one needs nine bathrooms, unless you are running a boarding house.</p>
<p>Depends on how you define a McMansion. To most people it’s any house that is larger than their’s and hence subject to envy-driven scorn. I would say that any million dollar house in Boston, no matter how “humble” it seems to the owner, consumes far more energy than what an “average” house does.</p>
<p>You obviously have never been to Boston.</p>
<p>I can show you a lot of million dollar 2,000 sq. ft. tract houses that are quite energy efficient, thank you.</p>
<p>I can one up Kluge, and show you some million dollar <em>1000</em> sf houses (equally energy efficient).</p>
<p>No one has yet stated whether any of these celebrities, other than DiCaprio, is publicly criticizing others for over-consumption of energy.</p>
<p>If they aren’t doing that, they aren’t hypocrites (at least not on this subject).</p>
<p>I am careful to turn off the lights when I leave the room, but I have a TiVo that stays plugged in all the time. Am I a hypocrite for doing that? Why?</p>
<p>Who’s heard Arianna Huffington talk about how we are funding terrorists by driving gas guzzlers, but that it’s okay for HER to fly in a private jet across the country “because it was going that way anyway?”</p>
<p>Or how Robert Kennedy Jr’s family refuses to have windmills installed near their Hyannis port compound - what, will it block their view of the ocean? But it’s an alternative energy source, right? Jr is an outspoken big-car critic, isn’t he?</p>
<p>I know there’s some more of them, but those two are the ones I can think of right off the bat.</p>