A good article on celebrity eco-hypocrites...
Even Leonardo DiCaprio, generally regarded as a serious sort not given to excessive grandstanding, came up short in May when quizzed about his travel habits: "I try as often as possible to fly commercially," he offered.
"As often as possible"—as though there are times it's simply impossible to avoid flying private. As though forces beyond his control occasionally abduct Leo, drug him, and drag his limp body onto an executive jet.
It's always galling to be exhorted to curb your consumption by people who are living the poshest lifestyle imaginable. But the problem here goes beyond aesthetics. Eco-hypocrites undercut the very message they're trying to peddle. How desperate could the planet's plight be if the people who present themselves as most concerned about it consider flying first-class commercial an unacceptable sacrifice? Why should anyone bother to carpool when Streisand requires her own convoy? Or forgo A/C for a fan when Edwards is chilling in the largest house in his county? The implication of the hypocrites' behavior is that we must take all measures to fight global warming short of those that would reduce our quality of life. But a reduction in quality of life—or at least a redefinition of it—is exactly what Americans are going to have to accept to make a meaningful dent in greenhouse gas levels.
Pressed to explain their lifestyles, celebrities sometimes fall back on the claim that the behavior of individuals is, essentially, irrelevant—that the reform that's needed is really at the industrial and national level. As DiCaprio put it, "In the long term it's about instilling [environmentally friendly principles] into governments and corporations so these things are part of our everyday lives." In other words, he's saying, conservation is less a moral imperative than a personal virtue. Who knew we'd ever see the day when Hollywood lefties would be echoing Dick Cheney?