WE STAND AT THE CUSP OF A GLOBAL environmental crisis. If the most hysterical and demonstrative among us are to be believed, there are major climate changes just around the corner that will have an awe-striking impact on our everyday lives — the polar ice caps are disintegrating, average global temperatures are spiking, and Al Gore is trying to become heftier than a sumo wrestler before the snows of Kilimanjaro fully evaporate.
It’s a race against time and we don’t know who’s going to win.
As all this ramps up, some of our more notable and wealthy citizens in politics, entertainment and business have taken public positions as conservationists and green thumbs. I don’t need to name names or go into specifics here, you know who I’m talking about: the slick Hollywood actor who zips around in a Prius, the Congressman who spends his weekend planting indigenous fauna, the billionaire who mugs for the camera in front of a recently donated wind farm. Standing up for the environment isn’t just cool, it’s a prerequisite to acceptance in high-rolling circles. Never mind the actual impact these celebrities and people of power have on our earth, it’s their noble stance and the general awareness they create that’s important. Their eco-friendly attitudes supposedly trickle down to us, the teeming masses, who are too busy drooling in front of “Fear Factor” to understand that we’re about to be incinerated by the ever-warming atmosphere around us.
But, as has been said so many times in so many ways, the rich aren’t like you and me. As they live their fabulous lives and spread their fabulous message of renewable energy and conservation, there are costs. Like the emission of a massive amount of polluting carbon that would surpass the total output of entire extended families or an entire village in any Third World nation. You see, the average person of prominence has so many material items (automobiles, planes, mansions, etc.) and has to travel so often to maintain their fabulous profile, that the very mouthpieces telling us to cut down on our energy consumption are among the biggest polluters in the known world.
Naturally, something had to be done about this without disrupting the flow of day-to-day life for these people. The genius solution is called “carbon offsetting” whereby the polluter continues to pollute like a drunken brute, but gets to feel good about themselves by “offsetting” their carbon output with the purchase of credits (often newly planted trees) that neutralize carbon in the environment. The net effect of this is that the offsetter is carbon neutral: they spewed a bunch of hurtful crap into the atmosphere, but then cut a big check to some obscure farm in Ecuador so a few saplings could be planted in their honor. Essentially, it’s eco-alimony. You pay a wad of cash to some far off place that you’d rather not think about in an effort to feel better about your shameful past.
There are so many ways in which this is wrongheaded and moronic that it’s hard to know where to start. Since the entire environmental movement depends on getting billions of people to leap into action, the idea is that the prominent, recognizable people are supposed to set an example. After all, the actions of one, solitary person recycling and living an eco-friendly existence really isn’t going to do jack in the long run. We need massive change on a massive scale. So when a senator or rock star activist is among the biggest polluters on the planet and does nothing about it other than plant a row of shrubs half a continent away, the overall message is losing some of its impact.
Essentially, these people are saying, “I’m too important to change the way I live my life.” OK, fine. If you can’t give up the cross-country Gulfstream jet flights, I probably can’t give up my normal lightbulbs for eco-friendly florescent bulbs that cost $5 a pop and have a hideous glare that makes me feel like I’ve been abducted onto an alien operating table.
The environmental movement is about action. And when some of the biggest proponents of change for the sake of our climate default on their pledge to act, it really makes it hard for the rest of us to get on board. Imagine telling your kid they can beat up anyone they’d like at recess, as long as they send a check to South American Fund for Recess Violence Prevention. Or if your boss sexually harassed you, but was absolved of wrongdoing as a “harassment neutral” individual supporting sexually harassed Eskimos in Alaska.
Do you think you can eat all the chocolate cake you want if you pay some poor sucker in Russia to eat nothing but fruits and vegetables? Can you have your cake and eat it too?
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 29, 2007. Read the original PDF.