This exactly. I would like to be a New York Times bestseller and tour the world on a private jet and speak to audiences every where to sign copies and tell them what they need to do and not do to mitigate their carbon footprint while I have more vehicles and more house than I need.
I'm a bit of a climate change skeptic myself. I believe it is occurring, and that the earth is unquestionably warming, but I don't believe we have an accurate and wholesale understanding of man's contribution to climate change.
That said, I've never understood the critique that because Al Gore or some notable celebrities use private jets, or live in a large home, that that means their activism is hypocritical, etc. I get that the idea is that they're not practicing what they preach. But, if it's accurate that man's contributions to climate change are the majority factor driving global warming, I don't see isolated individuals' contributions carbon emissions being that important. If what the climate change community says is true, the major factors that would mitigate climate change are almost all large-scale policy changes having to do with industrial emissions, vehicle emissions, energy efficiency and energy sourcing, etc.
In other words, a private jet or a large home is a drop in the bucket compared to policy that impacts a majority of the world's population in the countries that have the highest per-capita or overall emissions levels. That's not to say individual efforts and actions in bulk don't matter -- they do -- but that a handful of people flying in private jets and living in large homes are a drop in the bucket. Sure, it may be a bit silly when they push prescriptions like setting one's thermostat to 80 degrees, but that's not the key message behind their advocacy. They all believe large-scale policy changes are needed to impact the largest sources of emissions. Those large emitters have the biggest impact, and research dollars and policy efforts should be focused on things that reduce emissions the most and in the quickest way possible.
I don't really understand the criticism of these people for using jets, or continuing to live a life of relative largesse, outside of when they push policy prescriptions that would have a disproportionate impact on the average American or global citizen. For instance, some people get outraged that some of these folks want lower vehicle emissions, alternative/green energy sources, and electric vehicles.
Fact is, if we want to quickly reduce emissions and attack some of the larger sources of emissions, reducing vehicle emissions by legislative or regulatory policy is actually one of the easier ones to go after. More fuel efficient vehicles that emmit less is beneficial in numerous ways outside of climate change, so it's a sensible policy for the government to pursue. We can argue all we want that the free market should dictate this, but environmental policy is one of those areas in which the free market doesn't deliver solutions unless there is a stick to backup any potential carrot.
Why would vehicle manufacturers invest in fuel efficiency technology, emissions reduction, or even electric vehicles if their only incentive is consumers buying their products? Because in a free market, a vehicle manufacturer will simply try to deliver the cheapest product possible to increase overall sales or will increase cost per vehicle by adding convenience features that people can be motivated into desiring. Fuel efficiency only becomes a factor when fuel isn't cheap, and emissions never become a factor because it's not in the top 50 of what 95% of consumers care about.
How can you get vehicle manufacturers to reduce emissions except by government mandate? Whether that's a specific emissions mandate or a cap and trade carbon tax style system is irrelevant. Without some kind of government mandate there is zero reason a manufacturer will try to reduce emissions. Without expensive fuel there is zero reason manufacturers will try to increase fuel economy. Look at the 1950's until the 1980's. The only thing that led manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency was oil shocks. The only thing that got them to reduce emissions was government mandate. Europe provides a good comparison and confirmation as it pertains to fuel efficiency. Manufacturers there were incentivized to increase fuel economy because consumers demanded it. Why did consumers demand it? Because of the insane fuel taxes in Europe.
My point is, Gore and celebrities know that you cannot voluntary change consumer behavior very easily no matter how grim the potential consequences are. Look at California's water shortage crisis. Consumers and industry resisted efforts to reduce water consumption across the board until it was either mandated or they faced fines or excessive usage charges. The idea that they might one day run out of water wasn't convincing or motivating to the vast majority of California's population. And California is one of the most receptive places in the world to ideas that protect or help the environment.
So when Gore and others are flying around the world trying to convince people that climate change is an immediate problem and deadly, they're not trying to get people to change their individual habits. They're trying to convince people to believe that it's an existential threat so that they will vote in politicians and governments that will then mandate changes. Because that's the only way to get people to change their behavior in this area. It's the same reason behind why the EPA was established. You can ask consumers and manufacturers to not use certain chemicals or pesticides, or tell them that discharging chemicals and waste into rivers and water sources is very bad, but until we had a regulatory agency with the ability to fine people substantial amounts of money or shut their business down, little had changed.
I'm quite Libertarian on most issues, but there are certain areas in which the free market or positive incentives are unable to change behavior. It's a another post for another time, but this also applies to Healthcare (and, no, I don't support a one payer government administered system, but the government absolutely has a role to play in Healthcare). It will take a lot of time and too many words to address it, but believing this is actually not a contradiction to small government. Instead, it's about the government only being involved in certain things in the most effective way possible without over-regulating or over-burdening people and businesses. Usually the government ends up doing the opposite because their efforts are based on bad or rushed policy prescriptions and decisions, and they're not given the appropriate tools to do the job or held accountable for their failures.
