I don't think this is a good argument. For one, the left uses hypocrisy as a tool. They are not shamed by it. More importantly, the argument itself is easily countered logically. One can simply say that yes, plane flights emit CO2, but if we use those plane flights to save the world then it's worth it. After all, lots of plane flights happen every day regardless. When you try to cleverly win points against that, you just come off sounding like they guy in the well: https://i.imgur.com/rhqkiNw.jpg
Pointing out hypocrisy unrelated to activism is more effective. For example, Al Gore lives in a mansion that uses 20x the amount of energy as an average American home. There's no activist purpose to justify that, it's just excessive consumption by a wealthy elite.
There's no activist purpose to justify that, it's just excessive consumption by a wealthy elite.
One could also approach the initial argument from that angle. They're spending so much money to have a celebrity(?) and TV crew travel around the world, only to tell you that you shouldn't be able to do the same thing because jet fuel melts the ice caps.
As the article points out, BBC already has urnalists all over the place, so this amounts to a frivolous joyride.
No doubt they'll pull some made up "here's how much CO2 our message helped to stop emit; which is far more than the plane flights" numbers. Normies will eat it up.
I don't think this is a good argument. For one, the left uses hypocrisy as a tool. They are not shamed by it. More importantly, the argument itself is easily countered logically. One can simply say that yes, plane flights emit CO2, but if we use those plane flights to save the world then it's worth it. After all, lots of plane flights happen every day regardless. When you try to cleverly win points against that, you just come off sounding like they guy in the well: https://i.imgur.com/rhqkiNw.jpg
Pointing out hypocrisy unrelated to activism is more effective. For example, Al Gore lives in a mansion that uses 20x the amount of energy as an average American home. There's no activist purpose to justify that, it's just excessive consumption by a wealthy elite.
They don't need to fly around the world to "save" it.
There are people closer to it who can film it.
They can have their climate eco cult meetings by video-conference.
They can surrender their private jets to the junk yard for recycling.
They don't really believe their own buillshit. They just want to inflict their policies on 99% of the population.
He isn't saving the world. "But I'm raising awareness!" is just a parasite's excuse for special treatment.
And before that, it was "It doesn't matter that we lied entirely about this thing or fake event, we started a conversation about x topic"
One could also approach the initial argument from that angle. They're spending so much money to have a celebrity(?) and TV crew travel around the world, only to tell you that you shouldn't be able to do the same thing because jet fuel melts the ice caps.
As the article points out, BBC already has urnalists all over the place, so this amounts to a frivolous joyride.
No doubt they'll pull some made up "here's how much CO2 our message helped to stop emit; which is far more than the plane flights" numbers. Normies will eat it up.
Yes, you can say that, but what behavior would you then restrict? Nothing. All it's sayin is "I'm going to do whatever i want."
To which: So am I. Welcome to the club.