Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Mar 25, 2016 with 56 responses

Magical Thinking On Climate Change

In my previous article — Leonardo DiCaprio’s Huge Carbon Footprint — I discussed the seeming inconsistency of Leonardo DiCaprio’s climate change activism and his excessive fossil fuel consumption. My argument was that with his own large carbon footprint, DiCaprio is undermining his message and making himself an easy target for critics.

My argument wasn’t specifically that he is a hypocrite, although that has indeed been the argument of many. But others have argued that DiCaprio isn’t a hypocrite at all, because he isn’t actually asking anyone to sacrifice. This is the position articulated well by David Roberts at Vox in Rich climate activist Leonardo DiCaprio lives a carbon-intensive lifestyle, and that’s (mostly) fine. I generally find a lot of truth in what David writes, even when I disagree with him. But here I kind of think David misses the point.

Roberts acknowledges the appeal of the critiques against DiCaprio, noting that there are even plenty of liberals and environmentalists who are quick to criticize climate activists with high-carbon lifestyles. He believes there are two arguments that DiCaprio’s critics make, and then he sets out to debunk them. My intention today is to challenge his debunking.

Roberts identifies the first argument against DiCaprio as “Climate advocates who don’t reduce their emissions are hypocrites.” He argues that even many climate activists believe that reducing personal carbon emissions is pointless in the grand scheme of things, because one person’s carbon emissions are meaningless with respect to the big picture. They believe that only coordinated action by governments are going to rein in carbon emissions, and until that happens they will continue to utilize the options available until cleaner options are available.

I see this argument a lot, but I think there are two flaws with it. Or at least one inconsistency and one flaw. I have previously argued that in the big picture, the Keystone XL pipeline debate was meaningless. In fact, I showed mathematically the even the worst case scenarios wouldn’t have a measurable impact on the world’s temperature. David and I had some exchanges over my Keystone XL articles, where he essentially argued that stopping Keystone XL wasn’t pointless because it could start a movement. In that case, the issue wasn’t the emissions of Keystone XL, but an extrapolation into something nebulous. People were passionate about stopping Keystone XL, and that passion could lead to more actions that might have a measurable impact.

So what’s the difference here? Nobody is arguing that DiCaprio’s emissions alone are going to make a big difference. It is about motivating others and leveraging his stance into many more people who are willing to cut back on their consumption. In that case, he may inspire many people to conserve, and they may inspire others. Just like the argument over Keystone XL. That’s the inconsistency.

The flaw in this sort of thinking is the assumption that cleaner options will be available that do not require sacrifice. This is what I call “magical thinking.” It presumes that the reason our fossil fuel consumption is so high is that fossil fuel companies have shoved it down our throats. This is is where we may have a fundamental disagreement, because I don’t believe that. I think our fossil fuel consumption is high — and continues to grow — because fossil fuels offer the most convenient and economical options for consumers. The reason oil companies haven’t developed low-carbon liquid fuel alternatives on a grand scale is that they would be far more expensive.

I do believe that economical lower-carbon alternatives exist for coal, but it’s hard to argue that better options exist for crude oil. The reason our consumption of crude oil is so high is that people all over the world choose it overwhelmingly over any other option. Just like DiCaprio himself does. It is choices like he made, multiplied by billions of people all aspiring to a higher quality of life using the cheapest energy options available, that has led to our present level of oil consumption. Oil dominates transport in even the “greenest” nations on earth. It dominates in countries with rich renewable energy resources and no oil resources. For instance, per capita oil consumption in Iceland (with huge geothermal resources) is almost as high as in the U.S.

This is why oil consumption has risen by 30 million barrels per day (bpd) in the past 30 years. It is indeed quite possible that there will never be another option that is as cheap and convenient as oil. Thus, any low-carbon path forward for liquid fuels may involve sacrifice of some kind. That could involve far less consumption, or much higher prices. What it won’t involve is carbon-free options at the equivalent of $2/gallon gasoline. Thus, DiCaprio may desire a solar-power private jet or yacht, but even if those sorts of options were available they would come at a very high price. They are not solutions for the masses.

Roberts characterization of the second argument against DiCaprio is “Public figures ought to do more climate signaling.” He then details many of the things DiCaprio has done in the battle against climate change. I agree with all of that. DiCaprio has done a lot. But I would characterize my own argument differently: “Public figures who advocate for action on climate change should set a good example lest they undermine their message.” Does DiCaprio set a good example? Mostly. Does his conspicuous consumption undo all that? Roberts says there is no evidence of that. Of course it doesn’t undo all of it, but it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t partially undermine that message. And if one believes the crisis is dire, why undermine it at all?

Think of it this way. If I argue that meat consumption is killing the planet, and that laws need to be put in place to give us nutritional vegan replacements, what do you think of me when you see me eating a juicy steak? I could argue that my one steak doesn’t make or break anything, and that I didn’t specifically advocate for people to voluntarily give up eating meat. But I am clearly undermining my message. Whether I am technically a hypocrite in this case isn’t really the issue. I would be far more effective when making that argument to say “See, I will show how it’s done.”

The closest Roberts gets to a criticism of DiCaprio is “Signaling restraint is a gesture of social solidarity” and “maybe DiCaprio ought to rein it in with the yachts and personal jets.” On this point we can agree. But I obviously feel stronger about DiCaprio’s need to set an example in order to be the most effective advocate.

I often think about this problem in terms of “If everyone consumed at my personal rate of consumption, would we be better or worse off?” Inevitably, when I write an article like this, some will ask “Well what example have you shown?” I can say that my own fossil fuel footprint is about 75% below the average in the U.S. (but still well beyond the consumption of the average Indian). I lived for years without a car, taking a bike to work. At every opportunity I have tailored my lifestyle to use less energy. Sometimes that does require sacrifice. But sometimes I still get on airplane. I do consume fossil fuels. I just believe I should try to set an example.

Now I certainly don’t have the platform DiCaprio has in order to bring a message of lower fossil fuel consumption to the masses, but I am confident I could give him some pointers about setting an example that would make his message more effective. If you set the example, I think people are more willing to follow you. People like leaders who walk the talk. One a final note, sometimes it’s a lot harder to walk the talk than you think. In that case, you may very well learn a lot more about the problem you are trying to solve if you find it difficult to set an example. But by making the attempt you may gain a better insight into why the problem really exists.

Link to Original Article: Magical Thinking On Climate Change

Follow Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, or at Forbes.

  1. By Russ Finley on March 25, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    That vegan analogy struck home.

    Dave Roberts says “there is no evidence” that DiCaprio’s life style hurts his message? Dave needs to type the phrase “DiCaprio hypocrite” into Google.

    Clearly his lifestyle is providing ammunition for climate skeptics. This reminds me in some ways of the excuses made for Clinton’s extra-marital activities in the oval office, which, rightly or wrongly, certainly provided ammunition for the Republican party. You can’t rerun the experiment but it is entirely possible that was the straw that broke the camel’s back costing the Democrats the White House for eight years.

    It’s complicated. Mostly, he’s seeking status with his actions. We all seek status. The other day my neighbor was complaining that you couldn’t see her new solar panels from the street. “What good are solar panels if you don’t get the bragging rights? Right?”

    What he needs to do is try harder to find less environmentally destructive status symbols. Rent instead of own multiple second homes. Instead of a mansion, build the ultimate low energy home. Drive (or be driven in) electric cars fueled with low carbon sources of electricity. Hook up with the Nature Conservancy to preserve natural carbon sinks and on and on.

    Flying around is going to use a lot of jet fuel. I see no environmentally benign alternative for that one. We all like to fly places. Maybe we should save our oil for air travel.

    • By Clee on April 12, 2016 at 5:36 pm

      I fail to see how renting instead of owning a home is less environmentally destructive. If anything, I’ve read that people who own, rather than rent, tend to treat their homes better.

      • By Russ Finley on April 17, 2016 at 10:26 pm

        Twenty people can take turns renting a property over the course of a year instead of leave it empty 11 months out of the year. That would be a twenty fold reduction in the number of vacation homes.

        • By Tom G. on April 17, 2016 at 11:38 pm

          But Russ, but Russ.

          Don’t the 20 people need someplace to stay when they are not at the rental? Don’t see the gain here unless you are talking about homeless individuals, ha ha.

        • By Clee on April 18, 2016 at 12:06 pm

          Sure, multiple people can share a property over time. That doesn’t mean DiCaprio has to be the one who rents it rather than owning it. His not owning it doesn’t make it more environmentally friendly.

        • By Russ Finley on April 18, 2016 at 1:12 pm

          Guys, I’m talking about owning second, third, or fourth homes that are empty except when the owner drops in for a stay. Practically everyone I know has a second home (vacation property). The really rich have lots of them, and usually one of them floats.

          • By Clee on April 18, 2016 at 1:35 pm

            I thought we were talking about Leonardo DiCaprio, and he has been renting out some of his vacation property.

      • By countrycentral on June 9, 2016 at 9:52 am

        I can agree with this. Although to me renting has always been a cheaper option since I am very young. Owning a home is always a better option and helps the environment in many ways. Here are some of the reasons.
        1. Appliances
        - When you rent a home you work with what you got, no matter how bad they are for the environment you don’t invest in any better.
        When you own, you keep them up to date with the modern eco standards. When you own you care for them better so you don’t need to replace them that often.

        2. Yard
        - When you rent your yard is what it its, you can’t do anything to it because it’s not yours to do.
        When you own your yard people have a tendency of planting trees and vegetables, fruits etc.

        3. Garbage
        - This is not a fact! This is just my opinion, and I think that people who rent have a tendency to care a bit less for their surrounding than people who own the home. It must be the thought that one day they will move out of there so who cares if the neighbors think we are dirty, we leave trash around etc… But when people own their homes they do care what the neighbors think, they do care to keep their yard clean and not leave trash around so they leave a good impression. That’s how you get accepted in the community.

        4. Energy
        - Renters usually pick temporal solutions when it comes to heating. Anything that works and doesn’t break the budget will do.
        Home owners seek permanent solutions that offer economic sustainability to their home. Home owners also invest in insulation, Renters don’t.

        If you want to make a difference anyone can buy some carbon credits and offset the pollution an average household does to the environment.

  2. By Forrest on March 26, 2016 at 7:07 am

    Ed Begley Jr. has it right. His posts are less fanatic and full of practical tips that save money and help environment. He’s not a doomsayer and finger pointing accuser. He was mentioning his love of electric cars and the experiences of purchasing pathetic impracticable vehicles in past as compared to the wonderful technology of present. But, he did mention the fact of just relocating pollution to the coal power plant as a poor solution as compared to charging at night or upon solar panels at home. The starting point of all wealthy environmentalist should be to invest in advanced technology that isn’t the most cost effective. It would be shame on them if they did nothing other than spend their vast resources selfishly and think the elements of preaching their thoughts the most potent tool. Most in this category go beyond that to finger pointing and condemnation of others with the baggage of inflammatory politics. This is the insidious narcissist thinking that federal government can only do something. That is, if the power is controlled by proper thinking elites such as themselves with higher skill levels that can force the masses to behave properly. Ya, history full of examples on how well that worked.

  3. By Forrest on March 26, 2016 at 7:50 am

    RR’s posts usually exclude the natural investment and product development life cycle analysis and attribute the cost advantage of oil to superior choice. Consider the oil products enjoyed no compete status for many a decade. That the open market competition whittled away poor performance and empowered business titans to throw as much influence upon society to make their products attractive. This being government influence, political cronyism, and dirty tricks to savage the competition. Internationally the wealth influence factor to keep tyrants in power. We mustn’t forget the industry enjoyed a extremely long product development life cycle that advantaged every ounce of their product such as pipeline construction, refinery technology, drilling technology, and super tanker construction. All of this super structure long past paid for and depreciated. Does anyone think that if oil industry was just now starting up with the current demands of the industry and resources that it could compete with ethanol for transportation fuel needs? That if vehicle manufactures were currently challenging engineering upon level playing field to chose best in class transportation fuel vehicles from this day forward with high concern of emissions that gasoline or diesel could compete? Ethanol is all ready is superior choice at the current oil busting price spreads. Cellulosic is powering up production and all biofuels are upon a high production lower cost product development cycle. ICE technology have already proven that ethanol produces 2x the torque of diesel. That the smaller lighter engines can match the mpg of gasoline. All of this with a smidgen of emissions if handled properly. Small business and rural economies improve as well as job creation. We should all be thankful of present support of alternative fuels to step in, if in some climactic disruption event of world oil supplies as this would normally destroy economies.

    • By Jesse H on March 26, 2016 at 5:32 pm

      References for ethanol being (sustainably, un-subsided) cheaper than petrol fuel, 2x the torque, cellulistic ethanol being cost effective anywhere at all? This seems extremely optimistic otherwise.

      • By Forrest on March 27, 2016 at 5:39 am

        The California EPA and Cummings E85 engine report. This was the best easy to understand engineering info I’ve had access to. Lots of reports, now, on the high compression engine. Cummings engineers did an analysis of engine design criteria needed to zero in efforts for desired power and emissions for commercial heavy van. They optimized the engine for E85 fuel and did not compromise design per limitations of transmission or engine selection. However they were able to utilize a current 2.8L engine, a recent offering. It was a spark ignition engine, turbo, DI. Emissions were so low, typical catalytic converter sufficed. Practically no PMs. Max chamber pressure was 2x of diesel and produced a better torque band. The E85 engine was half the displacement of the diesel. When they accessed drivers wants for engine torque and Hp, they correctly sized the engine. The current diesel offering had sufficient torque, but lacked Hp. The standard gasoline engine lacked torque but good Hp. The E85 engine best of both. The operating cost equal to diesel and the Mpg was equivalent to gasoline, except for the low hp operation. Max Hp of the E85 engine had to be reduced per physical strength concerns of engine. Also, max performance of E85 engine curtailed per Nox generation as the turbo had no after cooler. Engineers claimed the performance and efficiency could be improved with after cooler and especially with E100 fuel.

        Cellulosic ethanol isn’t cost competitive with starch, but improving and projected to emerge as lowest cost a decade or so out. Ethanol to date even with low cost petrol the cheapest octane boost for gasoline. Some ethanol process plants that utilized direct to pump distribution bested gasoline cost to consumers by fifty cents even as we speak. Thank you Carbon Green Bioenergy. I did read Poet is ramping up production and shipping product. Full production expected in 2016. Jeff Broin claims the debugging and improving phase actually went better than the original corn plant production process.

  4. By Jesse H on March 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Like many have noted in other contexts, i’m willing to make easy changes on speculation but i’ll make major lifestyle sacrifices when the activists act like they actually believe that things are catastrophic without drastic changes. DiCaprio and the like do not help.

    • By Forrest on March 27, 2016 at 6:04 am

      I’ve listened to the state of science of GW from front line scientist that currently working on assessing the concern. They offer no concrete certainty of anything. They talk of the uncertainty and difficulty. The best evidence is visual snow cover and ice melt from satellite imagery. So, the fanatics with little science background are pushing the exactness and certainty of the science and offer future predictions that are only speculations. The science has never offered any certainty upon future harm. So, we best utilize scarce resources wisely, especially capital to curtail CO2 emissions as the science is anemic, but the potential for damage may be to high for inaction. The best evidence of sham is the activist like what you portray that talk of disaster then personally take no action. So, many activist out their are merely acting up to gain popularity or score political points and acting in a way to divide the country and impede the progression of coming to together for the challenge. Obviously, these folks don’t believe their own rhetoric.

  5. By Advocatus Diaboli on March 28, 2016 at 8:10 am

    Thank you Robert. It is good to see one’s thoughts confirmed.

    I work for a public administration (on climate and energy issues, hence the alias: I am not supposed to publicly contradict our official line), and tend to share some of your postings among colleagues (in particular on cellulosic ethanol for a reality check – I am aware of no comparable assessments from formal or “scientific” sources, wishful thinking still dominates).

    I have had very similar concerns about the lifestyle choices of some collegues. And my own choices, of course, but some of us clearly have more trouble reconciling our (inevitably) energy-intensive lifestyles than others.

    One thing you did not reflect on was offsetting, which is what RdN seems to rely on to manage his cognitive dissonance. You noted (rightly) that his “footprint” is vastly underestimated, but you did not address whether offsetting itslef was a credible model. What if his “footprint” were “correctly” calculated, and he spent somewhat more (probably still a pittance) on offsetting. Would that be OK?

    For a variety of reasons, I do not believe that offsetting is right. I think it sends all the wrong messages.

    I don’t think that it works as most schemes that I have seen so far (and seen quite a number, both regulated and unregulated) are either “naive” to the extreme, or outright fraudulant. The few that are not are clumsy (too much effort for too little outcome). The biggest (and arguably best) system developed (the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol) provided detailed rules and systems for establishing baselines, ensuring “additionality” and independently monitoring the outcomes, and still ended up with credits that are overwhelmingly questionable (worthless).

    But beyond technicalities, most important is the moral message: offsetting suggests that (rich) people can continue to pollute, and their money can buy the necessary reductions from others (generally poor people) elsewhere.

    I do not believe that our money (the value of which is backed up by fossil energy) can “buy” such reductions (in sufficient, meningful quantities), and I do not believe in “elsewhere”: we are all connected. It is not right to say that I want to emit 50t/yr, I know it is wrong and I should not do it (even willing to pay to admit it), but I want my emissions to be offset by reducing the emissions of peoples who emit 3t/person/yr. The worst scenario is when the money is used to buy (or otherwise take control of) the land of poor people to justify the continued emissions of the rich. I.e., use the occupation of our common “emission space” to justify the occupation of people’s physical space. I don’t know whether RdN uses such land-bsed offsets, but they tend to dominate for some reason (as they are “green” and cool and nobody really understands them).

    Even if we believe in offsetting, it should perhaps go the other way around: the cheapest emission reduction opportunities exists clearly for the rich . They are full of potential no-regret measures, whilst the poorest need to increase their emissions to meet minimum acceptable needs (adequate food, housing, education and healthcare).

    Perhaps the desirable increase in the emissions of the poor should be financed (and offset) by reducing the emissions for the rich.

    • By Robert Rapier on March 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm

      “For a variety of reasons, I do not believe that offsetting is right. I think it sends all the wrong messages.”

      The funny thing about offsetting I have always thought is “Why not do the offsets, and then not consume the carbon? Then you may be getting somewhere.”

  6. By Forrest on March 28, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Trade or offset of carbon or other pollution credits have a proven record of economic success. One we should be utilizing within the coal industry as compared to arbitrarily enacting law for coercive federal force to indiscriminately force change. All consumers have unique energy needs as well as business. Utilities, also unique and work to balance best cost to benefit ratio for their customers per the realities they face. So, L.D.’s fame and earnings keyed into the public value of his work. His profession will always require more energy than average. He can invest his wealth and change personal habits to minimize the energy need, but he will, nonetheless, be a high energy user. Some of his wealth (if he chooses) could purchase carbon offsets. The trade and value would have to be regulated and evaluated for legitimacy, but should prove to be very beneficial. Some examples: Haiti has minimal capital and suffer ill health and forest destruction per heating and cooking needs. Women often spend a large portion of workday harvesting dead-fall for such sometimes suffering from crime in remote areas. Their is a non-profit working to install ethanol stoves for healthy indoor cooking needs since utilities are nonexistent. This group is establishing a ethanol processing facility. The benefits are large for poor communities that can limit imports of expensive petrol products, create local jobs, improve farm economics, farm efficiency, and decrease the need to ravage forestland.

    Basic forestry investments offer huge environmental benefit that work to max forestland production of valuable timber and CO2 sequestration. Forestland can be very positive or neutral demanding on forestry practices.

    Cellulosic ethanol is more expensive as compared to corn ethanol or gasoline, but the environmental benefits are huge. The ratings of optimized E85 vehicles rated -85% carbon emissions as compared to plain gasoline. The fuel could be utilized within the entire transportation fleet as well. This is important as the heavy duty trucking diesel a bigger problem than our light duty fleet. Ethanol process plants have little capital to utilize CHP equipment, but if implementing such equipment their energy ratio would improve from 2.3:1 to 427:1 per Ag department analysis.

    Proper siting of new hydro electric power as well as retrofitting modern turbines could double their majority renewable energy status. Probably lots of excellent wind power sites available. If we include cooperation and analysis of international efforts we could indeed maximize the worth of precious capital for environment. Probably lots of goldmines out their that could have tremendous impact instead of U.S. efforts to spend themselves into the poor house with ever less benefit to environment.

    • By Fred Gunter on March 28, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      So what happens if the carbon offset (trees) die from disease,drought, etc.? We all lose!

      • By Forrest on March 29, 2016 at 6:45 am

        That does happen frequently especially if the forest is not managed per good forestry practices. For example to minimize forest fire threat, solve crowded stunted tree growth, and planting to maximize benefit of open space. Also, trees have a charted growth or maximum and minimum ability to add girth. Modern forestry can measure the forest per this ability that is equivalent to carbon sequestration. They harvest trees before natural deterioration, thus avoiding losing the gain.Trees that suffer from disease can be culled if a threat and utilized for forestry or biomass products. Bye the way, we must assess future technology that could make the decision making easier. They project tremendous growth in drone use. Most of it will be utilized in agriculture and forestry. The drones already in use. They have a half dozen sensors to survey crops or trees for water needs, fertilizer needs, or insect infestation. In France I read they are using drones to hydrate stressed plants. This technology should be very capable tool to fight forest fire, insect infestation, weed growth, etc. This technology alone probably more powerful for GW solution than solar panels.

        • By Fred Gunter on April 7, 2016 at 8:02 pm

          You sound like a total REDD+ supporter. The aviation corporate pigs are pushing schemes for carbon credits. Only 3-7 percent of the world population ever leaves the ground, yet they account for major pollution, not to mention noise and fowl disruptions. The only chance humanity has now for survival is major Degrowth in all sectors.

    • By Advocatus Diaboli on March 28, 2016 at 3:03 pm

      “Trade or offset of carbon or other pollution credits have a proven record of economic success.”

      You bet. Billions have been traded in the regulated (CDM/JI) and unregulated (voluntary offsets) market. The users of the credits benefitted from not having to reduce their emissions, and the middlemen must have made a load of money.

      My point was not “economic success” (some people getting rich), but that it does not reduce emissions.

      It is more likely to increases them. If the offset is real and working (truly additional, not reversible, etc.) then it “only” offsets the emissions that should have been cut but were not. If the offset is not good (it is non-additional, or not permanent, or multiple-counted, or never even existed as it was just a fraud, just to name the most common failings) then they do harm, as they justify the continued emissions while absorbing resources intended for emission reductions.

      Unfortunately, most offsets are like that: just an excuse to continue pollution, but no real compensation.

      Cooking stove projects are often quoted to be among the best ones. They can be good (both the public health benefits and and the reduced deforestation, if they actually do manage to reduce it). However, these are the things that poor developing countries can and should do on their onw right as their own contribution to solving the climate problem (as well as their own resource problem and their own health problems). No need to use this as an excuse for rich countries to emit more. If that is the source of funding, the local benefits may still be realised, but the climate will not benefit, as the local reductions (if any) will be offset by the burning of more coal in the North.

      As for ethanol as the solution: Perhaps it works, but I have my doubts. Instead of relying on (degraded) forests (generally marginal land that does not compete with food), ethanol production most likely needs prime agricultural land and will compete with food. You say this bioethanol “can limit imports of expensive petrol products”. But you said it would replace local wood. If it replaces more than just local wood, then you are changing the system boundary and probably mean a much bigger facility, even further away and needing even more land.

      Women collect wood locally because they have access to that wood locally and can get the wood for free. I posit they would not have such access to the ethanol mill (especially if it is one big facility far away). Perhaps they will get ethanol for free for a while. But who will own the mill? Who will own the land that grows the ethanol feedstock? What is the guarantee that women will always get the ethanol for free? They use wood because they cannot afford even the cheapest fossil fuel. Will they be able to afford paying for bioethanol? If the rationale for the project is the recovery of the forest (and the carbon benefit thereof), then people’s access to the forest is likely to be reduced (or cut altogether) and they will trapped, at the mercy of the ethanol supplier for their basic energy needs.

      I am not suggesting that such projects are bad (they need not be bad, deforestation shoudl be reduced, etc.), but it is very risky to base such a transformative project on external financing that depends solely on the determination of some distant and powerful rich entity in a different country to keep burning fossil fuels.

      • By Forrest on March 29, 2016 at 5:52 am

        You have a distorted view of what’s going on. The ethanol producer is local and locally owned putting money into the economy creating local jobs. It a small scale operation. Women were spending a large percentage of time walking long distance to harvest wood. Their productivity and worth to economy was wasted. Now, they gladly purchase low cost ethanol and have a larger productive and healthy work day. Since they are more productive during work day they can more than make up the ethanol cost. They have decimated their forestland and was approaching catastrophic environmental disaster status. Currently, the forest is growing back per the new practice with results of purifying the air and water. The farmland is more productive per acre for energy. The ethanol is a better more efficient fuel. Farmers can earn more and invest in modern practices that will greatly improve operation for food and fuel.

        You present an image that the wealthy nations are pouring our raw emissions per waste and that poor countries have no such burden. Well, if just tabulating gross emissions that may be correct, but poor countries have the easiest and least costly emissions to improve. We could do much there for the investment dollar. I was watching PBS news hour and they had a segment on the anerobic digester solution to improving environment. That is one potent tool to utilize through out the world. They estimated that half of diesel fuel could be displaced in U.S. just by this method to treat waste. This is a win win since the waste is a natural potent GW emissions hot spot. Most of the GW emissions from the natural biological world and we can accomplish the majority of good working in this space. It’s low cost, but not that profitable. It doesn’t attract corporate earnings, but it is very attractive to private sector and small business. This is an American way to achieve best in class solutions to invoke the mass market of talent.

        You talk of the trading market as a bad thing since some may pollute such as our actor friend. Well, he needs to pollute. He is polluting and will pollute more than the average person no matter if attempting a PR stunt to ride a bike once. He is investing some of his wealth in offsets isn’t that a good thing to mitigate the harm? Many of these most powerful solutions just need a firmer foundation to fund the commitment. I’ve read the agricultural economy of the world has huge potential per GW. Like managing forest land with proper investment and talent, amazing results. The sheer magnitude of acres dwarfs man made machinery ability to pollute. If given the right incentive, biologist already have the tools to develop crops that can expend more energy upon root development and carbon sequestration. Both the annual fast growing crops and the perennial biomass grass crops. It does take away from the production of topside plant, but given a market for carbon if may be more profitable.
        Remember the market is efficient per employing money and solving problems. They need to be, to survive. Also, most of the populace only fed the propaganda per large media, corporations, and fed politicians so they naturally get a distorted view of who is achieving best value and good decision making. GDP usually dwarfs the economic activity of federal projects and a whale more efficient. The economic efficiency of a country is rated per money tied up with pathetic central control vs open market. Who is borrowing the countries wealth and spending? If the private sector is, we have more jobs, economic growth, better low cost and effective solutions. I’m not saying the carbon offsets and trading is currently an honest market or viable, just that it could be a potent solution.

        • By Advocatus Diaboli on March 29, 2016 at 11:01 am

          I don’t know about this project. Perhaps exemplary. As you seem to know, could you explain how these women can afford buying bioethanol ifnthey could not afford kerosene? The lowest cost alternative of firewood tends to be kerosene, and I have difficulty imagining bioethanol being cheaper.

          ” poor countries have the easiest and least costly emissions to improve ”

          Not at all. If I choose not to fly to the Bahamas tomorrow, I will save more emissions than the total emissions of a poor family in a year, and save more money than they live on. You cannot beat that.

          • By Forrest on March 29, 2016 at 8:30 pm

            Ethanol is cheaper as it’s produced as a domestic product with cheap labor. It’s also healthier for indoor use.

            Poor countries open pit burn, slash woodland, burn woodland, open combustion of coal for heat or power, burn garbage such as tires, operate inefficient engines with no pollution control, have bad agriculture practices, bad forestry practices, bad waste practices, on, and on. We spend a fortune attempting to minimize an ounce of emissions as compared to poor nations destroying the environment per the need to save or earn a few shekels. Sure we have bigger machines that consume more energy, but nature is the behemoth of the carbon cycle and much more powerful if invigorated or destructive if abused.

            You can power that jet with biofuel. It will probably be more expensive, but that may be the trade needed to improve environment. The fuel is created by the biological process that if handled properly could drift to the carbon negative rating.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on March 30, 2016 at 3:42 am

              I still fail to understand how biofuel can be cheaper and, if it is, why it is not used everywhere. Everybody cannot be that stupid.

              I cannot power that jet with biofuel as, to the extent I know, no jet has ever been powered with biofuel only. I won’t be the first one. Did u try to estimate how much land it would take to fuel just one flight? And given that agriculture (and not transport) is the biggest source of environmental degradation, I wonder how it could help the environment.

            • By Forrest on March 30, 2016 at 6:44 am

              Understand this is an island state. Like Hawaii imports are very expensive. Hawaii can cost justify a lot of alternative energy per avoiding import oil products. I checked CBOT trades for ethanol. As of 3/29 $1.44-$1.56 per gallon.

              Military and airlines are investing heavily in biofuel per criticism expressed in this comment section. They seem to think it’s a good investment.

              Agriculture like forestry and what I explained earlier are part of the biological system that does control the major portion of carbon emissions. It can be managed to greatly improve or abandoned, mismanaged, to cause much harm. The fact that agriculture can be the major tool for good is partly due to the fact that so many international farmers are managing farmland so poorly.

              An example within forest land. A large problem for GW gas to date is the Bark Beetle diet in Canada and Western U.S. mountain states, “the cumulative impact of the beetle outbreak in the affected region during 2000–2020 will be 270 megatonnes (Mt) carbon (or 36 g carbon m-2 yr-1 on average over 374,000 km2 of forest). This impact converted the forest from a small net carbon sink to a large net carbon source”. Note that they didn’t tally the methane emissions or the cost and emissions to log off the fire danger. So, one can appreciate the drone survey value to check up on tree health in the future. The infected tree quickly dispatched, thus preventing outbreak. Also, note that the forest was a small net carbon sink. That is usually the case if the forest is not actively managed per foresty science. Also, much of the waste biomass can nowadays be utilized within cellulosic ethanol process that again improves the GW emissions of the forest a good thing. These biological solutions are not big money makers at least for International Corporations as they can’t tie up the revenue stream. To much competition for them. So, the crony capitalism incentive for government action is missing. What would the result be if a Democratic open market country enacted a policy to sustain growth of production and R&D of the biological solution? The U.S. is well on the path per leadership position upon such endeavor. We are already harvesting the benefits of small business growth, rural job growth, and environmental benefits including reduced GW emissions. Third world economies are taking notes and like what they see.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on March 30, 2016 at 7:19 pm

              Sorry, but you are way off. Bioenergy could not meet more than a small fraction of our energy needs. Agricultural land and forest are in a bad shape, mostly because of food production. Also a major GHG emission source. You can use some waste and residue for energy, but producing food for energy (your ethanol example) is a poor idea.

            • By Forrest on March 31, 2016 at 5:53 am

              Oh, o.k. thanks for clearing that up. Didn’t know it was so simple. You should contact the DOE, USDA, DoD, most universities, and a ton of private corporations that are wasting their time and resources.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on April 1, 2016 at 4:49 am

              It is that simple. Instead of name dropping, I suggest you do your own math.

              I am working for one of those public institutions that has been wasting time and (other people’s) money on cellulosic ethanol. We have nothing tangible to show for it, but we are bound to continue doing it. The reasons include:

              - Wishful thinking
              - Inertia
              - inability of key people to accept the failure of past activities.
              - the lack of better ideas combined with the imperative to be seen doing ‘something’
              - pressure from vested energy and transport interests allowing discussion on ‘alternative fuels’ but not on alternative lifestyles, demand reduction or modal shift.
              - belief in eternal growth as the ultimate purpose of human existence and public institutions
              - more belief in technology than in science.
              - better understanding of the technosphere than the biosphere
              - Plain propaganda: Making people and decision makers believe we are making progress where we aren’t
              - there is money to be made from pretending that it works (or researching it regardless of the outcome), but no money in dismissing it.
              - people who believe in it (or have an interest in pretending to do so) tend to be more assertive (even cock sure), sceptics tend to be more reserved and circumspect, often giving enthusiasts the benefit of the doubt.

              You refer to the USDA and others, and they refer to you and other enthusiasts.

              Nobody is obliged to face the facts or deliver on promises.

            • By Forrest on April 1, 2016 at 6:59 am

              Sounds a little bitter. You post like a ultimate solutions environmentalist. This is the viewpoint that man is the problem and the high living standard. That all is futile unless we understand biology/science and the limitations of the biosphere. We need to step back and live tribal and have no children. Growth is bad, we need alternative lifestyle that is harmonious with nature, at least for the masses. The elites can enjoy themselves upon high standard of living as long as they can control the masses. I ran into such a thinker that talked like you. He was a Man and Environment prof that worked to depress the class and he hated competing solutions.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on April 1, 2016 at 11:22 am

              You seem to think that it is possible for an unlimited number of people to follow an energy-intensive lifestyle indefinitely on a finite planet. Please forgive me if I remain sceptical.

            • By Forrest on April 1, 2016 at 4:49 pm

              All of our energy is derived from sunshine or creation energy aka nuclear, but they are essentially one in the same.

              Every day, the sun radiates more energy than the world uses in one year. The sun generates energy from a process called nuclear fusion. During the fusion process, radiant energy is released. It can take 150,000 years for energy in the sun’s core to make its way to the solar surface, and then just a little over eight minutes to travel the 93 million miles to Earth.Only a small portion of the energy radiated by the sun into space strikes the Earth, one part in two billion. Yet this amount of energy is enormous. The sun provides more energy in an hour than the United States can use in a year! About 30 percent of the radiant energy that reaches the Earth is reflected back into space. About half of the radiant energy is absorbed by land and oceans. The rest is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds in the greenhouse cycle. In addition to supplying a large amount of energy directly, the sun is also the source for many different forms of energy. Solar energy powers the water cycle, allowing us to harness the energy of moving water. Solar energy drives wind formation, allowing us to use wind turbines to transform kinetic energy into electricity. Plants use solar energy in the process of photosynthesis. Biomass can trace its energy source back to the sun. Even fossil fuels originally received their energy from the sun.

              Ya, we are hopelessly without energy.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on April 1, 2016 at 6:13 pm

              What is your point exactly?

              I pointed out the inbalance between our energy use and the energy that can reasonably be provided by ecosystems. You address neither side of the equation.

              Your reply is a good illustration of my hypothesis that a lack of understanding of the biosphere (and its limitations) is a key reason behind the overly optimistic expectations towards bioenergy.

            • By Forrest on April 2, 2016 at 5:08 am

              I think your analysis is flawed or restricted by current science and technology. Environmentalist have a habit of projecting future events from past trends. Like the prof I described above in Man and Environment class that looked at static data and proclaimed our crude oil supplies would be extinguished in 20 years.That was in 1974. GW is one such projection based on current status. So, any attempt to foretell the future is sketchy at best. There is so much advancement upon the technology, engineering, biology, and science fronts that we are indeed sitting upon a historic times. Energy as stated above is only limited by Man’s abilities. Consumption of resources per person is trending down and recycling trending up. Think of heavy low mileage vehicles of past. Poor insulation, inefficient devices, and poor waste treatment. Supply chain or distribution gaining much efficiency. Efficient use of water dramatically improving. Understanding of best practices for environmental concerns improving. The lunar surface is expected to become a valuable real estate for future. Moon dust mining for H3 is supposed to be a perfect nuclear fuel and enormous potential. Solar for food production and energy production has huge potential as well. Robots and drones extremely valuable for this as well as forestry and agriculture. Under water robots may play a key role in unlocking the largest source of hydrocarbons still untapped and building to dangerous GW potential. That being Methane hydrates. GMO science is tweaking commercial plant growth too ever higher production and solar efficiency. Some plants grow in shade and have very high solar efficiency. They are studying spinach growth efficiency to unlock the growth potential by triple digits. Drone use is expected to maximize valuable plant growth. I would expect this tool and robots to take over the majority of field work for agriculture. For example easy for these tools to keep tabs on every tree in the forest. Every corn stock in the field. Easy to apply water and fertilizer needs with pin point accuracy, when needed. I would guess since labor of robots and drones so cheap, that farmers would transplant crops much like gardening. Also, to avoid tilling as gardeners have found this to be a better practice. Probably utilize a greenhouse to start corn plants during harsh winter months to maximize use of field acreage. That would save a couple months of valuable growing season and put the northern tier of U.S. into two or three crop harvest schedule.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on April 2, 2016 at 4:03 pm

              If foretelling the future is “sketchy at best”, then how do you have the confidence of making your super-optimistic predictions? Why do you assume that things can only change for the better, where most of the fundamentals are changing for the worse? More people need more food. Productive land is diminishing in quality and quantity. Oceans are heavily depleted and produce less with more fishing effort (higher energy investment). Past yield increases in agriculture have stalled and current yields are heavily dependent on fossil inputs and other non-renewables.

              You should address these before you propose putting even more demand for land for energy.

            • By Forrest on April 3, 2016 at 7:55 am

              I’ve posted of trends and probable improvements. There is more positives than negatives, but will grant you the environmental shows focus on damming trends and the negatives. You will quickly get depressed if attempting to learn from that source of info.

              Food production an interesting activity. Hydroponics, aquaponics, and metro farming advances has a ability compete heavily with traditional farming. I read of one clever farmer that employed part time help and made an living off of agriculture on one acre of land. She produced a wide variety of products for local market. One can easily produce enough fish protein and vegetables for family of four within typical homestead property. Some bring in chickens and goats within city lots. Easy fruit and nut production on the smallest of properties. Advances in LED lighting make indoor plant growth cost effective. Much commercial wine, beer, and now spirit production occurs within private homesteads. Natural pond construction getting popular vs traditional pools per the ease of upkeep and natural landscape beauty. They produce hundreds of pounds of fish and do so much quicker as compared to traditional live stock. New gardening techniques vastly improving output of produce. Four Vertical Grow Towers set upon a deck or south facing balcony is rated to be able to produce enough fresh produce for cooking and consumption needs for a couple. A gardening technique called the Genesis Garden, actually demonstrated their superior system by attempting a garden on gravel lot. They had immediate best in class results and generated top rated soil conditions after a few short years. It would suggest with future availability of cheap labor replacement per the drone and robot technology may make this system profitable for commercial farms. Watering needs usually gone and fertilizing needs are halved. It is a growing system that maximizes synergy of ground cover and fungi. Carbon sequestration within soil dramatically improves. The power of computing nowadays with rapid drone technology advancement, may or probably will make back yard farming as easy as ordering a farm in box equipment from Amazon. We have a lot of wasted five acre parcels around here per zoning. These lots usually just managed per lawn care with high levels of pesticide, irrigation, fertilizer, and weed control poison. If ever they could be converted to maximize forestry or farm practices, it would be sensational environmental improvement.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on April 3, 2016 at 10:38 am

              All very nice, all very resource intensive. Most can be a source of food, but not of energy.

              Where I agree with you is the large areas of intensively managed unproductive lands. High input with no output, like lawns. Just letting them renaturalise or grazing them with sheep would be a win-win.

              However, they epitomise the wasteful consumption I criticised and you defended earlier. This is the waste typical of rich countries, but you were pointing the finger on the poor.

              In any event, this is still little more than a pittance in energy terms.

            • By Forrest Butterfield on April 4, 2016 at 7:04 am

              Always better to actively manage land resources to maximize natures produce, for example land bank skimpy weed growth. Nature alone would take eons to convert open space. Up north we can plant a heavy population of red pine. The tree has good health and value. One thinning at 20 years, another at 40, 60, and final cut at 80. So, the tree dovetails nicely with our financial lifespan needs. Poplar, stands regenerate with fire or clear cut methods and growth rate is tremendous. These stands support high concentrations of wildlife as well.

              Your worried of running out of food? Didn’t read that being much concern, nowadays. Most want to improve diets especially in U.S. as we apparently have the fattest hungry kids. Maybe they are eating field corn? The ethanol industry is improving feed nutrition as that is a co-product for the industry. Raw corn is losing favor for fattening up beef (primary market) per unhealthy fat generation. Also, the raw corn feed within cattle has very low efficiency. Meaning just a portion of the kernel is utilize for animal well being. The best feed solution would be for processing plants to process and flex for market demands. High value feed, chemicals, human food, or chemicals. The processing plants often described as bio-processing plants for this reason.

              I see IEA and most long term estimates of bioenergy very positive. In the range of 20%-50% of world’s energy. A 2011 long term study estimate of 27%, 2030. That includes farmland, forest, waste, and the rest. The range is wide per market demands, not the limit of supply. One half of renewable energy is expected to be bioenergy and that list includes nuclear, hydro, wind, solar. It must be sobering for petrol companies to appraise such future markets. Some of the petrol companies investing in bioenergy. Read that Saudis are selling some of Aramco per the threatening future. They are presently in the throws of banking a $2 trillion fund to stabilize the future loss of nations wealth. Read were now again an importer of petrol per loss of production. That’s the problem with oil. Radically, change in production, aka boom and bust. It’s always on a R&D cycle of drilling in remote areas. Bioienergy stays put and has max ability to refine and improve efficiency.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on April 4, 2016 at 12:10 pm

              I’m afraid I need to wind it down as it takes too much of my time and we are not progressing. I think we see the world very differently:
              “Your worried of running out of food?”
              You seem to be worried about that, as you were the one proposing desperate measures for food production (vertical farming and all). At the same time, you do not seem to be worried about climate change, as you have no qualms about GHG-intensive agriculture and maintaining high emissions of developed countries.
              I consider climate change an existential threat (and I sincerely wish I was wrong on that), and see current agriculture as a major liability. There is enough food for all at the moment, but comes at an unacceptable environmental and resource cost (fossil fuels, P depletion, soil loss, eutrophication, etc.). Not sustainable even in the narrowest sense of the word. We have to start solving that before we put even more pressures on land and forest. Otherwise we just make things worse.
              I don’t expect you to agree with me, and please do not feel offended if I won’t respond.

          • By TimC on April 18, 2016 at 12:13 pm

            “If I choose not to fly to the Bahamas tomorrow…”

            What a brilliant suggestion, A.D. If we could just get everyone to plan one long flight a week, and then cancel it, we could eliminate billions of tons of carbon emissions.

            I think you’ve really hit on something big here. Since the dangers of “climate change” are largely imaginary, the solution must be imaginary as well. What people are looking for is a way to “make a difference”, without making any real sacrifices. That’s what you’ve provided. Well done, sir. I will book a flight to Kuala Lumpur immediately, then cancel it this afternoon. I ask that you all do the same. The future of our planet depends on it.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on April 18, 2016 at 4:20 pm

              Why would the dangers of climate change be imaginary?

              You are right to point out the absurdity of cancelling a fictitious travel. That is, unfortunately, the model used by most offsetting schemes, as they often sell fictitious, non-additional or double-counted credits. I did not plan to fly to the Bahamas, so my ‘reduction’ would not be real.

              However, I do fly (and travel) a whole lot less than I would if I were not worried about the climate. Most of my travel is official and unavoidable (in the sense that if I do not go someone else would), but I take the train whenever possible and not go if I can avoid it. And when I do avoid flying to a useless meeting, I save my employer more money than some people live on for a year (or two), and I save more GHG emissions than most poor people emit in a year. And in the vast majority of cases there are no regrets: I can make up for it with a few phonecalls and emails.

            • By Forrest on April 19, 2016 at 7:05 am

              Flying commercial can be less polluting than driving, well over 100 mpg per seat. That’s for a 1,000 mile trip and one plane was rated for 128 mpg! Consider that commercial planes travel the same frequency if your aboard or not, so your airline trip in reality about pollution less. You saved your company money by staying put, but most companies want employees to put forth the extra effort to maximize effectiveness. Of course if the trip is scheduled per wasted effort, well, your company or government agency should have a management change or be evaluated per worth vs cost. We have colossal waste upon inefficient gov’t agency that operated sub standard vs competitive markets. In fact the agencies usually usually an obstacle per odious coercive force of government heavy handed demands that are truly crude, inflexible, and always out of date. Think of our Wall Street regulation or how effective inspectors in catching drugs or bad products. Usually, it’s citizens that alert and inform even for the police.

            • By Advocatus Diaboli on April 23, 2016 at 6:11 am

              “Consider that commercial planes travel the same frequency if your aboard or not, so your airline trip in reality about pollution less”

              That is a load of nonsense. Obviously, airlines respond to demand. Certainly on the macro level (more flights/bigger craft on more frequented routes) but even at the micro scale. I once got a seat in the back of a plane in a raw that turned out not to exist. While the attendants were sorting it out they explained that the craft had an extended version that they used when they were full, but somehow it was not available. It is seldom that your individual decision would lead to a change of craft (let alone timetable), but if everybody reduced their flights by x %, then there would be roughly x% fewer seats flying, fuel used and planes bought.

  7. By NicholB on March 28, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    The obvious person to compare with is Kevin Anderson, @KevinClimate on twitter. His commitment to avoid taking flights to international conferences, make hard choices, and invest time to take alternative transport really underlines his message in an impressive way.

  8. By tcp53 on March 29, 2016 at 8:55 am

    “Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist”
    - Anonymous

  9. By David Gifford on March 29, 2016 at 11:26 am

    I have never understood the idea that legislation is going to be able to halt our carbon intensive lifestyles without any need for personal sacrifice. No agreement in Kyoto or Copenhagen is going to get us a new law of thermodynamics, and we will need to look to ourselves and how we all individually consume. Tightening regulation will help, but consuming less will help more. Leading by example, whether an activist actor or a simple cubicle dweller, is critical to moving in the right direction.

    • By Hominid on July 30, 2016 at 8:21 am

      Especially when you acknowledge the reality that nothing in human history comes close to the benefits to mankind derived from fossil fuel energy and materials.

      • By Greg Henry on August 3, 2016 at 6:24 pm

        Tell that to the 85,000 birds killed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

  10. By windy2 on March 30, 2016 at 9:50 am

    Dave Roberts censors civil comments that disagree with his POV. I do not see him as an “honest broker” in discussions of climate and I think this is another example of his lack of honesty. DiCaprio is the representative/messenger of an international body that is pushing an apocalyptic vision of inaction in reducing CO2 immediately. We seem to be on the 3rd or 4th “final” warning that we will soon pass the tipping point where we can prevent cataclysmic consequences. In that respect DiCaprio is ill suited as the spokesperson to represent an organization marketing near term impending planetary destruction. Nothing says “I could care less about the destruction of the planet” more than dozens of flights/year on private jets and partying aboard 500 foot yachts.

  11. By takchess on March 30, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    off topic but damn interesting as to what happens when cost considerations are removed from the commodity market. It is auminum but could it just of easily read Oil ?

    • By Forrest on April 4, 2016 at 7:54 am

      That is interesting in that comparing a managed economy vs open market. Our aluminum production has quickly adjusted to market conditions whereas China just sits and does dopey decisions making. It may appear they are ruining the competition, but at what economic cost to themselves? Our business executives will maximize their companies investment worth. China just wastes such resources . Also, if we provide a good supportive environment for business to easily accomplish their thing, this would magnify their ability to survive. Nothing wrong with them shutting down low compete plants in the interim. It would be good for them to knock heads with some politicians so they can impart on them what’s needed to support the industry long term. I would think energy parks would be a natural for aluminum production, with onsite nuclear. Maybe the Midwest wind corridor would be better location for cheap power. Hydro is always in the mix for lowest cost power.

      China makes some horrible solar panel quality and most that invest in these wish they didn’t.

  12. By Sean Sergio on April 3, 2016 at 8:40 am

    Unfortunately magical thinking presides even at the highest levels of policy making. The sad truth unfortunately.

  13. By Tom G. on April 9, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    I couldn’t agree more Robert. I have zero respect for individuals like DiCaprio since they are really part of the problem. They run around somehow believing that just because they are privileged by wealth, they are in some way qualified to talk about climate change.

    The people I look up to are people like Elon Musk who in just 3 days took orders for about 275,000 Tesla Model III Electric Vehicle which will certainly help clean up the “air we breathe and the water we drink”. Can DiCaprio make that type of claim and provide documentation of his success?

    I value companies like Apple and Google who decided to power 75-95% of their servers with renewable energy all without the help of a bunch of Hollywood junkies. I find value in others in the auto industry which continue to strive for better fuel economy without DiCaprio’s help.

    I find value in companies like Sun Power and EDF Renewable Energy [wind turbines] who continues to work towards the betterment of our planet WITHOUT spreading their carbon foot print all over the skies and contaminating the air we all have to breathe. I find it extremely distasteful that some Hollywood individuals thinks they are so smart they can tell “we the people” what we should be doing. Just how arrogant and out of touch can Hollywood get? I value companies like Oasys Water which provides membranes to clean up fracking water and other contaminated water sources.

    I will admit that I do enjoy watching DiCaprio in one of his movies and he is a fine actor but he should learn to stick with what he does best.

    • By Hominid on July 30, 2016 at 8:18 am

      Actors and other entertainment pseudocelebrities are handed a list of Liberal ’causes’ and asked to choose one for which to ‘champion.’

      • By (((The Sanity Inspector)))ن​ on July 30, 2016 at 10:30 am

        It’s always good for a bitter laugh to hear them banging on about “corporations”–as if Hollywood & the rest of the entertainment industry were just one big hippie community.

  14. By Hominid on July 30, 2016 at 8:11 am

    Liberals are good at sophistry. The weak-minded are unable to see through it.

Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!