Click here to read the original Cautious Optimism Facebook post with comments
3 MIN READ - The Cautious Optimism Correspondent for Economic Affairs and Other Egghead Stuff strays slightly from pure economics to analyze fuel consumption rates for boats and planes used by certain Hollywood celebrities… with plenty of reference links.
The CO Economics Correspondent randomly happened upon this story last night spotlighting actor Leonardo DiCaprio’s recent yacht vacation.
The movie star has been one of Hollywood’s most vocal proponents of climate change action, funding and starring in apocalyptic documentaries and even speaking before the United Nations:
....while never wasting a chance to lecture the hoi polloi that they need to give up their carbon-burning lifestyles and eat expensive green energy alternatives that send their standards of living a step backwards.
Meanwhile his yacht is powered by two 1,200 horsepower Cummins KTA38M2 diesel engines and the boat holds over 31,000 gallons of carbon-spewing, polar bear-exterminating, icecap-melting diesel fuel.
But hey, he poses for the press with his Fisker electric sports car so how could he not care about the planet with such eloquent virtue signaling?
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of cruising around on a super-sized diesel-guzzling yacht while demanding the average working American's household budget be pared by expensive green electricity, electric cars, and higher taxes to subsidize it all, the equally important question comes to mind:
Does DiCaprio really think the earth is in the balance teetering towards destruction?
If DiCaprio and his ilk really believed climate change was such an ominous threat to civilization, to humankind itself... I mean really, really believed the scare stories he preaches... one would think he would retreat into a spartan lifestyle that used virtually zero carbon-based energy. After all, each mile he moves under carbon-based power edges the human race that much closer to permanent extinction, not to mention the total, irreversible destruction of entire ecosystems and countless species.
So if he really believes his own interviews, his owns speeches, his own rally sermons, and his own documentaries, why does he constantly fly around the world and spend his holidays on a 52-meter, 600+ ton yacht?
The answer is pretty obvious: DiCaprio can't possibly believe the climate change existential-threat hype. Despite all he says, his actions are totally consistent with someone who either doesn't believe it or wants to deliberately destroy the world (by his science) with mass greenhouse emissions.
But none of that has stopped the adoring media for heaping huge praise on his efforts to save the planet (sarcasm):
Incidentally in DiCaprio's defense, once enough outrage had been generated by his use of private jets, including flying 8,000 miles on one to accept an environmentalism award...
... he vowed in 2019 to fly commercial instead. But he's still burning an enormous amount of CO2 with his business class carbon footprint for vacations or to lecture others on climate change. Shouldn't he stop flying altogether if something as important as the survival of the human species is at stake?
Not to be left out, another notable Hollywood hypocrite (from countless numbers) is John Travolta whose backyard is a practical airport of private planes... including his own personal Boeing 737.
Granted, Travolta used to have an even less fuel-efficient Boeing 707, but his newer 737 only holds 15 passengers. With a fuel capacity of 10,470 gallons and a range of 6,640 nautical miles, his new plane burns 0.10 gallons per passenger every nautical mile carried. By contrast a commercial Boeing 737-900 burns 0.01 gallons per passenger-mile so Travolta's jet is ten times more fuel-thirsty on a per-passenger basis than flying commercial—assuming of course that he fills his plane with 15 passengers each time which he doesn't (he's on record saying he flies to destinations alone or just with wife Kelly Preston).
(the 737-MAX is even more fuel efficient than the 737-900 but given its safety problems and grounding I opted not to use it for comparison purposes).
However Travolta is at least becoming greener since his last plane, a four-engine Boeing 707-120, was an even bigger gas guzzler than his new 737. Although it seated more passengers (25), its fuel efficiency was so poor that it burned 0.19 gallons per passenger-mile, nearly twice the rate of consumption as his 737, and nearly 20 times as much as a commercial 737-900.
Of course when he flew just himself and Kelly Preston he literally burned 200 times more fuel per passenger-mile than commercial. A one-way flight from his Florida home to Washington, DC would burn about 3,200 gallons of jet fuel whereas he and his wife could fly a United 737-900 that burns 1,700 gallons on the same route (carrying over 200 passengers along the way), or they could simply drive a BMW 528 and burn 25 gallons from the service station pump.
Yet Travolta still orders fans to "do their bit" tackling climate change while contributing to environmental and climate change activist groups.
But after a barrage of outrage regarding his climate hypocrisy Travolta has been smart enough to quiet down the last few years. Shortly after the outrage he was quoted saying "I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets. I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it's part of this industry – otherwise I couldn't be here doing this and I wouldn't be here now."
Yes, well as far as we know tens of millions of commercial flyers use it as a business tool too, so you and Hollywood aren't unique other than the fact that you're the ones telling everyone else to stop producing CO2.
There's no shortage of climate hypocrites beyond DiCaprio and Travolta, but for a short list just click here: