Preaching Green and Flying High: The Double Standards of Environmental Protection

Climate Change and Hypocrisy: Jetting to Heaven

In 2022, during the World Economic Forum (WEF) conference, 1,040 private jets flew to Davos. There are nearly 24,000 private jets worldwide. It is joked that Kylie Jenner uses a jet even to fetch bread. Commercial airlines agree to thousands of empty flights annually just to maintain their licenses for purchased routes. According to Wired, Brussels Airlines accounts for 3,000 such flights per year, and Lufthansa for over 21,000.

In addition to Taylor Swift, Jack Sweeney also tracks Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Russian oligarchs, and actor Leonardo DiCaprio. The latter is an outspoken activist fighting climate change. However, he often flies on his private jet and spends time on his gigantic luxury yacht. The takeaway? The real culprit in environmental destruction is plastic straws.

Back to Grade School

Remember when Jim upset the English teacher, and your entire class had to take a quiz? School taught us how unfair and illogical collective responsibility is. Perhaps that is why there is no place for it in the legal system. Yet this narrative dominates the climate crisis discussion. We – ordinary people – are blamed for advancing climate change through consumption, and only we can stop it.

Among politicians, ideas surface that primarily target the middle class. If we want to save our beautiful planet, we should bathe less, give up driving and eating meat, and lower our home temperatures to 16 degrees Celsius.

Sure, after a short shower and a barley dinner, we can immerse ourselves in Instagram feeds to watch celebrities and influencers enjoy foreign trips, buy expensive bags and shoes, or spend lazy weekends on the French Riviera.

Through My Most Grievous Fault

The logic is simple. Since there are more of us, ordinary people, than the wealthiest, it falls upon us to foot the bill for climate change.

In 2021, the commercials aired during the Super Bowl generated as much carbon dioxide as 100,000 Americans do in a year. That same year, a thousand private jets flew in for the final, with each emitting 5 to 14 times more carbon dioxide per person than commercial flights. How many of us need to shower once a week to neutralize the “carbon footprint” generated by the private jets that ferried American stars to the Super Bowl?

Lifestyle restrictions are not imposed on those responsible for the largest emissions. Bill Gates is gradually buying up land across the United States. Oprah already owns 5,600 acres in Hawaii. Zuckerberg has opened a massive Japanese cattle farm. DiCaprio is not expected to take a train to a climate change conference. Taylor Swift does not wish to have her flight information publicly disclosed. The consensus is that those who benefited the least from the profits generated by these emissions should bear the costs of climate change.

We recommend: The Truth About Psychopaths. “There Are a Lot of Stereotypes Behind this Concept”

Climate Change and Hypocrisy: the Carbon Footprint

The popular concept of the “carbon footprint” was created in 2004 by the oil company British Petroleum (BP). We can find carbon footprint calculators all over the internet. They will show us that we are living beyond our means, requiring at least three planets to sustain us. The biggest luxury contributing to carbon dioxide emissions is commuting to work.

The “carbon footprint” is a simple propaganda tool designed to alter our perception. Instead of protesting against large corporations that profit enormously from deforestation and pollution, we are encouraged to focus on our sins. However, we cannot be responsible for Jeff Bezos’ yacht emissions, nor are we accountable for decisions made in the past without our input. Climate change results from the Industrial Revolution, decisions made in the 1980s to shift mass production to Third World countries, and the spread of planned obsolescence as a way to stimulate the economy.

These decisions were made on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Our part of Europe has had access to the luxuries of the Western world for only 30 years. Over 2 million Poles still do not have bathrooms in their homes, and the same number live on the brink of poverty.

We recommend: “You Will Have Nothing and You Will Be Happy!” – What Does the World Economic Forum Threaten or Promise Us?

All Quiet on the Eastern Front

The West wages its climate crusade alone. Billionaires from Dubai or students from Shanghai do not concern themselves with ecology, as economic development remains paramount.

Over the past 30 years, the United States has dismantled its industry, shifting production to China, where environmental protection is merely a facade – drought is combated by laying plastic sheets over sand dunes and painting trees green, and recycling involves extracting cooking oil from the gutter. The United States is the largest importer of Chinese products – even in 2020, the pandemic year, it sent $US 452 billion to China.

Decisions made under the guise of environmental care can have entirely opposite consequences. While Europe bans the use of certain pesticides on crops, many farmers do not bother planting certain varieties. This drives up the prices of vegetable oil and pushes consumers to buy much worse ecologically palm oil. And palm trees grow in places where rainforests and the Amazon jungle have been cleared.

Regardless of our opinion on farmer protests, they point to a serious issue – by imposing restrictions on European agriculture, we are increasingly dependent on China and developing countries where ecology is still in its infancy. And since we live on the same planet, we cannot sweep the problem away by shifting it across the ocean.

The Lobster Fights for a Better World

In Alberta, where I live, residents perceive the climate catastrophe differently. For them, a disaster means weeks when daytime temperatures drop to minus 45 degrees Celsius, and fighting the disaster means technologies that allow survival and functioning in such conditions. During the last cold wave, the government sent us text messages asking us to save energy. The power grid survived thanks to the help of the neighboring province, Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe emphasized that the energy came from fossil fuels, which are opposed by the country’s prime minister’s, Justin Trudeau’s, party.

The Alberta government is moving away from banning single-use plastic bags and straws. Only the Red Lobster restaurant chain clings firmly to the ban. Their menu proudly states that they have given up straws to “minimize their impact on our oceans.” It is a pity that the chain specializes in serving seafood.

We should segregate waste, and save water – but let us not deceive ourselves that our individual decisions will stop climate change. Until environmental protection reaches the highest social groups, corporations, and governments, and happens at an international level, no paper straw will stop global warming.

Translation: Klauda Tarasiewicz

Polish version: Zmiana klimatu, plastikowe słomki i hipokryzja