论文部分内容阅读
Leonardo DiCaprio’s Carbon Lifestyle
At the 2016 Academy Awards， Leo DiCaprio accepted his Best Actor trophy with a speech that included a passionate call to action on climate change.1
As inevitably as night follows day， social media was flooded with people attacking DiCaprio as a hypocrite for living a carbon-intensive lifestyle.2
This kind of thing has been around for as long as I’ve been writing about climate change. People never tire of pointing out that Al Gore lives in a “mansion” or that scientists fly all over the world to climate conferences， spewing CO2.3 Any time I mention a vacation online I am immediately scolded as a hypocrite by at least one of the trolls who follow me around waiting for such opportunities.4
It’s not just conservatives or climate skeptics， either.5 There have always been plenty of environmentalists and liberals who scorn Gore and other climate leaders for their supposed hypocrisy.6
There’s clearly something powerful in the critique7. It elicits strong， intuitive reactions，8 which is rare with arguments related to climate change.
But I don’t think it holds up9. In particular， I think it runs two different arguments together.
Argument 1： Climate advocates who don’t reduce their emissions are hypocrites10
This is the claim that really grabs people at a gut level.11 And it makes a certain sense： If you say carbon emissions are bad， and you emit lots of carbon， and you don’t work to reduce your own carbon emissions， then either a） you don’t really think carbon emissions are bad， or b） you’re a hypocrite.
But there’s a hidden premise here， which lots of people take for granted but shouldn’t.12 The premise is that personal emission reductions are an important part of the fight against climate change—if you take climate seriously， you take on an obligation13 to reduce your own emissions.
Is that true？ Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to believe， as many people do， that voluntary emission reductions are pointless vanity， that the only efficacious solutions to climate change involve extended， coordinated action by governments.14 They view the moralism around personal emissions as a distraction， a way of diverting environmentalist energy and alienating non-environmentalists.15
People who believe that are not engaged in hypocrisy if they fly， or buy an SUV16， or eat a hamburger. They are not advocating sacrifice or asceticism17； they don’t believe it would do any good. They believe people will take advantage of the options available to them until some combination of regulation and innovation makes cleaner options available.18 If they advocate for， and are willing to abide by， taxes and regulations designed to reduce emissions， then such folks are being true to their beliefs.19 You might think they are wrong about the value of personal behavior， but they are not hypocrites.
Is there any evidence that DiCaprio has advocated personal emission reductions or told anyone they ought to forgo20 planes or boats？ If so， I haven’t seen it.
Perhaps he has done the math and realized that the emissions of any single rich person are insignificant to the big picture on climate.
Let’s say that by flying and yachting all over the world， DiCaprio is responsible for 500 times the emissions of the average American—10，000 metric tons of greenhouse gases a year.21
How much is that？ Here are some annual greenhouse gas emission figures， in metric tons （years range from 2010 to 2013）：
* Global： 46 billion
* US： 6.673 billion
* California： 459.3 million
* Walmart22： 21 million
* Los Angeles： 18.595 million
* California film industry： 8.4 million
Even if extravagant by mere mortal standards， DiCaprio’s personal emissions are a fart in the wind when it comes to climate change.23 If he vanished tomorrow， and all his emissions with him， the effect on global temperature， even on US emissions， even on film-industry emissions， would be lost in the noise.24
Climate change is extremely large. No single human can directly generate enough emissions to make a dent25. And all indications26 are that DiCaprio knows that. That’s why he said：
We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters， but who speak for all of humanity， for the indigenous people of the world， for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this.27
He didn’t say， “We need to buy LED lightbulbs.28 And avoid yachts.” His focus is on political leadership.
So the “hypocrisy” charge29 fails. You’re not a hypocrite for not doing things you haven’t said anyone else should do either.
Argument 2： Public figures ought to do more climate signaling30
You could agree that voluntary personal emission reductions are irrelevant to the big picture on climate change and still think that high-profile public figures like DiCaprio are in a unique position to signal.31 Their choices and habits have outsize32 effects on culture. People look to them for indications about what is and isn’t important， so they have an obligation to send the right signals. There’s definitely something to this argument. But there are two important things to remember about it.
First， if signaling is the issue， well， DiCaprio is supporting electric cars and pushing for clean energy in the film industry and building eco-resorts and supporting clean energy campaigns and starting a climate charity.33 Oh， and making heartfelt appeals in front of nine million people at the Academy Awards.34
That’s a lot of signaling！ DiCaprio has a long history of serious work on this issue. By any measure， he’s doing better on signaling than the vast majority of wealthy， influential people.
Do pictures of him on a yacht undo35 all that？ No one’s provided any evidence to support that claim.
Second， note that this argument applies to all wealthy， influential people， not just the ones who advocate for action on climate change. If it is a moral good for influential people to signal that low carbon is a priority36， then it is a moral good for all of them. Those who speak up about climate change are under no special obligation over and above that.
All that said， yes， conspicuous37 consumption is a kind of signaling too—a bad kind， for reasons that go far beyond climate change. Generally， parading your hyperconsumption is corrosive to social solidarity.38
So if there’s any grounds for complaint against DiCaprio， it’s the same complaint fairly directed at any wealthy hyperconsumer： Signaling restraint is a gesture of social solidarity.39 They should all do more of it. Including the ones who never say a word about climate change.
To sum up
We’ve got to stop using fossil fuels40 as rapidly as possible. Doing that will mean some mix of technological， political， and social change. Undoubtedly lifestyle changes will come along with any such transition.41
I wouldn’t presume42 to predict what those lifestyle changes will be. But insofar as progress on decarbonization proceeds at the pace it needs to， it will do so because lower-carbon alternatives are cheaper or more convenient， or offer features and benefits their dirty competitors can’t.43
I have trouble envisioning voluntary restraint catching on at any scale that makes a difference.44 Cleaner energy will be more fun， more prosperous， better， or it won’t happen.
So sure， maybe DiCaprio ought to rein it in45 with the yachts and personal jets. But only for the same reasons all rich people ought to， not because he’s advocating for better climate policy. Everyone ought to advocate for better climate policy！ Policy is the big picture. If we get that right， both income inequality and emissions will decline and more people will be better off.46 If we get it wrong， the size of DiCaprio’s boat won’t matter one way or the other.
1. Academy Awards： 奥斯卡金像奖；trophy： 奖杯，奖品；passionate： 激昂的，热情的；call： 呼吁。
2. 就像黑夜会紧紧跟随白昼，社交媒体上涌现出大量对迪卡普里奥的批判，指责他是个“伪君子”，因为他本人就是碳密集生活方式的践行者。inevitably： 不可避免地；be flooded with： 充满；hypocrite： 伪君子；carbon-intensive lifestyle： 碳密集生活方式。
3. Al Gore： 阿尔·戈尔，曾任美国副总统，后成为国际知名的环境学家；mansion：（豪华的）宅第，公馆；spew： 喷出。
4. scold： 责骂，斥责；troll： 在互联网上发出恶意挑衅帖子的人。
5. conservative： 保守派；skeptic： 怀疑者。
6. environmentalist： 环保人士；liberal： 自由主义者；scorn： 嘲笑，蔑视；hypocrisy： 虚伪。
7. critique： 批评。
8. elicit： 引起；intuitive： 直觉的。
9. hold up： 支撑，证明属实。
10. advocate： 倡导者，拥护者；emission： 排放。
11. grab： 引起注意；at a gut level： 从内心。
12. premise： 前提；take for granted： 认为……理所当然。
13. obligation： 义务。
14. 像许多人一样，我们完全可以相信自愿减排都是徒劳，只有政府采取大规模的、协同的行动才是解决气候变化问题的唯一有效途径。pointless： 无意义的；vanity： 毫不重要，毫无价值；efficacious： 有效的；coordinated： 协调的。
15. moralism： 道德主义；distraction： 分散注意力的事；divert： 使转向； alienate： 使疏远。
16. SUV： 即Sport Utility Vehicle，运动型多用途车。
17. asceticism： 禁欲主义。
18. take advantage of： 利用；option： 选择；regulation： 规定；innovation： 创新。
19. abide by： 遵守；folk： 人们。
20. forgo： 放弃。
21. yacht： 乘游艇；metric ton： 公吨； greenhouse gas： 温室气体。
22. Walmart： 沃尔玛，全球连锁零售企业。
23. extravagant： 奢侈的，浪费的；mortal： 凡人的；fart： 屁。
24. 如果他明天就消失不见了，那他所排放的气体，这些气体对全球温度、美国总排放量，甚至电影产业排放量的影响，也都会随之消失尘世。vanish： 消失。
25. make a dent： 产生影响，引起注意。
26. indication： 迹象，指示。
27. polluter： 污染者，污染源； indigenous： 土著的，本土的； underprivileged： 弱势的， 贫困的。
28. LED： 发光二极管，其特点是节能环保；lightbulb： 灯泡。
29. charge： 指控。
30. public figure： 公众人物； signaling： 发信号，此处用其比喻义。
31. irrelevant： 不相关的；high-profile： 高调的，备受瞩目的。
32. outsize： 特大的。
33. eco-resort： 生态度假村； charity： 慈善事业。
34. heartfelt： 真诚的；appeal： 呼吁，恳求。
35. undo： 取消，抹掉。
36. priority： 优先。
37. conspicuous： 明显的，引人注意的。
38. parade： 炫耀；hyperconsumption： 超高消费；corrosive： 损害性的； solidarity： 團结。
39. ground： 根据，理由；restraint： 约束；gesture： 姿态，行为。
40. fossil fuel： 化石燃料。
41. undoubtedly： 毋庸置疑地； transition： 转变，变革。
42. presume： 假定，推测。
43. 但是目前，随着脱碳化进程以其应有的速度推进，人们的生活方式将会得到改变，因为低碳替代物更加便宜或便利，或是具备了其“污染源竞争者”所不具备的特点和优势。insofar as： 在……范围内；decarbonization： 脱碳（作用）。
44. envision： 想象，预想；catch on： 受欢迎，流行起来；scale： 规模，比例。
45. rein in： 控制，约束。
46. decline： 下降，降低；better off： 变得富裕，情况好转。
At the 2016 Academy Awards， Leo DiCaprio accepted his Best Actor trophy with a speech that included a passionate call to action on climate change.1
As inevitably as night follows day， social media was flooded with people attacking DiCaprio as a hypocrite for living a carbon-intensive lifestyle.2
This kind of thing has been around for as long as I’ve been writing about climate change. People never tire of pointing out that Al Gore lives in a “mansion” or that scientists fly all over the world to climate conferences， spewing CO2.3 Any time I mention a vacation online I am immediately scolded as a hypocrite by at least one of the trolls who follow me around waiting for such opportunities.4
It’s not just conservatives or climate skeptics， either.5 There have always been plenty of environmentalists and liberals who scorn Gore and other climate leaders for their supposed hypocrisy.6
There’s clearly something powerful in the critique7. It elicits strong， intuitive reactions，8 which is rare with arguments related to climate change.
But I don’t think it holds up9. In particular， I think it runs two different arguments together.
Argument 1： Climate advocates who don’t reduce their emissions are hypocrites10
This is the claim that really grabs people at a gut level.11 And it makes a certain sense： If you say carbon emissions are bad， and you emit lots of carbon， and you don’t work to reduce your own carbon emissions， then either a） you don’t really think carbon emissions are bad， or b） you’re a hypocrite.
But there’s a hidden premise here， which lots of people take for granted but shouldn’t.12 The premise is that personal emission reductions are an important part of the fight against climate change—if you take climate seriously， you take on an obligation13 to reduce your own emissions.
Is that true？ Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to believe， as many people do， that voluntary emission reductions are pointless vanity， that the only efficacious solutions to climate change involve extended， coordinated action by governments.14 They view the moralism around personal emissions as a distraction， a way of diverting environmentalist energy and alienating non-environmentalists.15
People who believe that are not engaged in hypocrisy if they fly， or buy an SUV16， or eat a hamburger. They are not advocating sacrifice or asceticism17； they don’t believe it would do any good. They believe people will take advantage of the options available to them until some combination of regulation and innovation makes cleaner options available.18 If they advocate for， and are willing to abide by， taxes and regulations designed to reduce emissions， then such folks are being true to their beliefs.19 You might think they are wrong about the value of personal behavior， but they are not hypocrites.
Is there any evidence that DiCaprio has advocated personal emission reductions or told anyone they ought to forgo20 planes or boats？ If so， I haven’t seen it.
Perhaps he has done the math and realized that the emissions of any single rich person are insignificant to the big picture on climate.
Let’s say that by flying and yachting all over the world， DiCaprio is responsible for 500 times the emissions of the average American—10，000 metric tons of greenhouse gases a year.21
How much is that？ Here are some annual greenhouse gas emission figures， in metric tons （years range from 2010 to 2013）：
* Global： 46 billion
* US： 6.673 billion
* California： 459.3 million
* Walmart22： 21 million
* Los Angeles： 18.595 million
* California film industry： 8.4 million
Even if extravagant by mere mortal standards， DiCaprio’s personal emissions are a fart in the wind when it comes to climate change.23 If he vanished tomorrow， and all his emissions with him， the effect on global temperature， even on US emissions， even on film-industry emissions， would be lost in the noise.24
Climate change is extremely large. No single human can directly generate enough emissions to make a dent25. And all indications26 are that DiCaprio knows that. That’s why he said：
We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters， but who speak for all of humanity， for the indigenous people of the world， for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this.27
He didn’t say， “We need to buy LED lightbulbs.28 And avoid yachts.” His focus is on political leadership.
So the “hypocrisy” charge29 fails. You’re not a hypocrite for not doing things you haven’t said anyone else should do either.
Argument 2： Public figures ought to do more climate signaling30
You could agree that voluntary personal emission reductions are irrelevant to the big picture on climate change and still think that high-profile public figures like DiCaprio are in a unique position to signal.31 Their choices and habits have outsize32 effects on culture. People look to them for indications about what is and isn’t important， so they have an obligation to send the right signals. There’s definitely something to this argument. But there are two important things to remember about it.
First， if signaling is the issue， well， DiCaprio is supporting electric cars and pushing for clean energy in the film industry and building eco-resorts and supporting clean energy campaigns and starting a climate charity.33 Oh， and making heartfelt appeals in front of nine million people at the Academy Awards.34
That’s a lot of signaling！ DiCaprio has a long history of serious work on this issue. By any measure， he’s doing better on signaling than the vast majority of wealthy， influential people.
Do pictures of him on a yacht undo35 all that？ No one’s provided any evidence to support that claim.
Second， note that this argument applies to all wealthy， influential people， not just the ones who advocate for action on climate change. If it is a moral good for influential people to signal that low carbon is a priority36， then it is a moral good for all of them. Those who speak up about climate change are under no special obligation over and above that.
All that said， yes， conspicuous37 consumption is a kind of signaling too—a bad kind， for reasons that go far beyond climate change. Generally， parading your hyperconsumption is corrosive to social solidarity.38
So if there’s any grounds for complaint against DiCaprio， it’s the same complaint fairly directed at any wealthy hyperconsumer： Signaling restraint is a gesture of social solidarity.39 They should all do more of it. Including the ones who never say a word about climate change.
To sum up
We’ve got to stop using fossil fuels40 as rapidly as possible. Doing that will mean some mix of technological， political， and social change. Undoubtedly lifestyle changes will come along with any such transition.41
I wouldn’t presume42 to predict what those lifestyle changes will be. But insofar as progress on decarbonization proceeds at the pace it needs to， it will do so because lower-carbon alternatives are cheaper or more convenient， or offer features and benefits their dirty competitors can’t.43
I have trouble envisioning voluntary restraint catching on at any scale that makes a difference.44 Cleaner energy will be more fun， more prosperous， better， or it won’t happen.
So sure， maybe DiCaprio ought to rein it in45 with the yachts and personal jets. But only for the same reasons all rich people ought to， not because he’s advocating for better climate policy. Everyone ought to advocate for better climate policy！ Policy is the big picture. If we get that right， both income inequality and emissions will decline and more people will be better off.46 If we get it wrong， the size of DiCaprio’s boat won’t matter one way or the other.
1. Academy Awards： 奥斯卡金像奖；trophy： 奖杯，奖品；passionate： 激昂的，热情的；call： 呼吁。
2. 就像黑夜会紧紧跟随白昼，社交媒体上涌现出大量对迪卡普里奥的批判，指责他是个“伪君子”，因为他本人就是碳密集生活方式的践行者。inevitably： 不可避免地；be flooded with： 充满；hypocrite： 伪君子；carbon-intensive lifestyle： 碳密集生活方式。
3. Al Gore： 阿尔·戈尔，曾任美国副总统，后成为国际知名的环境学家；mansion：（豪华的）宅第，公馆；spew： 喷出。
4. scold： 责骂，斥责；troll： 在互联网上发出恶意挑衅帖子的人。
5. conservative： 保守派；skeptic： 怀疑者。
6. environmentalist： 环保人士；liberal： 自由主义者；scorn： 嘲笑，蔑视；hypocrisy： 虚伪。
7. critique： 批评。
8. elicit： 引起；intuitive： 直觉的。
9. hold up： 支撑，证明属实。
10. advocate： 倡导者，拥护者；emission： 排放。
11. grab： 引起注意；at a gut level： 从内心。
12. premise： 前提；take for granted： 认为……理所当然。
13. obligation： 义务。
14. 像许多人一样，我们完全可以相信自愿减排都是徒劳，只有政府采取大规模的、协同的行动才是解决气候变化问题的唯一有效途径。pointless： 无意义的；vanity： 毫不重要，毫无价值；efficacious： 有效的；coordinated： 协调的。
15. moralism： 道德主义；distraction： 分散注意力的事；divert： 使转向； alienate： 使疏远。
16. SUV： 即Sport Utility Vehicle，运动型多用途车。
17. asceticism： 禁欲主义。
18. take advantage of： 利用；option： 选择；regulation： 规定；innovation： 创新。
19. abide by： 遵守；folk： 人们。
20. forgo： 放弃。
21. yacht： 乘游艇；metric ton： 公吨； greenhouse gas： 温室气体。
22. Walmart： 沃尔玛，全球连锁零售企业。
23. extravagant： 奢侈的，浪费的；mortal： 凡人的；fart： 屁。
24. 如果他明天就消失不见了，那他所排放的气体，这些气体对全球温度、美国总排放量，甚至电影产业排放量的影响，也都会随之消失尘世。vanish： 消失。
25. make a dent： 产生影响，引起注意。
26. indication： 迹象，指示。
27. polluter： 污染者，污染源； indigenous： 土著的，本土的； underprivileged： 弱势的， 贫困的。
28. LED： 发光二极管，其特点是节能环保；lightbulb： 灯泡。
29. charge： 指控。
30. public figure： 公众人物； signaling： 发信号，此处用其比喻义。
31. irrelevant： 不相关的；high-profile： 高调的，备受瞩目的。
32. outsize： 特大的。
33. eco-resort： 生态度假村； charity： 慈善事业。
34. heartfelt： 真诚的；appeal： 呼吁，恳求。
35. undo： 取消，抹掉。
36. priority： 优先。
37. conspicuous： 明显的，引人注意的。
38. parade： 炫耀；hyperconsumption： 超高消费；corrosive： 损害性的； solidarity： 團结。
39. ground： 根据，理由；restraint： 约束；gesture： 姿态，行为。
40. fossil fuel： 化石燃料。
41. undoubtedly： 毋庸置疑地； transition： 转变，变革。
42. presume： 假定，推测。
43. 但是目前，随着脱碳化进程以其应有的速度推进，人们的生活方式将会得到改变，因为低碳替代物更加便宜或便利，或是具备了其“污染源竞争者”所不具备的特点和优势。insofar as： 在……范围内；decarbonization： 脱碳（作用）。
44. envision： 想象，预想；catch on： 受欢迎，流行起来；scale： 规模，比例。
45. rein in： 控制，约束。
46. decline： 下降，降低；better off： 变得富裕，情况好转。