I agree that the optics of that situation aren't great, but what would you rather have him do? not preach environmentalism? If all rich people are chastised for supporting environmental movements, isn't that going to be worse for the environmental movement as a whole? The ideal scenario is that rich people both preach environmentalism and move to a zero impact permaculture commune, but that's not an unrealistic expectation. We can barely get environmental measures passed today, and that's with billionaires supporting the movement. I doubt shaming billionaires for supporting the movement is going to make things better.
The core problem is that you're making it harder to be an environment supporter. It's the equivalent telling the average Joe that if he supports the environment but still eats meat daily he's a hypocrite and should feel bad. The environmental impact of raising meat is well known, so advocating for environmental measures while not taking the trivial effort of not eating meat one day per week is pretty hypocritical as well. I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather have as broad support base as possible to get environmental measures promoted and passed, than a smaller group of diehard activists each trying to police each other on ideological purity.
The rich have both security and privacy concerns that make regular air travel problematic. Bill Gates sitting in an airport terminal is a danger to him, those around him, and is also a hassle to him and those around him.
There is the secondary factor of their time being too valuable as well, and having a direct flight to anywhere in the world making a big difference in how much time they spend.
some combination of using aviation biofuel (which in principle can be produced in a nearly carbon-neutral way) and buying non-fake carbon offsets (i.e., actually taking physical carbon out of the air) would probably be good enough.
this would further absurdly increase the cost of operating a private jet, but billionaires could still afford it.
This doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to bother others. I guess I just never got into the “only people who never do something wrong can advocate against wrongdoing” mindset.
Is it hypocritical? Sure, though I expect he has lots of reasons why it’s not. But is it better than not even giving lip service to the issue? Sure it is. But the fact that action isn’t good enough doesn’t mean it’s bad.
No, it is bad. He's basically saying "you peasants should give up the little you have so that we can save the planet without me having to give up anything".
Seems like a poor argument against environmentalism though. "That guy who said we should be nice to each other was mean to someone! Therefore being nice is stupid and we should all be as cruel as possible!"
You're speaking from the perspective of someone for whom the virtue of making personal sacrifices for environmental reasons is already obvious. Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who doubts this. To those people, rich jetset climate activists come across like politicians who agitate against gay people then get caught having anonymous gay sex in airport bathrooms. Their hypocrisy is seen to invalidate the authenticity of their message.
You are right about the argument in itself. It is poor. But the argument is not in meat of the argument, but in optics. The perception of things as 'rules for me but not for thee' almost immediately overrules even basic logic. In other words, make pain even across the board and people might listen.
