“小李子”的碳生活方式

By David Roberts

Leonardo DiCaprios 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 Ive 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

Its 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

Theres clearly something powerful in the critique7. It elicits strong， intuitive reactions，8 which is rare with arguments related to climate change.

But I dont think it holds up9. In particular， I think it runs two different arguments together.

Argument 1： Climate advocates who dont 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 dont work to reduce your own carbon emissions， then either a） you dont really think carbon emissions are bad， or b） youre a hypocrite.

But theres a hidden premise here， which lots of people take for granted but shouldnt.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 dont 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 havent 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.

Lets 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， DiCaprios 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. Thats 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 didnt say， “We need to buy LED lightbulbs.28 And avoid yachts.” His focus is on political leadership.

So the “hypocrisy” charge29 fails. Youre not a hypocrite for not doing things you havent 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 isnt important， so they have an obligation to send the right signals.

Theres 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

Thats a lot of signaling！ DiCaprio has a long history of serious work on this issue. By any measure， hes doing better on signaling than the vast majority of wealthy， influential people.

Do pictures of him on a yacht undo35 all that？ No ones 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 theres any grounds for complaint against DiCaprio， its 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

Weve 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 wouldnt 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 cant.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 wont 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 hes 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 DiCaprios boat wont matter one way or the other.

1. Academy Awards： 奧斯卡金像獎；trophy： 獎杯，獎品；passionate： 激昂的，熱情的；call： 呼吁。

2. 就像黑夜會緊緊跟隨白晝，社交媒體上涌現(xiàn)出大量對迪卡普里奧的批判，指責(zé)他是個“偽君子”，因為他本人就是碳密集生活方式的踐行者。inevitably： 不可避免地；be flooded with： 充滿；hypocrite： 偽君子；carbon-intensive lifestyle： 碳密集生活方式。

3. Al Gore： 阿爾·戈爾，曾任美國副總統(tǒng)，后成為國際知名的環(huán)境學(xué)家；mansion：（豪華的）宅第，公館；spew： 噴出。

4. scold： 責(zé)罵，斥責(zé)；troll： 在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上發(fā)出惡意挑釁帖子的人。

5. conservative： 保守派；skeptic： 懷疑者。

6. environmentalist： 環(huán)保人士；liberal： 自由主義者；scorn： 嘲笑，蔑視；hypocrisy： 虛偽。

7. critique： 批評。

8. elicit： 引起；intuitive： 直覺的。

9. hold up： 支撐，證明屬實。

10. advocate： 倡導(dǎo)者，擁護(hù)者；emission： 排放。

11. grab： 引起注意；at a gut level： 從內(nèi)心。

12. premise： 前提；take for granted： 認(rèn)為……理所當(dāng)然。

13. obligation： 義務(wù)。

14. 像許多人一樣，我們完全可以相信自愿減排都是徒勞，只有政府采取大規(guī)模的、協(xié)同的行動才是解決氣候變化問題的唯一有效途徑。pointless： 無意義的；vanity： 毫不重要，毫無價值；efficacious： 有效的；coordinated： 協(xié)調(diào)的。

15. moralism： 道德主義；distraction： 分散注意力的事；divert： 使轉(zhuǎn)向； alienate： 使疏遠(yuǎn)。

16. SUV： 即Sport Utility Vehicle，運(yùn)動型多用途車。

17. asceticism： 禁欲主義。

18. take advantage of： 利用；option： 選擇；regulation： 規(guī)定；innovation： 創(chuàng)新。

19. abide by： 遵守；folk： 人們。

20. forgo： 放棄。

21. yacht： 乘游艇；metric ton： 公噸； greenhouse gas： 溫室氣體。

22. Walmart： 沃爾瑪，全球連鎖零售企業(yè)。

23. extravagant： 奢侈的，浪費(fèi)的；mortal： 凡人的；fart： 屁。

24. 如果他明天就消失不見了，那他所排放的氣體，這些氣體對全球溫度、美國總排放量，甚至電影產(chǎn)業(yè)排放量的影響，也都會隨之消失塵世。vanish： 消失。

25. make a dent： 產(chǎn)生影響，引起注意。

26. indication： 跡象，指示。

27. polluter： 污染者，污染源； indigenous： 土著的，本土的； underprivileged： 弱勢的， 貧困的。

28. LED： 發(fā)光二極管，其特點是節(jié)能環(huán)保；lightbulb： 燈泡。

29. charge： 指控。

30. public figure： 公眾人物； signaling： 發(fā)信號，此處用其比喻義。

31. irrelevant： 不相關(guān)的；high-profile： 高調(diào)的，備受矚目的。

32. outsize： 特大的。

33. eco-resort： 生態(tài)度假村； charity： 慈善事業(yè)。

34. heartfelt： 真誠的；appeal： 呼吁，懇求。

35. undo： 取消，抹掉。

36. priority： 優(yōu)先。

37. conspicuous： 明顯的，引人注意的。

38. parade： 炫耀；hyperconsumption： 超高消費(fèi)；corrosive： 損害性的； solidarity： 團(tuán)結(jié)。

39. ground： 根據(jù)，理由；restraint： 約束；gesture： 姿態(tài)，行為。

40. fossil fuel： 化石燃料。

41. undoubtedly： 毋庸置疑地； transition： 轉(zhuǎn)變，變革。

42. presume： 假定，推測。

43. 但是目前，隨著脫碳化進(jìn)程以其應(yīng)有的速度推進(jìn)，人們的生活方式將會得到改變，因為低碳替代物更加便宜或便利，或是具備了其“污染源競爭者”所不具備的特點和優(yōu)勢。insofar as： 在……范圍內(nèi)；decarbonization： 脫碳（作用）。

44. envision： 想象，預(yù)想；catch on： 受歡迎，流行起來；scale： 規(guī)模，比例。

45. rein in： 控制，約束。

46. decline： 下降，降低；better off： 變得富裕，情況好轉(zhuǎn)。