I think among the ultra rich are very, very few climate experts and someone can be a hypocrite regarding their lifestyle while being correct about the need for change. People are local optimization machines and one can know that there is a great danger lurking in the future whilst over dosing on consumption.
> I think among the ultra rich are very, very few climate experts
They are far better informed and advised by experts in climate than you or I though.
Also one can not just be an expert in climate science. A climate scientist could tell you the effect of increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on the climate. They can not tell you the social and economic cost of that, or the best and most efficient technologies or social and economic strategies should be to address this problem. That requires a whole cohort of experts from all different fields.
And that is where the ruling class -- our betters -- have so much information and clarity that we can not hope to match.
> and someone can be a hypocrite regarding their lifestyle while being correct about the need for change. People are local optimization machines and one can know that there is a great danger lurking in the future whilst over dosing on consumption.
If that's the case and they are hypocrites who do not in fact consider themselves as being all in it together with the commoners, and they are not actually acting for the greater good, then it's even simpler: I won't listen to anything they have to say because we can assume it's all selfish lies. Which leaves me at the same place.
I don’t care whether or not you are doing your part for the environment or any other cause. My response above was not intended to try to convince you to take some action. My purpose was to point out flawed reasoning.
Your second to last sentence is flawed. You can’t logically assume it’s all selfish lies. A hypocrite can be correct in what they saw but wrong in what they do. The correctness of a belief has nothing to do with whether or not the purveyors of that belief are hypocrites.
The logic in my second to last sentence wasn't in my first comment.
In any case, I absolutely can assume it is lies. The whole premise is that climate change is a problem, it is the largest / existential problem for humanity, it must be addressed by changing our behavior, and that you should change even if others do not because you should set an example and that will induce more to follow.
I'm not saying it's all lies, but there has to be at least one lie that breaks the chain. They know better than anybody that their hypocritical actions and example are among the biggest causes of resentment among people. If they believed there was an existential threat to humanity, they would change their ways (or at least do something meaningful about climate change rather than start more wars, a la Obama).
