Leonardo DiCaprio Raked Over The Coals For Taking Private Jet To Accept Environmental Award
GETTY IMAGE
In a slice of satiric life, people are calling Leonardo DiCaprio a hypocrite for being a vocal activist against global warming while using private jets to travel to environmental awards ceremonies. Whether the actor and activist being raked over the coals due to his hypocritical travel plans is up to your own personal morals. In order to traverse from France to New York City for a Riverkeeper event (which works towards keeping New York’s rivers clean) and back to France, where he would accept an award at the amfAR’s Cinema Against Aids gala within 24 hours, it seems like this was necessary. Decadent, but necessary.
Let’s put this in perspective. Leonardo DiCaprio pledged $15 million to environmental causes at the World Economic Forum this year. In 2015, the Leonardo DiCaprio foundation pledged $15 million to support various activist organizations. In 2013, he gave $3 million to the World Wildlife Fund in order to aid the protection of endangered tigers in Nepal. After those $15 million donations, Leo sprinted towards his checkbook while shooting a squirt gun in the air to write Ecuador a $3.4 million check. So in the last 3 years, Leo has donated almost $40 million towards the environment and people in need, plus he’s raised millions more through fundraisers and appearances.
He also drives a Prius.
Does that balance out his private jet usage? Maybe, maybe not. But, according to someone close to him, he hitched a ride to the events, but didn’t charter the jet, saying, “hitching a ride was the only way he could make it in time for both events.”
That’s basically the private jet version of the carpool lane, right?
Here’s why environmentalist Robert Rapier thinks DiCaprio should be decried for this heinous act of hypocrisy, regardless of the jet-sharing.
“[He] demonstrates exactly why our consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow. It’s because everyone loves the combination of cost and convenience they offer. Alternatives usually require sacrifice of one form or another. Everybody says, ‘I’ve got a good reason for consuming what I consume’ . . . It’s the exact same rationalization for billions of people.”
Rapier is correct, fossil fuel consumption is growing, as is the world population and their quality of life, which is intrinsically tied to fossil fuels for the time being. However, most people don’t help generate $25 million towards AIDS awareness and $1.6 million towards keeping New York’s rivers relatively clean. So perhaps this is a net positive?
