UN Climate Envoy Leonardo DiCaprio Flight Shares his Private Jet


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart – UN Messenger of Peace for Climate Change Leonardo DiCaprio is finally taking his responsibility to set a personal example seriously, with news that he plans to flight share his private jet with other passionately green A-list celebrities.

What planet are you on, Leo? DiCaprio flies his LA friends 6,000 miles around the world so they can listen to his speech on GLOBAL WARMING

When Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio hosts a reception for a string of A-list stars, supermodels and wealthy philanthropists later this month, he will make an impassioned plea for more action to be taken on global warming.

But instead of holding the event in Los Angeles, where most of his guests are based, they will fly halfway around the world to the glitzy French resort of St Tropez – at enormous cost to the environment.

Last night, green campaigners were quick to criticise 41-year-old DiCaprio, who in February used his Best Actor acceptance speech at the Oscars to warn about the dangers posed by climate change.

The reception – the grand-sounding Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation Annual Gala To Fund Climate and Biodiversity Projects – will be held on July 20 at the Bertaud Belieu Vineyards on the French Riviera.

Celebrities including Kate Hudson, Charlize Theron, Cate Blanchett, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Robert De Niro, Scarlett Johansson, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kevin Spacey are all expected to attend, along with a host of international rock and pop stars, supermodels and tycoons.

And while a table seating 12 people at the gala costs up to £125,000, the real price will be paid by the environment.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671903/What-planet-Leo-DiCaprio-flies-LA-friends-6-000-miles-world-listen-speech-GLOBAL-WARMING.html

The Daily Mail claims some greens have criticised DiCaprio’s extravagant long haul global warming gala, but I think they are being unduly harsh. After all, as far as I know DiCaprio normally doesn’t share his jet with lots of other celebrities.

Imagine the carbon footprint if all those green A-listers flew their own private jets.

By flight sharing on DiCaprio’s jet, those A-listers might still be collectively clocking up the same carbon footprint as a small city, but the saving over what could have been represents a win for nature. We should all recognise and applaud the heartfelt sincerity of DiCaprio’s baby steps towards setting a green example we can all aspire to.

4 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 4, 2016 9:19 am


george e. smith
Reply to  John
July 4, 2016 11:46 am

Why not blow out all of the windows, and half fill it with dirt (soil/earth/loam/whatever) and plant poppies in it, or California or Iceland Poppies.
Then you could take the engines and dump them in some not too deep tropical waters to start an artificial reef. Drain all the petrofluids out first.
Then we’ll have some idea that you are serious.

Gerry, England
Reply to  John
July 4, 2016 12:21 pm

Of course. You can’t be left wing without being a hypocrite. You can’t expect them to live like they expect us to can you. Thought they all flew in separate planes like the Royal family in case of an accident some of the Wankerati will survive.

Reply to  Gerry, England
July 4, 2016 1:30 pm

It’s time these phony actors went back to doing what they do best–filling tabloid pages with salacious photos and tales of them cavorting with scantily clad bimbos. No one should take them seriously. Having a “cause” is just a fad they’ve embraced to keep their mug in the paper between films. They’re nothing but “stage people.”

Reply to  Gerry, England
July 4, 2016 3:02 pm

I think we need a new law requiring them to all fly on the same plane, just in case there is an “accident”.
Disclaimer for those w/o sense: I do not actually wish harm on anyone. I just want a lot of people to shut up.

Reply to  Gerry, England
July 4, 2016 3:21 pm

Wankerati LOL

Reply to  Gerry, England
July 5, 2016 9:39 am

Wankerati indeed.

george e. smith
Reply to  Gerry, England
July 5, 2016 11:31 am

Is ” phony actor ” an oxymoron, or a tautology ??

Reply to  John
July 5, 2016 10:34 pm
Tim F
Reply to  John
July 7, 2016 9:34 pm

You have to remember that Leo was not acting when he played Howard Hughes. He really is that insane and arrogant. He believes he is infallible and a genius — all knowing. In the next few years he will have locked himself in a hotel peeing in a bottle waiting for doomsday.

Tom in Florida
July 4, 2016 9:19 am

C’mon, you all know the mantra by now. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. Haven’t you got the message through your thick skulls yet?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 4, 2016 9:22 am

the vlasti are entitled to their perks, given the exhausting w*rk they do, gallantly leading us forward to our glorious green future comrade!

Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 4, 2016 12:15 pm

My thought exactly – All Animals Are Equal But Some Animals.PIGs Are More Equal Than Others.
Warmist mantra -Whats mine is mine – Whats yours is mine!

July 4, 2016 9:20 am

typical Hollyweird: all show, no go.
i loathe these scum, and the ruin they have helped make out of a once great place to live… #Failifornia

July 4, 2016 9:21 am

i aspire to not holding such meetings and not doing any more COPs. use the INTERNET please.

July 4, 2016 9:21 am

..I noticed that nowhere does it say that he is going to “flight share his private jet” for FREE !!

george e. smith
Reply to  marcus
July 8, 2016 2:15 pm

I think it would be required to be free, otherwise he would be considered to be running an airline and be subject to all kinds of restrictions, like going through TSA to get on his plane.
I have twice ridden on Corporate jets; well one was actually a turbojet. Got a free trip for a week in Baja on a plane owned by some world travelling international uberexecutives.
Well I had to show one of them how to fish, and lend him some expensive fly fishing gear (which he damaged).
The other was a Sabre-liner owned by Monsanto Corp and flown almost exclusively for the benefit of the head of their Central Research Labs. That was some kind of a ride.

July 4, 2016 9:22 am

Hypocritical clowns like DiCaprio and many others who say climate change is such a dangerous catastrophe would be more convincing if they actually acted like it’s such a dangerous catastrophe.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Kamikazedave
July 4, 2016 12:41 pm

While agreeing in principle with your assessment, skeptics are in danger of a similar ‘hypocrite’ accusation:
“…they will fly halfway around the world to the glitzy French resort of St Tropez – at enormous cost to the environment.”
Well, my position is that there is basically zero cost to the environment. He says there is, but I say not.
I don’t like the hubris over the difference between their words and deeds, which sets the mark of the man. But I cannot claim it is ‘harmful to the environment’ because I think it makes diddly squat difference. Increased CO2 has only a weak forcing capability when starting at 380 ppm.
Flying 100 jets to a conference on anything is just putting money in the pockets of pilots and airports and fuel vendors. It’s better than what they used to do which was buying cocaine to support the drug cartels of the South.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 4, 2016 2:55 pm

If CO2 and H2O were the only byproducts from jet fuel, you might have a point. But burning jet fuel also produces CO, C, NOx, and various toxicologically relevant compounds including carcinogenic substances. So it’s really quite difficult to claim that there is “zero cost to the environment.” Besides, it’s failure to live by your own rules that makes you a hypocrite, not a failure to live by someone else’s rules. These hypocrites are working hard to get government to force the rest of us to live by their rules while they ignore them completely.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 4, 2016 3:41 pm

On Independence Day, Crispin celebrated independence of mind- the backbone of real courage.
You don’t have to face death to be brave. You have to face LIFE – and choose it.
Mocking retards is all very well- they are, indeed, nature’s clowns.
But maybe if people stopped paying them to do what they do – there’d be just that much less hypocrisy going around.
Courage. Just do it.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 4, 2016 8:24 pm

Increasing Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a net benefit. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. Increasing CO2 extends growing seasons & lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it helps to shrink deserts, plants using H2O more efficiently. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall & save lives; because cold kills. The Earth is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 40 years ago.

george e. smith
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 5, 2016 11:36 am

Well your last paragraph is just a variant of the ” broken window ” fallacy.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
July 4, 2016 1:31 pm

That’s OK, he’s causing BS meters to go ding!ding!ding!!! all over the world . . .

Reply to  Kamikazedave
July 4, 2016 5:15 pm

DivestInvest, Toronto, June 7, 2016
‘Canadian Foundations Join Global Fossil Free Movement’
“A global coalition, Divest-Invest Philanthropy includes iconic foundations such as, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Leonardo Di Caprio Foundation, …”
More at: http://www.divestinvest.org/philanthropy/Canadian-Foundations-join-global-fossil-free-movement

Reply to  Barbara
July 4, 2016 5:39 pm

Does that mean that Canada will no longer be allowing paleontology? Will the country’s museums be liquidating all fossil collections?
They had better give the Smithsonian its T-rex back before they start “divestment” or whatever.

Reply to  Barbara
July 4, 2016 6:33 pm

Canadian foundations who joined DivestInvest from the above DivestInvest article are:
Toronto Atmospheric Fund, Toronto
Catherine Donnelly Foundation, Toronto
Comart Foundation, Toronto

Reply to  Barbara
July 6, 2016 6:14 am

AllyKat July 4, 2016 at 5:39 pm wrote: “Does that mean that Canada will no longer be allowing paleontology? Will the country’s museums be liquidating all fossil collections?”
That’s funny, AllyKat!

July 4, 2016 9:23 am

These people are flakes

July 4, 2016 9:23 am

Rules for me and rules for thee. I will take CAGW seriously when those who say it is a problem live the way they command me to live. Lead by example.

Reply to  alexwade
July 4, 2016 10:17 am


Alan Robertson
Reply to  alexwade
July 4, 2016 10:31 am

The point is not to lead by example. It never has been. The point is to remind you of your proper place.

Reply to  alexwade
July 4, 2016 1:33 pm

I’ll believe CAGW is real when they order everyone to stop consuming new clothes, ration food, stop all civil air travel and order corporations to set their staff up to telecommute. I’ll believe silly actors are serious about it, and the IPCC besides (more actors!) when they SKYPE these meetings instead of flying to resorts.
The elite are about to get their comeuppance–the peasants have started to figure a few things out.

Reply to  Goldrider
July 4, 2016 3:15 pm

One would think he would have a staff member who could figure out how to start a go fund me type account. Of course, online giving does not have the same potential for virtue signaling…

Reply to  Goldrider
July 6, 2016 2:13 am

I’ll believe CAGW is real when/if real science says so.
Still waiting.

george e. smith
Reply to  Goldrider
July 8, 2016 2:18 pm

Simply take NOTHING from out of the ground; for ANY reason.

Reply to  alexwade
July 4, 2016 3:42 pm

“I will take CAGW seriously when those who say it is a problem live the way they command me to live.”

July 4, 2016 9:28 am

Thanks, Eric, but lets invite DiCaprio et al to the London Climate Conference at University College on September 8&9 – he and his guests might just learn something most worthwhile.
In the meantime, the CO2 contributed will help some plants grow!

July 4, 2016 9:33 am

Happy Independence Day WUWT gang,
To assuage their Aircraft guilt, this earth worship video is on the movie screen…

Reply to  upcountrywater
July 4, 2016 10:22 am

Keep them away from Six Flags New Jersey—the 15,000 trees being razed for solar power will the death of all of them. Even if it is to “save the planet”. (Yeah, right…….)

Reply to  Reality check
July 4, 2016 1:51 pm

I had heard nothing of this in the UK but it seems to be true
Not quite as mad as our drax power station importing wood pellets from the states but it Is almost in the same league. The protestors had wanted to build a solar canopy over the theme park car park which seems a better solution but that was turned down

Reply to  Reality check
July 4, 2016 6:40 pm

Yeah, I think they’re removing the trees to convert them to wood pellets…I think?

george e. smith
Reply to  Reality check
July 8, 2016 2:20 pm

How many (acres of) trees does it take to publish just one issue of the Sunday New York Times ??

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  upcountrywater
July 4, 2016 10:47 am

In response to this video I walk out to the back lot, fire-up the trusty ole Stihl 391, and make a large wooden object fall over …

July 4, 2016 9:35 am

…even they don’t believe it

L Leeman
July 4, 2016 9:41 am

Oh this kind of crap is nothing new for Leo ( the idiot ). You do remember this one dontcha?

Paul Westhaver
July 4, 2016 9:44 am

I feel left out.

Brooks Hurd
July 4, 2016 9:46 am

One might ask how many seats Leo has to share. The seats in a luxury jet are not exactly squeezed into every available spot as one finds in “steerage” class on commercial flights. The greenies may believe that Leo is offering 100 of his closest friends and ride to St. Tropez, but the actual number is more likely less than 10.

Reply to  Brooks Hurd
July 4, 2016 11:05 am

This assumes that his jet has ten seats, instead of a sofa and coffee table and a theatre sized TV.
My guess is he does not have it set up for maximum seating.
Why would he?

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
July 4, 2016 12:49 pm

Try 3, at most.Even a Gulfstream g650 is usually configured to carry 5 passengers “in comfort.”

george e. smith
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
July 8, 2016 2:29 pm

I think the Monsanto Sabre-liner (circa 1966/7) had comfortable seating for at least six, and it might have been eight. Two pairs of facing seats and a table between on each side. I just remember that on take off from Sacramento to come to SFO after having to stop for fuel due to big headwind over rockies, on St Louis to California hop, everything on the table went flying into my lap, as we went up at about 45 degrees. Whereas at Lambert Field in St Louis, we used all 11,000 ft of runway and maybe then some.

Ken Gerald
July 4, 2016 9:47 am

I’ve always postulated that the brain of a liberal, progressive, enviromentalist never matured to the point of reality. This is a perfect example of the disorganized, incoherent firing of synapses in the brain. Having a mature brain it is impossible for me to comprehend this type of childish, emotional behavior. They obviously need a “safe place” to recover from the trauma of downed tree.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Ken Gerald
July 4, 2016 10:52 am

In order to take on roles that are typical of Hollywood drama one must lack a certain level of development in their personality. Try taking any line in a recent chick-flik and say it with a straight face … if you are a functional, well-developed adult it is impossible to do.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
July 4, 2016 3:17 pm

Take a line from any action flick and get the same result. Let’s be real, no one is going to see Independence Day 2: Moneygrab for the plot.

Reply to  Ken Gerald
July 4, 2016 9:25 pm

No, I know a good number of liberal, progressive environmentalists of decent intelligence that truly want to help humanity as best they can. The problem is that they do not hold seats of power and are too rational to attract media attention.
They are ashamed about this sort of thing as well.

July 4, 2016 10:00 am
July 4, 2016 10:01 am

Concur with everyone’s comments. The arrogance and hypocrisy is not surprising. It is human nature to adopt an attitude of moral superiority to others to gain power, and to feel you have figured out how to solve the worlds’ problems and relieve guilt about “sinning against nature”, and/or having more wealth than others. Unfortunately many in the developed world have beem indoctrinated their whole lives to feel guilty about being human, about being wealthy compared to developing countries, and impacts on the environment. We must make amends is their mantra. But all of these activisits, who are virtually all from the developed world, do not sacrifice a thing. I’m sorry, sharing your private jet with others is not a sacrifice. These people want to ease their conciences, and maintain power and control, by denying affordable energy to the developing world. It is human nature to not trust other groups of people you do not share a language or other cultural norms or values with. Hence, they don’t want China or India to develop into superpowers like them selves. I believe this is a core, but largely sub-concience feeling of many in the human-caused climate change establishment, because they don’t trust other nations to develop responsibly. I do trust developing nations, and am happy to see them achieve a good standard of living, as we have. They may create some environmental problems along the way, but they will amend them as we did and are doing ( we solved the acid-rain issue, leaded gas,, have cleaner running cars, and a myriad of environmental regulations, more and more parks, sustainable logging practises, etc.)
Fundamentally, this isn’t about the climate, it’s about developed nations maintaining control, and maintaining their advantage, thereby maintaining their way of life. Virtually all in the climate establishment would be indignant about an accusation such as this, because they feel they are doing somewthing good for the world and easing their conciences. But they should look deeper and closer at what they are truly advocating. You don’t help developing nations by denying them the energy to develope, but you help the environment righ?, Which to AGW advocates is more important than humanity. After all, these folk and their ilk think there are too many people in the world. Hence, no energy for developing nations, and they themselves sacrifice nothing, knowing full-well they will retain use of fossil fuels if necessary to always maintain their standard of living. ,

Reply to  hollybirtwistle
July 5, 2016 2:08 am


July 4, 2016 10:10 am

Ah , Fourth Follies .
Not clear that Leo owns his jet or just hires them as he needs them .

July 4, 2016 10:17 am

It is a sacrifice. Letting random Hollywood types onto your jet is like riding the subway with the world’s lowlifes. They are dirty, smell bad, and leave a mess behind.
Just getting the plane cleaned up again must be a tremendous effort for the work crews. I know it is symbolic and all, but I would never do it.

Reply to  TonyL
July 4, 2016 6:45 pm

I doubt Leo is Letting random Hollywood types onto his jet.

July 4, 2016 10:18 am


July 4, 2016 10:19 am

Leo – Education: John Marshall High School & Center for Enriched Studies, Los Angeles, CA. Yep, I always listen to high school Hollywood “geniuses” like Leo for all my science lessons. After all Leo is still traumatized from “personally” witnessing climate change in Calgary – or as we call that incident – a normal seasonal Chinook.

Reply to  albertalad
July 4, 2016 1:36 pm

Too bad it wasn’t a Grizzly! 😉

Hot under the collar
July 4, 2016 10:30 am

It’s sad that someone who made their fortune from the media hasn’t heard of video conferencing.

July 4, 2016 10:36 am

Will he be buying bus ticket offsets??

July 4, 2016 10:45 am

Nothing more than a useful id*ot.

July 4, 2016 10:56 am

The only “green” is the naivety of people who are still in the Pro-choice Church of selective principles, science, etc. Can someone with a pro-choice religious/moral philosophy technically be classified as a sanctimonious hypocrite (i.e. bigot)? Plan another baby to the mortal gods from the twilight zone. The liberal and progressive departure from the strictly constrained scientific domain is unprecedented.

July 4, 2016 11:09 am

Leo DiCaprio is a Paragon of Green Virtue. 🙂

Reply to  SMC
July 4, 2016 6:49 pm

Sad but true.
He and Al Gore are among some of their best examples.

July 4, 2016 11:21 am

He’s no different than the rest. Anyone drive along I-70 in western PA and notice the billboards highlighting celebrity hypocrisy on the environment?
Of course that’s coal country so you can imagine how well this stuff goes over with them.

Reply to  rah
July 4, 2016 12:45 pm

Another revealing U Tube of the Hyprocrite.

July 4, 2016 11:39 am

Leo is making the world GREEN by fertilizing the world with the plant nutrition CO2.

Jim G1
July 4, 2016 12:28 pm

Many of these Hollywood folks have made huge amounts of money based in many cases, not all (take James Woods as a counter example) solely upon their looks and perhaps their connections. So, you’re sitting around with all this money and depending upon your level of awareness you start to get the feeling that you really haven’t accomplished much with your life other than the money. A wasted life, a real sin even for those who believe in very little of the spiritual nature. So, you become an activist.
Of course, there are also those idiots who are simply ignorant enough to buy the coolaide being peddled. But they at least get to enjoy the feeling that they are being helpful. God made so many poor folks, I think, becauseit is much easier, and less dangerous, for people to deal with adversity than success.

Ross King
Reply to  Jim G1
July 4, 2016 5:35 pm

In “MBA-Think-Mode” I’ve long thought that companies earning a bad “environmental” rap, hire the best PR & Advertizing brains to promote their way out of the mess they’ve got themselves in (e.g., huge grants to GreenExtremist groups, etc. just for Green-points and P.R. show).
Since the Hollywood Glitterati live such egregiously extravagant lifestyles, their PR Consultants are prob’ly murmuring in their ears something like: “It wd suit you to demonstrably show a modicum of recognizance — at least — for the vast majority of folks scrabbling for a crust of bread to support their families. What we propose [Sir/Madam] is a look-good, relate-to-current-popular illusions/delusions CAUSE … matters not …. pref’ly a [enter Actor’s namer here] Fund for [whatever looks best at the time].
Scan your eye across the Glitterati’s raft of Important Human Causes, and you’ll find a pattern, driven by P.R. Media, Sensationalist journalism, etc. WE LIVE IN 21st,C, IF YOU’RE *THAT* MUCH OF A HOUSEHOLD NAME, YOU GOTTA HAVE A “CAUSE” TO KEEP YA LOOKING GOOD! Perish the though that your box-office desirability & returns diminish (potential) income!
The concomitant is that likely most of these Glitterati pay only ‘lip-service’ to such Causes ….. but the P.R. says you are financially involved ….. what? ….. 0.5% of your annual income? Small Investment, big Return!!!
So, folks, my cynical ‘take’ is that these Glitterati (supernumeraries and otherwise unemployable in the REAL ECONOMY) are struggling to retain some vestige of Relevance in Society.
And in DiCaprio’s case failing.

Reply to  Ross King
July 4, 2016 5:50 pm

It is all about the brand, and the increased media presence (thanks cable and the Interwebs) has only made it worse. I wonder if we could decrease the insanity a bit by somehow making the youth obsessed celebrities realize that supporting certain causes can be, shall we say, dating. Farm Aid or Band Aid? Save the Rainforest? Acid Rain? Equal Pay? [Actually, that is more of an indication of what should be a lethal mix of stupidity and laziness. Even some of the “feminist” groups have stopped trying to claim that one.] Palm Oil is Bad? Global Warming?
Claim one as your cause, and admit your age!

Ross King
Reply to  Ross King
July 5, 2016 7:41 am

P.S. So called Climate Scientists are scathing about anyone who doesn’t have proper scientific accreditation and at least a Ph.D.
DiCaprio has neither, and so therefore deserves the same piss & scone as meted-out by the Alarmist crew.

Ross King
Reply to  Ross King
July 5, 2016 5:51 pm

I like AllyKat’s reply (to the extent I understand it). My rebellious daughter, in mid-20s, railed against my earlier gripe that Bono was a balladeer and so had no formal standing on anything other than selling ballads. She expostulated: “If Bono is wrong, to which icons can we — as youngsters — look for guidance in such matters [as the Environment]?”
Yikes! Voting the way yr fave star suggests, rather than studying an important issue, analyzing it from yr personal perspective, and making your own mind up on the issue in Q., really is worrisome.
Maybe this is what diCaprio and his ilk are all about. Influential Power thro’ Pop(ularity) over the masses who have no intellectual capacity, or education, to formulate their own opinions.
Imagine …. [S-q-u-e-a-llllll !!!…. I’m voting for what [Bono/diCaprio/whoever] says ‘cos I *really* fancy his smouldering look/tenor voice … whatever]
The worst advice offered by anybody was: “Don’t worry, be happy.” This is pure Soma to those who choose not to think for themselves: “Ignorance is bliss” so don’t bother with anything … just be happy. And so, vote ‘happy’ (guided by *your* Hollywood star) as undoubtedly he will help you towards your Nirvana (which is what to a wasted brain?)
An excellent recent example is with BrExit, in which the metrics admirably demonstrate that the % of ‘Oldies’ voting far exceeded the youngsters (80/30 thereabouts) and now the youngsters are claiming a ‘generational hi-jacking’ of their future: “We wanted in and we’re not leaving!”
Maybe all the Bremain side needed was Leonardo di Caprio to point them the way to vote…..
Which proves some kind of a point……???

July 4, 2016 12:34 pm

I do wish people would stop alleging he is an actor.

David Chappell
Reply to  phaedo
July 4, 2016 8:28 pm

+ millions
We should re-enact the old laws whereby “theatricals” were regarded as vagabonds and beggars and either chased out of town or thrown into prison.

Reply to  David Chappell
July 4, 2016 9:15 pm

Back when Rome was in power, actors were considered “infamia”, meaning they could not hold office, had no standing in court, could not bring charges in court, and could not enter the elite ranks of equestrian or senator. Others who were considered “infamia” were charioteers, gladiators (and those who worked in the profession), morticians, prostitutes, and pimps.
The other infamia were probably rather annoyed that they were being tarred with the same brush as the actors.

Ross King
Reply to  phaedo
July 8, 2016 5:35 pm

Re: diCaprio as Actor?
He *is* an Actor, and likely he is ‘puffed-up’ by over-weening accolades to thinking that his status in life transcends Thespian skills demonstrated in fleeting performances (of mediocrity or otherwise). Hubris, with the inevitability of a Greek Tragedy, kicks-in and … next thing … ‘He’ is the self-perceived Second Coming. (From my perspective, the First Coming never came in his instance.)
This all falls far short of cause for celebration.
OMG!!!! diCaprio for President next time round? At least he’d have Obama’s & Gore’s support … for what that’s worth these days!!!! Think of it … the Presidential Jet will be at his disposal as a personal toy — and free at the taxpayers’ expense! — to take all his Hollywood buddies to hear Him pontificate wherever. Self-Actualization of Ego knows no equal!

Mike Maguire
July 4, 2016 12:36 pm

Here’s how this works.
Celebrities like this see an opportunity to use their celebrity status to make(what they think is) a positive change in our world(which is greening up from the increase in CO2).
There is no question that he sincerely believes everything that he thinks and states and that the “science is settled” because when we believe in something……..non scientists don’t try to prove it wrong to test the theory, they do the opposite. Their belief system causes their brains to seek out only information that confirms what they think they know………and discard anything that contradicts it.
Scientists should be held to a higher standard of course but DiCaprio does not know any better.
He also is not able to actually apply the same principles that he teaches to his own life because he does not see himself as one of us…….you know, regular folks.
He is in fact, by many measures, more important (which most of humanity agrees upon or we would not be having this discussion) and his importance, including his profound ability to communicate this “save the planet” message justifies his extravagant life style.
The bottom line is that, instead of feeling guilty about their extravagant life style, celebrities like this can use their widespread recognition and following, to send very powerful messages to many millions. This is how they do their part. If they can potentially get an unlimited amount of people to act in the manner that their message calls for, they’ve multiplied their power to make a substance positive change many, many times.
This allows people like this to justify mucking up the environment 1,000 times more than you or me……..because they are doing it to communicate their message to millions. In the absence of the message(the way they were before embracing this belief system), they would still be mucking up the environment at the same rate……..so to them, mucking it up for a good cause makes them feel good about themselves.
Not being a high profile celebrity makes it challenging for average citizens to understand this mentality. If we agreed with his position, we would be more inclined to support his actions…….because he would be maximizing his power as a celebrity to do good.
However, since the earth is greening up and by many measures, the last 4 decades have featured the best weather and climate of the planet in 1,000 years(since the Medieval Warm Period that was probably this warm in many places) and we know this, we don’t see him doing good. Instead, we see his message as counter productive because its misleading and exaggerates objective realities based on scientific observations.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
July 4, 2016 6:57 pm

Or maybe it’s just another trust fund charity foundation scam.
Like the Clinton foundation.

July 4, 2016 12:44 pm

Leonardo is a great actor, but the brain processing power used for his acting ability must have taken away brain processing power from other important areas of his brain, like the part that can detect cognitive dissonance.
Like the actors who are fervently for gun control laws as long as the new laws do not interfere with their security details.

July 4, 2016 1:05 pm

I note that jet aircraft fly in the stratosphere, above the weather in the troposphere, because the ride is smoother and more fuel-efficient. However, the exhaust when hydrocarbons are burned contains CO2 (a greenhouse gas) and water vapour. The water vapour forms ice crystals in the jet contrails (cirrus-like clouds) which, because of their low temperature emit low Planck black body radiation. This decrease in TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere) infrared (IR) flux to outer space overwhelms the cooling due to increased albedo, so high clouds are warming, contributing further to global warming. Of course, the quantitative effect overall is negligible, as even James Hansen has admitted (tested when all flights were grounded over North America after 9/11). But the intellectual elite, although they read a lot and attend conferences, are basically innumerate. None of them has yet noted that we breathe out 3% CO2, compared to the atmosphere’s 0.04 % by volume CO2 (400 ppmv). You can imagine their proposed solutions once this becomes widely known…

Reply to  rogertaguchi
July 4, 2016 1:26 pm

If I remember correctly the claim was that high flying super fast jets deplete the Ozone. That is why the US did not get into the SST (Super Sonic Transport) business and did not have the equivalent of the European Concord or Soviet TU-44 in commercial service. Now there are no SSTs in service. So now days if your flying commercial coach at most airlines you have about as many perks as riding Greyhound. So what’s an ultra rich person to do but buy their own jet?

Reply to  rah
July 4, 2016 6:53 pm

The seats on Greyhound are, or at least they were, more comfortable than the seats in cattle car, excuse me I meant Economy Class, on US airlines. Admittedly, it’s been a couple of decades since I had to rely on Greyhound for long distance travel.

george e. smith
Reply to  rogertaguchi
July 8, 2016 2:35 pm

Who says the radiation to space needs to come from TOA. The as seen from satellites LWIR spectrum suggest that the 288 kelvin earth surface is the principal source of that LWIR emission, not those nothing clouds at high altitude.

July 4, 2016 1:38 pm

…at enormous cost to the environment.
[Joe Pesci]OK, OK.[/Joe Pesci]
Exactly what is the “enormous cost to the environment”?
Unless one means the cost DiCaprio claims to be the impact of such a flight.
In which case, as many here have opined, would make what he is doing absurd.

Eugene WR Gallun
July 4, 2016 1:52 pm

This is the progressive left. Hypocrisy is their politics. Smear Republicans while living the high life. Remember Hillary Clinton recently gave a speech about inequality wearing a $12, 000 Armani jacket.
Actions speak louder than words but Democratic voters just don’t seem to get that. On a rainy day they would stand on the roadside cheering Hillary as her motorcade roared by splashing mud on them.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
July 4, 2016 6:03 pm

WaPo did a recent article about the woman who designs clothing for powerful (real or wannabe) women, including Killary. I am not wealthy enough to notice or care about the difference between an off the rack skirt suit, a custom tailored designer skirt suit, or the skirt suit equivalent of haute couture. (Campaigning is an interview, and if you are interviewing for a major job, you better be wearing the formal attire for your sex. That is a skirt, ladies. YSL was wrong.) If someone wants to wear expensive attire bought with their own money that they came by honestly*, that is their business. BUT. Considering the amount of crap that a certain Republican woman got about her clothes a couple of election cycles ago, it is rather galling to see spending small fortunes on clothes being cast as necessary and virtuous, simply because a Dem is the one doing it.
I will allow this: at least it sounds like the party in France might be worth the ticket price. That is way more than can be said about the clothes on the campaign trail this year. Or the candidates.
*Killary is obviously disqualified.

July 4, 2016 1:55 pm

Like in the old days actors said I do not care what you say just put my name in the title!

Dennis Gaskill
July 4, 2016 2:11 pm

Leo is looking pretty smug in that picture.
It must be quite an Ego builder to to pretend you are saving the world .

David Chappell
Reply to  Dennis Gaskill
July 4, 2016 8:36 pm

My father used to call that sort of cap a “ratting cap”. Appropriate, I guess…

Alan Robertson
July 4, 2016 2:14 pm

All of this sounds like great fun. It’s Independence Day in the USA and Leonardo and friends can do as they please, even congratulate themselves for being so hip and cool. What difference does it make, spending their lives being wrong, if they feel good about it?
They can believe what they want, or pretend to believe… If they have courage, then they could examine their beliefs. Seek truth.
Stars would fall from the heavens. Worlds would end.
Somehow, a trip to SanTrop would seem incomplete if BB didn’t stop by for a visit.

July 4, 2016 2:15 pm

Last night three black bears visited my bird feeders and destroyed everything. DiCaprio wasn’t one of them but he might as well been one of them. 🙂

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
July 4, 2016 2:24 pm

Look at it this way, without the B/S Global Warming scare, pathological publicity seekers like Di Caprio would be having to come up with stunts like declaring their (purportedly reciprocated) carnal love for their pet dog and their (supposedly mutual) desire to get married.
We should give heartfelt thanks to Global Warming that Hollywood has not led us down this Neroian path…

July 4, 2016 2:49 pm

Whether he likes it or not, DiCaprio’s actions in spreading more CO2 beneficially for the planet is speaking louder than his actor’s prune face when he finds he is wrong.

Reply to  Jack
July 4, 2016 8:11 pm

Maybe we should send him a thank you card. We could do it one of two ways:
1) Go green and send an e-card!
2) Send it around to every one who comments on the site, maximizing distances between signers. When the card is done traveling the world (bonus if someone hand carries it from one side of the world to the other), we send it to him via private jet/helicopter. To his rented yacht.
Number 2 (pun unplanned but now intended) would really show how influential he is on us peons!

Steve from Rockwood
July 4, 2016 3:01 pm

DiCaprio should get behind a real cause like finding a cure for stupidity.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
July 4, 2016 5:07 pm

You can’t cure stupid.

July 4, 2016 3:02 pm

The simple solution for these Hollywood hypocrites is for the approx 50% of us to simply not buy their products. Likewise they should not buy any Exon Mobile products. Win Win.

July 4, 2016 3:09 pm

Leo knows he’s a hypocrite or he wouldn’t be seeking cover for his actions by flight sharing his private jet. The fact that he isn’t interested in putting an end to his hypocrisy, but only wants to whitewash it, leaves two possibilities. Either he doesn’t really believe his own propaganda, or he’s an elitist who really thinks he is “king of the world” and doesn’t have to abide by the same rules he seeks to foist on the rest of us.

Reply to  Louis
July 4, 2016 7:07 pm

I say (a) because of (b).

Power Grab
July 4, 2016 3:27 pm

So what is an Academy Award anyway? When do they give it out? Consider this: They give it out when they decide your movie was a good enough fake to make the most people (that year) believe its message. It’s a FAKE! Actors make FAKES! The best paid actors are the ones that are best at FAKING!
The first time I saw Leo in a movie was when he played Arnie in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” During the whole film, I kept thinking they had gotten an actor who was actually slightly retarded to play that part. I was astounded when I found out that it was just an act.
Regarding the huge cost these hypocrites (actors) incur when they jet around to exotic locales to play their parts, it is NOT really any different from what they do day-in and day-out. It costs millions of dollars to create these FAKES (movies). I’m sure they don’t blink an eye, or ever consider what it costs to create their “art”. It’s what they do. If anything, they may pat themselves on the back for being able to command such huge budgets for their “work”.
The producers and directors are the ones calling the shots. The folks in the spotlight are just the front men. They’re paid to make you think they believe in the cause.

Bill Powers
July 4, 2016 3:55 pm

These celebrities need all of us great unwashed to stop burning fossil fuels so there will be more for them and their silver spoon offspring.

July 4, 2016 4:41 pm

Is it just me or when you read that mouthful “Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation Annual Gala To Fund Climate and Biodiversity Projects”,
do you hear
“The Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can’t Read Good and Want to Do Other Stuff Good Too”

Reply to  Brendan
July 4, 2016 9:04 pm

You win the thread!

July 4, 2016 5:04 pm

In response to Goldrider July 4, 2016 at 1:33 pm and Gnomish a couple of hours later –
I’ll believe CAGW is real when all crematoria are closed down, and dead people are buried without expensive wooden coffins, so that their bodies naturally fertilize agricultural land, or are macerated and put in the oceans to feed fish, or are exposed on high towers to feed the birds (the Hindu way). Just think of the energy used in heating the crematoria ovens – doesn’t matter whether coal, oil or electrically heated, it is an unnecessary waste of good energy.
But as Gnomish says, I’ll never believe in CAGW.

David Chappell
Reply to  dudleyhorscroft
July 4, 2016 8:43 pm

Hindus either burn corpses (using sustainable wood for the fire) or chuck them in the Ganges. It’s the Parsees who feed the birds.

July 4, 2016 7:11 pm

If he was really serious about the environment he would drive a Toyota Pious to the airport.
A complaint, why isn’t Blanchett afforded her full name “Carbon Cate”

Tom Judd
Reply to  Mjw
July 5, 2016 1:15 pm

Was that a misspelling? Toyota Pious? If it was, don’t tell anyone, because it could be a great joke. Seriously. Worth a good laugh, regardless.

July 4, 2016 7:17 pm

Why didn’t the words preeminent environmentalist Mr Pachauri get an invite, or is he otherwise engaged.

Reply to  Mjw
July 4, 2016 7:23 pm

Apologies for the spelling.

July 4, 2016 8:56 pm

Isn’t his “Oscar winning” movie just a remake of “Man in the Wilderness” staring Richard Harris. That was a pretty good flick as I recall probably all the studio really needed to do is remaster it and release it again instead of changing the story line and star.

July 5, 2016 2:36 am

Leo is a product of his own imagination.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Foghorn The IKonoclast
July 5, 2016 4:23 am

He made a film about that I am sure.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 16, 2016 9:21 am

I am sure!

Van Doren
July 5, 2016 3:25 am

Kate Hudson, Charlize Theron, Cate Blanchett, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Robert De Niro, Scarlett Johansson, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kevin Spacey
Nice list to boycott.

Mr Bliss
July 5, 2016 5:42 am

I have been so inspired by Di Caprio’s selfless action that I have decided to stop flying on scheduled airlines. I am now the proud owner of a private jet which I will gladly share with one or two friends. Thank you Mr Di Caprio for showing me the light – Hallelujah

July 5, 2016 6:00 am

Another story documenting the fact that liberals are hypocrites.
Shocking I tell you.

July 5, 2016 9:48 am

Does DiCaprio own a jet? Since Sony’s paying for his travel, he may be flying in Sony’s 3-engine Falcon 900EX that seats up to 12 (at least one of whom would manage the gourmet galley).

Reply to  verdeviewer
July 5, 2016 11:45 am

I’d think that all those egos would require an A380 to accomodate the sum of arrogance involved

Snarling Dolphin
July 5, 2016 10:54 am

Jawohl Wilhelm!

Tom Judd
July 5, 2016 1:29 pm

I wonder if the mileage is going to be calculated for each guest on Count of Affluence Leonardo DiCaprio’s private jet flight (to the Global Warming investment opportunity at St Tropez) and multiplied by the per mile operational costs of said jet, and then presented to the IRS as a tax write-off.
I’m sort of serious here. It’d be interesting to know. I’ll bet it is written off. Look at his face: it’s as if beauty boy’s looking down on us. After all, us rubes can’t write off our charitable flights to French vineyards.

Gunga Din
July 5, 2016 2:46 pm

I said something along these lines on another thread.
Someone who says “Do as I say and not as I do may not be a hypocrite.
Is a smoker (of any age) telling someone else not to start smoking a hypocrite?
They’d be a hypocrite if they pretended or fooled themselves into thinking that they weren’t smokers themselves.
Interesting that the origin in the Greek of the word “hypocrite” comes from the mask the actors would hold up so the audience would know what emotion they were portraying. (You might still see that symbol at the beginning of some old movies.)
Many of these A-Listers are or were actors.
Many hypocrites never were actors but won an Oscar anyway.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 5, 2016 2:57 pm

I should add that acting is a profession. Not all actors or actress’s that appear on a screen are “hypocrites”.
They are just working at their job. They might become a hypocrite if they testify before Congress as an expert on farming because they played the wife of a farmer in a movie….even if they did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.8-)

Dr. Strangelove
July 5, 2016 8:10 pm

Leonardo should share a flight with Piccard in the Solar Impulse 2. There’s enough room for one passenger and it only takes 3 days and 2 hours to cross the Atlantic. This is the future of aviation according to true greens. Of course Leonardo is a fake green

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
July 5, 2016 8:16 pm

My bad. It’s just an hour short of 3 days. C’mon it ain’t so bad 🙂

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
July 6, 2016 6:43 am

Hmm, slumming it for three days on Solar Impulse 2 or living it up on a trans-Atlantic liner?
That’s a tough one. I’ll go for the fossil-fuelled liner.

July 5, 2016 11:10 pm

Reminds me of that St. Tropez tune from Floyd.
Is it how the elite finally give in/enshrine a pogrom, relegate it to a movie star foundation?

July 6, 2016 6:38 am

DiCaprio flies his LA friends 6,000 miles around the world so they can listen to his speech on global warming? Yeah right. It’s a good job they’re hopelessly wrong about CO2, it might appear rather elitist otherwise.

Reply to  fretslider
July 6, 2016 10:56 am

You mean taking a bunch and inviting more celebrities to a Summer bash in St. Tropez at a French vineyard isn’t elitist enough, in an of itself?
Leo wants to party in the south of France? I don’t care. Is he a hypocrite? Yeah, but I don’t care.
What triggers my gag reflex is what Tom Judd brought up earlier. I wouldn’t bet against this whole shebang being a tax write off.

July 6, 2016 11:36 am

All fact checkers are to go to the back of the bus and use separate water fountains.

Andrew Partington
July 8, 2016 8:24 pm

ὑποκριτής • ‎(hupokritḗs) m ‎(genitive ὑποκριτοῦ); first declension ypokrites upokriths upokrites may be Romanised forms of Ancient Greek ὑποκριτής.
1 one who answers: interpreter, expounder
2 actor, player
3 hypocrite, pretender, one who feigns
From ὑποκρίνομαι “I play a part on stage”, from ὑπό “below” + κρίνω “I choose”

%d bloggers like this: