Leo DiCaprio: Before the Flood Documentary

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by habernac

Exactly. If this was Ed Begley Jr, I'd be all ears.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The bottom line is if your going to preach a message you have to at least have the illusion of living the message or backing the message.

Except you are (both) confusing the message and the issue.

His personal lifestyle isn't even remotely relevant to the discussion because the scales are totally different.

Saying DiCaprio is a hypocrite for speaking about environmentalism is like saying I can't complain about massive oil spills that pollute our waters and threaten wildlife because I peed in a pool once.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Saying DiCaprio is a hypocrite for speaking about environmentalism is like saying I can't complain about massive oil spills that pollute our waters and threaten wildlife because I peed in a pool once.

Yeah, exactly like that, except... nothing like that.

You are right though, that his personal hypocrisy says nothing substantive about the issue or whether his perspective on it is correct. It just makes him look bad, which is fair to point out, even if it's not a counter-argument.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Except you are (both) confusing the message and the issue.

His personal lifestyle isn't even remotely relevant to the discussion because the scales are totally different.

Saying DiCaprio is a hypocrite for speaking about environmentalism is like saying I can't complain about massive oil spills that pollute our waters and threaten wildlife because I peed in a pool once.

I respectfully disagree with you on that. If you're going to be a leading spokesman for an issue you can't just talk about it you have to live it and do it and lead it.

That's just the way it works to me.

You can't have a person who wears fur coats talking about animal rights.

You can't have a person that talks about violence against woman with a past that has him violent against woman.

On the other hand a former drug addict is an excellent spokes person for drug programs.

And to me, if your going to take up a cause take up a cause, that's why this Leo thing gets to me when he talks about the Oilsands but ignores some of the worst offenders in terms of carbon emissions. If your going to demand that Alberta shut down the Oilsands for example, then you better be demanding that the California fields get shut down. You'd better fly to Saudi Arabia and Russia and China and get in their faces, instead he to me is cherry picking.

[Flamenspiel]

nm

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, exactly like that, except... nothing like that.

You are right though, that his personal hypocrisy says nothing substantive about the issue or whether his perspective on it is correct. It just makes him look bad, which is fair to point out, even if it's not a counter-argument.

I don't think you understand. It isn't supposed to be exactly the same thing...

It isn't hypocrisy because the two issues are totally different.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I respectfully disagree with you on that. If you're going to be a leading spokesman for an issue you can't just talk about it you have to live it and do it and lead it.

That's just the way it works to me.

You can't have a person who wears fur coats talking about animal rights.

You can't have a person that talks about violence against woman with a past that has him violent against woman.

On the other hand a former drug addict is an excellent spokes person for drug programs.

And to me, if your going to take up a cause take up a cause, that's why this Leo thing gets to me when he talks about the Oilsands but ignores some of the worst offenders in terms of carbon emissions. If your going to demand that Alberta shut down the Oilsands for example, then you better be demanding that the California fields get shut down. You'd better fly to Saudi Arabia and Russia and China and get in their faces, instead he to me is cherry picking.

Your comparisons are unfair.

It's more like someone who once was mean to a woman talking about violence against women. They aren't even comparable.

As for him cherry picking, maybe he just went with what was available? You really think he could have gone to Saudi Arabia and Russia and gotten in their faces?

Furthermore, Leo didn't even make the movie. It is so weird that people are acting like he flew around the world and personally filmed a documentary. He lent his celebrity to the film to help get press and paid for it.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by GGG

The problem is that to fight global warming requires us to increase the cost of energy and travel. That sacrifice will not be felt by Leo and company. So he is asking everyone else in the world to reduce their standard of living in order to fight this problem but won't even take the first step because he can afford to buy offsets.

Its hugely hypocritical. I'm not asking for zero footprint. But fly coach, drive a tesla, buy greener power, do the little things to show you are making an effort to reduce footprint rather than offset the footprint. Its easy to preach about global warming when you don't care about your power bill

I don't see it that way.

In the movie itself he admits he probably has a bigger footprint than most people on the planet, and that he understands that there are billions of people who want the kind of life that people in the US have been able to enjoy for the last 100 years.

In many ways he represents a very concentrated version of the core dilemma. We don't want to give up our great quality of life, nor do we want to deny that from others... but what can be done?

I thought the movie was actually quite good. I didn't enjoy the credibility it lent the Sierra Club, or that it did not mention Nuclear power a single time, but the message is largely on the mark and his speech at the end was excellent.

[TSXCman]

This is a very important topic that is difficult to talk to a lot of people about. It's something we need to be educated in, discuss who can provide solutions, and discuss what some of them may be.

When I start talking about climate change with family or friends, immediately they start talking about Leo or Hillary being hypocrites... I don't give a **** about them, I'm talking about a global issue, not some media/attention ******. They topic should be about scientific findings, then having the right parties use these findings to study for further solutions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by TSXCman

This is a very important topic that is difficult to talk to a lot of people about. It's something we need to be educated in, discuss who can provide solutions, and discuss what some of them may be.

When I start talking about climate change with family or friends, immediately they start talking about Leo or Hillary being hypocrites... I don't give a **** about them, I'm talking about a global issue, not some media/attention ******. They topic should be about scientific findings, then having the right parties use these findings to study for further solutions.

I agree completely with you.

But in my mind when Leo starts talking about it while having this massive footprint, multiple huge mansions a luxury boat that burns what I burn in something like a month in a day and its not clean fuel its diesel.

do I believe that Leo actually believes what he's talking about because to me personally credibility in a cause is everything. Probably not.

I mean frankly I transitioned to a more fuel efficient car and did a bunch of other things in terms of power usage and the garbage that I dispose of and how much I recycle, because I believe the science and I believe that overall our environment needs care and a change in habits in terms of how humanity works with it. So if anything Leo should be following the example of other people and not just simply speaking the simplified message which seems to be

"Minimum Effort"

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I don't think you understand. It isn't supposed to be exactly the same thing... It isn't hypocrisy because the two issues are totally different.

You're right, I misunderstood what you were saying. Largely because I don't agree, and am sort of surprised you don't think that behaving in a manner that diminishes carbon footprint and railing against others' contributions to climate change are connected. It seems like pretty clear hypocrisy to me, so I don't understand the distinction you're seeing here.

Either way I don't know that it's worth arguing about. I don't really care what Leo thinks about climate change or anything else besides acting; the guy isn't some visionary thinker whose insights on any topic are particularly interesting.

[Brewmaster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You're right, I misunderstood what you were saying. Largely because I don't agree, and am sort of surprised you don't think that behaving in a manner that diminishes carbon footprint and railing against others' contributions to climate change are connected. It seems like pretty clear hypocrisy to me, so I don't understand the distinction you're seeing here.

Either way I don't know that it's worth arguing about. I don't really care what Leo thinks about climate change or anything else besides acting; the guy isn't some visionary thinker whose insights on any topic are particularly interesting.

Did you watch the film? Leo literally met and had in-depth interviews with a number of the most powerful, informed and influential people on the planet regarding climate change. He used his fame as an actor to get unparalleled access and educate himself on many aspects of a very complex and wide reaching issue. He didn't present himself as an expert but rather a student trying to understand and document what he discovered.

Like any documentary, certain issues are presented in a way that gets the overall message across without fully exploring the arguments from all sides. But after watching the film, I would find it difficult to discredit Leo as being uninformed on the issue and am impressed with the breadth of content that was presented.

[monkeyman]

I actually agree with Leo. I need you guys to make scarifies so I don't have to.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

What does any of Dicaprios personal life have anything to do with the facts of the matter?

Because the fact of the matter is that carbon emissions aren't a problem of the oil industry, they're a problem of the access to cheap energy that we all take advantage of to lead a comfortable life. Oil companies aren't the problem. The massive demand for energy is the problem. So it's the height of hypocrisy for those who are among the most gluttonous users of energy to scold and vilify the people who provide that energy. It's like a morbidly obese guy denouncing farmers for the obesity crisis and the strains it puts on the health care system.

[Flash Walken]

CaptainCrunch, have you watched the film?

[CaptainCrunch]

only parts so far, when I get time I certainly will watch the whole thing.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Harju

I just watched the bit on filming the Revenant. I never heard any reference to Chinooks but he said they were filming in the "Canadian snow belt" and ran out of snow.
The director made some comment about having to move to winter in Argentina to find snow.

I have a friend who worked on the film. Leo was compared to having the intelligence of a rock and the biggest ego this person has ever worked with in the industry.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Harju

I just watched the bit on filming the Revenant. I never heard any reference to Chinooks but he said they were filming in the "Canadian snow belt" and ran out of snow.
The director made some comment about having to move to winter in Argentina to find snow.

They filmed in Argentina during the month of August. Imagine that; having to go somewhere where it is winter in order to find snow.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

As for him cherry picking, maybe he just went with what was available?

Funny, he could have taken a short car ride and made his backyard (California Oil Fields) clean up first but that would have made Californians displeased with him.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Funny, he could have taken a short car ride and made his backyard (California Oil Fields) clean up first but that would have made Californians displeased with him.

Or the wind farm graveyards full of inoperable windmills that they didn't fix due to cost.

[White Out 403]

the attacks on Leo are ridiculous. He's just the spokesperson. there's a lot of very intelligent and well respected scientists and experts in this movie who are giving people a warning about how bad things can get, and also providing a road map to recovery.

i went into this movie expecting a lot of trashing of the tar sands, alberta, and the oil industry at large. i expected a lot of finger wagging and it just never materialized. this movie is a very sober look at the problem and is there to get people motivated and accepting for change we need.

in the arena of ideas and facts people who are crapping on leo cant hold their own so they have to resort to ad hominem attacks. its transparent and embarrassing, and frankly reads like theres a bunch of sean hannity and ezra levant wannabes on here.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Funny, he could have taken a short car ride and made his backyard (California Oil Fields) clean up first but that would have made Californians displeased with him.

I haven't had a chance to view the film yet, but did he talk about coal mining in Wyoming.

Or Bolivia where they are mining their second largest tourist attraction for lithium http://dialogochino.net/bolivias-lit...-or-nightmare/

Our addiction to energy has some major pitfalls and can create some short term blemishes in the landscape around us. But, we fix our blemishes;

Mildred Lake (Syncrude) before and after.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article...il-sands-mines