Once enough people are making sacrifices on their own, the tolerance of assholes polluting freely should finally become less and less, this can get the ball rolling.

We're pushing down on average working class of people while the rich can do whatever they want. Average joe can't get a plastic bag anymore and has to pay more for even worse alternatives (thick plasic bags need MANY reuses compared to thin plastic bags, plus joe now needs to buy plastic bin liners [0])... but coca cola (company) can still sell sugary water in ten layers of plastic, because reusable glass bottles would cut into their profits.

People are getting more and more fed up with this already.. luckily for some, there are bigger things happening, and people protest for those, but it's a mark of a wider trend happening all over the western world, where there are a set of rules for rich and influential and another for 'normal people'.

[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220329142327.h...

I'm not sure about that.

I mean.. even if you look at the cars they're driving (again, those are rich people, they can easily afford anything electric):

https://www.schwarzeneggerclimateinitiative.com/

And then he drivers an SUV even larger than him:

https://www.tmz.com/2022/01/21/arnold-schwarzenegger-car-acc...

Ursula:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-a...

etc.

Nevertheless, after rereading your original comment, I fully agree with you. These world leaders should be leading. It is disgusting and hypocritical that they flew 400 private jets to the COP conference.

I think maybe you meant to say misconception or something like that where the reality is different than understanding. In this case reality is the same as understanding.

If you want a cleaner planet, start with those who pollute the most, and then h down towards stuff normal people do and use.

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-a...

We would already be much further ahead if everyone could and would eat meat only "every now and then".

The fact that I can see greater assholes than I could ever manage to be whenever I turn on the TV does not mean I get a ticket to be a tiny asshole. It doesn't matter what others do when we're evaluating your behaviour.

I can't influence "those who pollute the most" alone, and a society full of people who don't care themselves won't have a tiniest chance of influencing them either.

TIL I’m an asshole because I love and eat steak even though I can afford plant based alternatives that I have zero desire to eat because of how processed they are.

See, that's a good example of why simply getting angry at the hypocritical richest will lead nowhere, as long as what they do is still socially acceptable at smaller scales. People who would do the exact same thing at their place won't succeed in fighting them.

That said, I’d consider the criticism valid if there was a fully natural product that was a reasonable substitute for a steak that had a better ratio for our planet’s stewardship. Say the discovery of some fungus that on its own and with similar preparation that can act as a steak alternative. If I was opting for steak over that with taste and price being equal, sure criticize away.

Who does? It's obviously non-binary. What matters is how selfish your choices end up being.

At decision making level, there's little difference between "I'm eating loads of meat cause plant-based steaks are too processed" and "I'm traveling by private jet cause other forms of transportation make me lose too much time". There's no alternative way to travel this fast and convenient.

If that still makes me an asshole…so be it. “Asshole” is always arbitrary, hypocrisy is always evident.

In fact, from an utilitarian point of view, being a hypocrite may actually be less harmful, since you may still influence others to do better. I'm not exactly an utilitarian myself, but that's one possible way to judge.

Sure, as is one possible way for me to judge that judgement is that folks will excuse and explain away all sorts of bad behaviors of the people that they identify as allies to a specific cause they support. Doesn’t make them right, it just makes them assholes…at least from my POV.

Refusing to engage in good action because you don't like the messenger is teenage angst behavior, not rational decision making.

This is like a burning tire yard owner telling people to stop smoking cigarettes to keep the air cleaner.

You already accept that some people, through their hard work or inheritance or whatever, are entitled to a larger share of material goods. Why shouldn't they also be entitled to a larger share of the total emissions we decide we can handle? As long as they compensate the rest of us for the privilege, maybe - though people on the right tend not to be too excited over severance taxes either.

Assuming they're OK with great material inequality, which sadly they usually are, a rich environmentalist is not especially hypocritical for talking a bigger share of what nature can bear.

(Those ways of compensation may objectively be pathetically inadequate, but so what? It was "voluntary" so it's good enough. That's how it works for everything else things in capitalism, so of course that's how it's going to be that way for emissions as well.)