Sacrificing to Support James Cameron's Lifestyle

Everyone, you need to give up you CO2 emissions so that James Camperon can maintain his lifestyle:

But e.g. James Cameron apparently assumes that people won't be able to notice that he is using

3 houses in Malibu (24,000 sq ft in total - 10 times the average U.S. home), a 100-acre ranch in Santa Barbara, a JetRanger helicopter, three Harleys, a Corvette, a Ducati, a Ford GT, a collection of dirt bikes, a yacht, a Humvee firetruck, a fleet of submarines...

Nevertheless, he demands that people live with less - the same people who made him rich by watching his movies....

There simply doesn't exist any justification of the need to lower the world population that would make the life of James Cameron sustainable. It's just amazing to think about the societal atmosphere that makes it natural for him to defend these inhuman concepts.



  1. Mike C.:

    "I'll start acting like it's an emergency when the people telling me it's an emergency start acting like it's an emergency."


  2. Fred from Canuckistan:

    There is no hypocrisy like Eco-Hypocrisy.

    Eco-Hypocrites . . . because their poopies don't stink.

  3. Mark:

    Well, I posted in these comments my ripping of the movie Avatar. Think about it. Avatar was a anti-corporate, anti-technological movie that required a billion dollars of corporate financing and the most advanced technologies to produce. The profit motive in developing such a project was antithetical to its plot. And, American and world wide movie viewers bought completely into it. Sad, sad, sad. I hated every minute of that movie.

  4. Chad:

    Along the lines of this same topic, I would point out the hipocrisy of Pixar Films. Pixar has, much like James Cameron, used films to attack big business as the destroyers of the earth. Pixar has been around for a very long time but really didn't make it big until Toy Story in 1995. Since then Pixar has created 9 major animated motion pictures. The cost to produce these films totals approximately $1 billion. The gross income from these films was $6.5 billion. That's a gross net profit of $5.5 billion! These are the same people attacking the oil industry for having a 3% profit margin while they are running an 82% profit margin.

  5. Pat Moffitt:

    Cameron's position may make no sense to you but it sure is logical to Prince Charles and Al Gore. Perhaps they just resent the rabble from consuming too much of their Earth.

  6. Dan:

    OK - he's an eco-hyprocrite. So is Al Gore.

    Like you, I'm not convinced that global warming is as big a problem as the Al Gores of the world say. But it's definitely an issue worth studying and being concerned about; not simply laughing off just because a few of its advocates are easy targets.

  7. CB:

    This evokes in me the same sickening gut-response as Lloyd Blankfein's comment that he's doing God's work. Elites think they are an exception to everything.

  8. Mesa Econoguy:

    I've given up James Cameron movies (actually, all movies) in favor of tripling my carbon footprint.

    Difficult tradeoff.

  9. morganovich:

    how do you say "let them eat cake" in na'vi?

  10. Terrence:

    Surprise, surprise, SURPRISE!!! Another eco-fascist is a mealy mouthed hypocrite. Who would have thought it -WHODA THUNK IT! Do as I say, peasants, not as I do. I have earned the right to live as I please, with as many toys as I want. PEASANTS!

  11. LoFlyer:

    Lets debate the issue! Rut Roh! Cameron blew off Morano claiming he did not have enough stature to debate, no fracken' Jet-Rangers, no yachts, not enough mansions to qualify to debate Cameron face to face. Same with Al Gore. You can BS the media with the science is settled mantra, But debate and experimentation is the scientific method which no one in climate change socialism is willing to face. Bring it own Al!

    Cameron, your even smarter than Gore and yet you flee environmental debate by determined opposition. Put up or shut up! Vanitu is sinking, the gay baby whales are dying. The Earth will be fried in 20 years. Mega-hurricanes will deliberately strike poverty level minorities in the gulf and you hide in your three mansions in Malibu. Come on guy, do your part, debate or fly!

  12. perlhaqr:

    Chad: Which movies are those? I've watched every Pixar film made so far, and I don't recall that message in any of them.

  13. eCurmudgeon:

    @Mark: I'm waiting for the Avatar sequel where a subsequent fleet shows up and promptly proceeds to systematically incinerate Pandora from orbit...

  14. chrispy:

    The message of Avatar arguably wasn't all that bad. Sure, it had the Hollywood standard pro-communist and anti-technology themes, but the main message is one in favor of property rights. The humans really were the bad guys, not because they rode around in spaceships rather than on flying monsters, but because they were imperialist murderers bent on stealing land and resources that rightfully belonged to the aliens. It's arguably even a libertarian movie.

    I still hated it because it was way too long, just plain boring, and basically just a giant computer generated smurfs cartoon. Either way Cameron is still an idiot.

  15. Doug:

    Shut up and be ruled.

  16. bob sykes:

    In environmental engineering, we clean up messes by eliminating the biggest sources first.

  17. Reformed Republican:

    I cannot speak for Chad, but one might see an anti-corporate message in WALL-E. However, I have not seen the entire movie, so I cannot say whether that is an accurate interpretation.

  18. Gil:

    Yeah right, chrispy! Why not say that bird nests or ant hills can stop human development? Many non-human critters engage in homesteading and wealth production for their own species but that doesn't stop us. Hence the humans have no responsibility towaards aliens in real life. Alternatively, imperial aliens with greater technology would have no responsibility towards us and can exterminate us if they so choose. Property rights do not cut across species.

  19. Orion:

    Really wish you had a share button on your blog. IE, share on Facebook.

  20. ME:

    Hypocrisy is a favorite hobby of the rich and powerful. Cameron is one great example. There's plenty of contrast between message and behavior going on in both political camps, though. Think "small government" vs spending and "family values" vs sex scandals.

  21. Mark:


    Avatar did not "favor property rights". On the contrary. It clearly presented a message of the superiority of COMMUNITY "property rights". Individual property was clearly labeled as a bad thing.

    But, if you really look at these concepts in the movie, the truly GREEDY people were the residents of Pandora. They had a mineral, or whatever, that was completely worthless to them, yet needed by others. Instead of sharing these resources, or creating a fair system of exchange they fought to kill others over something they placed very little value in.

  22. Judge Fredd:

    I lost all respect for the man when the sanctimonious gasbag uttered the following:

    Cameron said witnessing indigenous ceremonies and meetings in the Amazon had made him reflect on the plight of the North American Indians and inspired him to attempt to give the "global consciousness… a heads up".

    "I felt like I was 130 years back in time watching what the Lakota Sioux might have been saying at a point when they were being pushed and they were being killed and they were being asked to displace and they were being given some form of compensation," he said. "This was a driving force for me in the writing of Avatar – I couldn't help but think that if they [the Lakota Sioux] had had a time-window and they could see the future… and they could see their kids committing suicide at the highest suicide rates in the nation… because they were hopeless and they were a dead-end society – which is what is happening now – they would have fought a lot harder."

  23. chrispy:

    Gil - The difference is the aliens were sentient, whereas ants are not. Whether some alien civilization would respect our property rights is moot. In principle, they should, just as we should respect theirs. But it doesn't actually matter, at least not for the conceivable future.

    Mark - "They had a mineral, or whatever, that was completely worthless to them, yet needed by others. Instead of sharing these resources, or creating a fair system of exchange they fought to kill others over something they placed very little value in."

    You realize this is practically the definition of communism, right? It's the same as saying rich people who make more than $250,000 a year can't possibly use all that money, so they should be forced to spread the wealth around! It doesn't matter how valuable the mineral was to the alien civilization. It's still their mineral and their planet, and they're under no obligation to share it with anyone.

    You're right that the aliens were communists, and I certainly wouldn't want to live that way. But as far as I could see, not one single alien had a problem with that system. If it worked for them, why not live and let live?

  24. chrispy:

    For anyone still interested, I found this: David Boaz at the Cato Institute makes the case much better than I could.

  25. Mark:

    I read the Cato Institute article, and he misses the point. THere is no such thing as "property rights" with communal property.

    And, again, as I pointed out, the absolute xenophobia of the Pandorians borders on manic greed. THey had something that was needed by others to survive. Instead of interacting with other societies, they refused. I see very little nobility in them.

  26. MarKM:

    About Pixar, I don't recall too many heavy anti corporate themes.

    In Walli the world was turned into a garbage dump by corporations
    In ratatouille I guess the Chef who took over when Gusteau died was presented as greedy for wanting to spoil the Gusteau name by marketing low end mass market frozen dinners.

    Toy story 3, and this is a stretch. The animals at the day care were more concerned about their power at the daycare than the welfare of others,

    The boss of the electric company in Monsters Inc was a mean dude, but that is standard for movies. I think he was more afraid of the girl than actually trying to greedily take over something.

    Um that is about I can think of. Except for Walli which I refused to watch in the theaters because of the anti business/hyper eco message in the first part of the movie the others are pretty mild or have not much at all.

  27. wilky:

    You realize this is practically the definition of communism, right? It’s the same as saying rich people who make more than $250,000 a year can’t possibly use all that money, so they should be forced to spread the wealth around!"

    Not to step on Marks toes hear, but Marks senario never used the word "force." He just said they were selfish. And "or creating a fair system of exchange" sounds like capitalism to me.

    "It doesn’t matter how valuable the mineral was to the alien civilization. It’s still their mineral and their planet, and they’re under no obligation to share it with anyone."

    Ever wonder how wars start.

  28. Mark:


    Exactly. If I remember right, the "humans" needed the minerals on Pandora to survive. WIthout it they would perish, which I believe they even said happened at the end of the movie.

    So, pretend that instead of some fictitious mineral, that it is water. What type of morality would you consider a "tribe" of people to possess if they refused to exchange water with another group of people that were dying of thirst? When you further put the other parameter in that the water was worthless to the holders, how can anyone believe that the "Pandorans" were justified in what they did?

  29. lassic ugg boots:

    "Attention now, Ugg bailey button in various styles and colors at our fake ugg boots are available. ugg classic bootwith high quality and low price are your alternative choice in the upcoming cold winter day.what stores sell classic ugg boots?!"