Debra Saunders writes about the sham of the environmentalist liberal glitteratti:

Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meet that has it all -- the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Clinton.

You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95 to 0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)

By far the most numerous subset of environmentalists are those who care far more about feeling that they are helping the environment than they do about actually helping the environment.

Hey, it's good to note there are people worried about environmental and moral issues here writing and reading this blog. Issues like those executive jets and the hypocricy, and the pollution produced by China and India.

It never ceases to amaze me how little conection these types have with the Earth when they profess to be so environmentally aware. They proabally think food comes from the supermarket.

These are the jokers who get eaten when trying to hug a Kodiak bear.

I've said here before that flying in a private jet to these over zealous Enviro-meet-and-greet events is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. It's just one more proof of how full of post intestinal bull feed they really are.

Here's another tasty bit of irony. Less than a third of the money pledged last year was ever ponied up. So not only are they hypocritical they're also less than genuine in their pledging. I suspect this year will follow the same pattern.

I find this kind of criticism tedious. If I were them, I would argue that CO2 emission is a collective problem, therefore must have a collective solution. Individual actions might make the person doing them feel smug and virtuous, but are basically useless (especially since market feedback will tend to cancel the voluntary reduction in consumption). What would be needed is government interventions (such as, CO2 taxes) to shift the market equilibrium and eliminate the economic inefficiency of negative externalities.