Study: Greens Believe they have a “Moral License” to Pollute

By Eric Worrall

A new study suggests that most greens believe that by virtue of their support for environmental issues they earn the right to ignore their personal responsibilities.


A new study finds climate change skeptics are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways than those who are highly concerned about the issue.


Participants in a year-long study who doubted the scientific consensuson the issue “opposed policy solutions,” but at the same time, they “were most likely to report engaging in individual-level, pro-environmental behaviors,” writes a research team led by University of Michigan psychologist Michael Hall.

Conversely, those who expressed the greatest belief in, and concern about, the warming environment “were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions.”

Hall and his colleagues can only speculate about the reasons for their results. But regarding the concerned but inactive, the psychological phenomenon known as moral licensing is a likely culprit.

Previous research has found doing something altruistic—even buying organic foods—gives us license to engage in selfish activity. We’ve “earned” points in our own mind. So if you’ve pledged some money to Greenpeace, you feel entitled to enjoying the convenience of a plastic bag.

Regarding climate change skeptics, remember that conservatism prizes individual action over collective efforts. So while they may assert disbelief in order to stave off coercive (in their view) actions by the government, many could take pride in doing what they can do on a personal basis.

Read more:

The abstract of the study;

Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study

Michael P.Hall, Neil A.Lewis Jr., Phoebe C. Ellsworth

We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Read more:

Academics competing to see who can log the most air miles, Jetset hypocrites calling for “deniers” to be banned from public office, large climate conferences full of frequent fliers; the brazen climate hypocrisy of leading greens is nothing new to regular readers of WUWT.

But this study goes a step further – it is not just the leaders who are complete hypocrites. The leaders of the green movement are not duping followers with their hypocrisy, they are an expression of the top to bottom hypocrisy of their entire movement.The most vocal climate supporters are actually the people who care least about the planet – all those noisy expressions of concern are camouflage to conceal the fact they are deeply selfish people who can’t be bothered to make a personal effort to improve the world they claim to love.

I pick up trash outside my house – because I like having a nice house, I like living on a nice street. I don’t think it is someone elses job to make my little corner of the world a better place. If I thought CO2 was a problem I would make a personal effort to reduce my carbon footprint.

Perhaps that sense of personal ownership, of responsibility for one’s actions, is what is missing from the green movement – a point made by the authors of the study.



Suzuki’s Lavish Lifestyle Illustrates An Activist’s Hypocrisy

SPOTLIGHT: In early June, the University of Alberta will add yet another honorary degree to David Suzuki’s collection of more than two dozen.

BIG PICTURE: When he spoke at a Canadian junior college in 2012, Suzuki declared: “Young people can’t want the next iPad. That’s just not part of the new future” (my italics).

Smaller, humbler living is necessary to prevent environmental collapse, he insisted. Oh, and money isn’t important. Because it doesn’t make us happy.

So said the celebrity who collected a speaking fee of $30,000 from that educational institution on that occasion.

So said the celebrity who owns multiple homes. In 2013, a newspaper estimated that Suzuki’s principal residence in Kitsilano, British Columbia, was worth $8.2 million, while a second house in the same community was worth $1 million. It further reported that:

Suzuki owns a waterfront property on the Quadra Island area off the B.C. coast…complete with boat dock. The property is valued at $1.1 million.

That’s $10 million bucks. Another property, on Nelson Island, is owned jointly by Suzuki and others. According to an explanation on the David Suzuki Foundation website, he bought into it “many years ago with the express purpose of protecting it from development.”

But his portfolio doesn’t end there. As Sheila Gunn Reid explains in this video, Suzuki also owns property in Australia. His autobiography describes how he and his wife purchased an apartment with another couple in 1989 after visiting the Great Barrier Reef.

Last year, the UK’s Guardianreported that he “owns a house” in the same community, Port Douglas. It’s unclear whether these are one and the same, or are separate holdings.

What isn’t in dispute is that while the David Suzuki Foundation laments that “greenhouse gas emissions from aviation continue to grow” at a time “when we urgently need to reduce our impact,” the great man thinks sacrifices are for other people. Page 202 of his autobiography tells us the apartment “represents our commitment to Australia as a second home.”

Your kid shouldn’t have a new iPad, though. Cuz the planet needs saving.

TOP TAKEAWAY: To quote Gunn Reid: “I might take Suzuki more seriously when he starts living like the threat is real” (2:46).

Read more at Big Pic News


Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!

100% Data Tampering

What kind of a problem would need FAKE and manipulated documentation?

Look at all these “Climate Agreements.” We continue to lose money, prosperity and freedom while the CO2 level continue to increase, when do we say enough??