Study: Environmentalists Are Hypocrites

Remember that time Obama flew Air Force One to make a global warming speech on Earth Day costing taxpayers $866,615.40 and it used 9,180 gallons of jet fuel?

A study has found that those who urge others to “go green,” damage the environment as much as anyone else, no matter how vegan they are.
Or, in Obama’s case, much more.

According to the study, which researched the habits of activists, while environmentalists behave in a manner that is considered “marginally greener” than everyone else, the difference of their environmental impact is “modest.”

The research also finds that conservationists “often engage in environmentally harmful behavior” such as air travel and eating meat.

“Many conservationists undertake environmentally harmful activities… while calling for people as a whole to reduce such behaviors,” the study explains.

Although conservationists berate others for their carbon footprint, Scientists at Cambridge University found that they took an average of nine flights a year.

According to the research which was published in the journal Biological Conservation, these hypocrites failed to score any better on ‘green’ questions than non-activists.

The 734 participants of the study were divided into three groups: conservationists, economists, and doctors. Those three groups were then assessed on their lifestyle choices, such as the use of bottled water, meat consumption, family size and air travel.

The study found that while conservationists recycled more and ate less meat than the other two groups, they still ate meat or fish five times a week.

The personal carbon footprint of conservationists would be smaller than the other two groups they used air travel less, however, all groups had similar results when it came to their commute.

The results of the combined footprint score showed that conservationists were 16 percent greener than economists and seven percent greener than medics.

The four authors of the study were conservation scientists who admitted that between them had seven children, ate an average of two meals containing meat the week before submitting the study, and took 31 flights in 2016.

“I don’t think conservationists are hypocrites, I think that we are human – meaning that some decisions are rational, and others were rationalized,” said one co-author of the study, Brendan Fisher. “Our results show conservationists pick and choose from a buffet of pro-environmental behaviors the same as everyone else. We might eat less meat and compost more, but we fly more – and many of us still commute significant distances in gas cars.”

“We must do more to lead by example,” added another author Andrew Balmford.

Featured Image Via AJ+/Youtube





  1. Johnny

    October 12, 2017 at 8:53 am

    The opening of the article reminded me of the time that Obama put donors on Air Force One and flew them around NYC shortly after he won the election. I wonder if Weinstein was onboard?

    • GTKRWN

      October 15, 2017 at 2:09 pm

      I’d be more interested in knowing if Podesta had stocked the plane with pizza and fresh chicken to celebrate.

  2. Helen Hodge Hesketh

    October 12, 2017 at 10:03 am

    Just do as I say and not as I do and shut up.

  3. ooopaulo

    October 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    Very disappointed in this article, Milo. It’s just a very poor rewording of the RT source. Who is Staff Writer? At very least discipline your editor.

  4. Keith_Indy

    October 12, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    Shouldn’t call them “conservationists,” they are “environmentalists.”

    A hunter is into conservationist, as he wants his use of natural resources protected. Can’t hunt deer if all the deer are dead from disease, starvation, or lack of habitat. They can see the value in closing off some areas of the forest while keeping other areas open. They can see the value in limiting the number of deer taken in a given season.

    An environmentalist wants the hunter kept out of the forest and let nature take it’s course, even if that results in more deer dead from starvation, disease, or roadkill. They are more than happy to state that the forests should be left alone, including leaving dry scrub and fallen trees/branches as fuel for the next immense forest fire. So what if in the end their actions increase the harm to the environment, environmentalists are there to protect nature from humans.

    • GTKRWN

      October 15, 2017 at 2:24 pm

      Liberals with no understanding of how the world works outside of a Daily Jew monologue regularly lose their shit over hunting, but most especially of heavily controlled endangered animals such as in Africa.

      The idea that some rich fuck donating $100,000 to a reservation dedicated to the protection of rare wildlife is single-handedly giving more money than their entire Starcucks tip jar collected for those same animals in the last ten years infuriates them enough, reminding them how meaningless their lives and their contributions are in comparison. Trying to further explain to them that in order to encourage these animals to fuck and breed rapidly the old stubborn pack patriarchs that are no longer producing their own offspring- yet are actively preventing younger males from finding mates- need to be “removed” the same way we need to be removing communists in the US; by tracking them down, finding where they sleep, and shooting them till they die.

      A liberal is forbidden to think for themselves, to learn on their own, or to seek knowledge from non-approved sources, so they can never see beyond their late-night jewish comedian’s angry anti-conservative ranting to understand that a single controlled hunt just gave that preservation years of operating funds at the cost of nothing but letting someone else shoot an animal that was already on the cull list.

      These same liberals also keep getting people killed in California. (Not that anything of value is lost if that entire liberal-infested cancer-exporting state burned to ash.) The wildfires getting so out of control as they have been, thought the lying agenda-driven jew keeps trying to blame it on “global warming” is due to California legislature actively fighting against land management efforts to clean up underbrush, cut fire breaks through forests, and do controlled burns. To the “environmentalist” the habitat of a turtle desperately must be preserved to the point where it endangers human lives, and burning a few acres of woodlands deliberately to clear years of dry underbrush is a sin worse than being white because “think of the poor animals!” Just trying to explain to a liberal that fires are both natural and spontaneous, as they have been for thousands of years, and that the woods are perfectly capable of recovering… we’re just trying to let nature do its thing in a way that can be controlled and won’t destroy entire neighborhoods and they won’t have it. They can’t understand the big picture. They don’t understand the past, the present, or the future…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top