James Hirsen Exposes Hollywood Hypocrisy on the Environment

Photo of Justin McCarthy.

As fellow news analyst Geoffrey Dickens blogged, Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio bonded with Matt Lauer on his global warming hype movie, Eleventh Hour. But before DiCaprio demands a host of new government regulations to clean up the environment, he should look at his own Hollywood pals. On Wednesday’s Fox and Friends First, hosts Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Judge Andrew Napolitano hosted author and columnist James Hirsen to expose the hypocrisy of the Hollywood elite. Despite their constant preaching about the environment, they are in fact one of the largest polluters in metropolitan Los Angeles.

Gretchen Carlson asked the question, "why don’t we hear about this?" Good question. The entire transcript is below.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Is Hollywood a major contributor to air pollution? Our next guest says the film and TV industries on the west coast are a huge factor. Columnist James Hirsen joins us now from Santa Ana, California. He's also the author of Hollywood Nation. Good morning James and welcome here."

James Hirsen: "Hey, good morning, your honor."

Napolitano: "So, what does Hollywood do? All those liberals in Hollywood that are complaining of pollution and harming the environment, what do they do to add to the pollution?"

Hirsen: "Yeah, it's amazing this is a pet cause out here in Tinseltown and one that they self-congratulate over it. Matter of fact, Variety just issued this green honor roll of people who are environmental activists. But it turns out a study from UCLA said that, that the entertainment business is the second biggest polluter in the five county area that constitutes the Los Angeles metropolitan area and they're just behind the petroleum industry but they're ahead of aerospace..."

Napolitano: "Wow."

Hirsen: "...they're ahead of semiconductor manufacturing and hotels. So, they produce something like 140,000-tons of pollutants a year and they gave them a 'C' on the report card and said it's not a high priority for the entertainment industry. So the industry, their rhetoric doesn't match their actions."

Gretchen Carlson: "Because they have so much power on the sets the energy for the studio office buildings, the private flights to movie locations, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Why don't we hear about this?"

Hirsen: "Well, interestingly enough, it's this hierarchy of status. The stars put in their contracts, 'I want a bigger trailer than the co-star. And I want satellite dishes and plasma screens.' So the generators on the sets get bigger and bigger, and of course, they have special effects and chase scenes and everything else. And what the Hollywood community has done is engage in this situation where they write a check to an organization that essentially absolves them for their environmental sins and says that they're carbon neutral. It's a way so that they can feel good about polluting. It's, it's, it's a very strange thing that Hollywood has totally embraced."

Steve Doocy: "Well, it's just nuts, James, because how many Hollywood stars have we seen driving around their preuses wearing they're hemp clothes talking about zero carbons? And yet, behind the scenes they're writing checks to organizations just so they can get off their hit list."

Hirsen: "Yeah, it's kind of a way, it's an indulgence to buy your way out of the environmental wrongdoing and the important thing in Hollywood, it's a place of facade and feelings. And so, as long as you feel good about something, then it's OK to keep polluting. I mean that's the strange think. And we know that many of the stars like Barbra Streisand has a $22,000 a year sprinkler bill and she's a very big environmental activist. And, we also know that Norman Leier, who sponsored those ads that wanted to make people in Middle America feel guilty about driving SUV's has a car, a garage that holds 21 cars."

Napolitano: "Oh my."

Hirsen: "So the, you know, so the opulence and the waste, but there are some people like Ed Begley Jr. who really walk the walk and really conserves."

Doocy: "He's been driving an electric car for a very long time. James Hirsen, author of Hollywood Nation and also a Newsmax.com columnist. James thank you very much for joining us live today from the west coast."

—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is like my dad use to tell

It is like my dad use to tell me when I was growing up..."don't do as I do, do as I say."  Liberals are hypocrites.

Oprah heard this report and i

Oprah heard this report and is pissed!  She is flying out in her private Gulfstream  G550 jet from Chicago to give those actors what for.  How dare them!!!

Of course, round trip across our county in a Gulfstream G550 jet is equivalent to a typical American family driving their SUV for two years.  But, Oprah is going to straighten this out, pronto!   

By the way, a Gulfstream G550 holds about 30,000 pounds of avgas.  1 pound of avgas produces about  20 pounds of CO2.  So, a full tank of gas in the Gulfstream G550 drops about 600,000 pounds of C02 into the air.  And the specs on the Gulfstream G550 doesn't mention anything about a catalytic converter!

You're not quite hitting th

You're not quite hitting the nail on the head there, pardner. Among other things, 1 gallon of avgas (not pound) produces about 18 pounds of CO2. A gallon of avgas weighs about 6 pounds.

This is not technically corre

This is not technically correct.

AvGas is high octane, usually 100 or more, gasoline fuel suitable for high compression piston engines. It weighs in at about 6# per gallon. The Gulfstream is a jet. Its engines burn jet fuel, which is kerosene.

Jet fuel usually weighs a little less than 7 pounds per gallon except for JP-5 which is closer to 6 1/2# . Civilian jet fuels are Jet-A, Jet-A1 and Jet-B. Military grades are JP-4 (USAF general purpose), JP-5 (US Navy) and JP-7 (USAF special purpose). The Europeans are contrarians in this matter as usual. Military Jet fuel in Europe is spec'ed as JP-8.

I don't know what the Gulfstream actually uses, but its most likely Jet-A or less likely, Jet-A1. Jet B and some of the others are probably listed as emergency fuels in the G550's ops manual.

Everybody already knows this

Everybody already knows this stuff...sheesh...!

Terrorists are not Muslims, Nazi's were not Christians, etc, etc...

Clarification on fuels

Having worked in and near fuels for some time, I can tell you that JP-8 is a NATO standard and that it is found on AF Bases for use on many aircraft.  As for JP-7, that's special purpose, all right: it won't even burn if you drop a match on it (or hit it with a flamethrower).  As far as I know, only the SR-71 uses it. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

JP-8 is to JP-4 what Jet-A1 i

JP-8 is to JP-4 what Jet-A1 is to Jet-A, it is loaded with anti corrosion agents and low temperature additives.  Yes, its NATO standard.  If you know any Eagle drivers, ask them which burns best in their birds.  My money says they will say 'JP-4'.

JP-7 is indeed the SR-71's fuel.  It can also be used by the B-52 as an emergency fuel.  IIRC, an old friend of mine who is a Buf driver says the Buff can take on up to 15% JP-7 in its fuel load.

Give credit where credit is d

Give credit where credit is due, I have read that Leo DeCaprio walks the walk.  He is one of the few who fly commercial airlines, for example.

Now if I were filthy rich, I would have my own Gulfstream.  But that's just me.

"...how many Hollywood

"...how many Hollywood stars have we seen driving around their preuses [SIC] wearing they're [SIC] hemp clothes talking about zero carbons?"

The ideological, reflexive attack against those who have the temerity to choose a superior natural fiber continues, even inserted here in an essentially irrelevant story about CO2 -- where capitalist efficient hemp fiber farming competing with inefficient, chemical intensive cotton fiber farming (cotton apparently can't compete in a free marketplace) is, if anything, a part of the solution. Hollyweird lefties don't raise anyone's taxes or in any way increase the size of big government when they support markets where Canada & China happen to be more-capitalist than the good ol' USA, like it or not, yet supposedly "small government" biased "conservatives" on Fox News attack 'em anyway. Bias busted, once-again.
JMR

You didn't address the Prius

You didn't address the Prius part of the comment, so it appears that the total "busting" that you've done is on the hemp part of the comment.  And we all know that the real reason Hollyweirds want hemp is because of its close relationship with marijuana.

If you read Doocy's comment in context, the hemp was just a throw-in, not really relevant, but neither are your Hollyweird raising taxes and so-called Chinese Capitalism comments.  So I'd call this a wash.  Certainly not a bias-buster by any stretch.

The Prius part was added fo

The Prius part was added for the [SIC] (probably more of a diss to sloppy transcription, because Steve can probably spell it) but my capitalism/hemp comments fully stand. The creator of all things created a plant with more than one use, either He makes mistakes or politicians make 'em, period. I stand by my words.
JMR

I think you may have missed m

I think you may have missed my point.  The Chinese capitalist and hemp comments are irrelevant to the CO2 issue being discussed in the thread, and your singling out one phrase in a comment by Doocy who was only quoted in this thread shows that you are reaching. 

You haven't debunked the main point of the thread, only pointed out one tiny irrelevancy while introducing two of your own.  That hardly qualifies as "busting" a bias.

Agricultural efficiency is

Agricultural efficiency is important to CO2 reduction, and hemp's superior to cotton fiber (stronger and more absorbent to boot) used to be a mainstay of US agriculture, and even had to be reintroduced after the beginning of the holy drugwar to help win WW2. Hemp fiber has nothing whatsoever to do with recreational drugs, either, as I said above, God's capable of multitasking. Capitalism, as practiced by the Chinese & Canadians, leads to better products, and those products are demanded by consumers besides Hollyweird lefties. I stand by all my words.
JMR

Interesting contrast between

Interesting contrast between the liberal MSM’s coverage of hypocrisy in the environmental movement and their attack dog mentality toward people of faith.

They search high and low for stories about the foibles of Christians and demand to know how they can “force” their morality on others while not being pure themselves. 

However, their “curiosity” seems to disappear when it comes to the blatant hypocrisy of the Hollywood elites who preach to the rest of the country about the environment, then fly around in private jets, live in sprawling mansions and own a fleet of cars.