DiCaprio’s Private Jet Junket Burned 30,000 Liters Of Fuel …Enough For 10,000 Cars An Entire Day!

Imagine an arsonist receiving the Fireman of the Year Award, or Satan being canonized a saint by the Vatican, or Hitler driving a tank into Oslo – to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize!

It all sounds utterly ridiculous, but unbelievably something about as nutty happened recently. Everywhere in the media we read how mega-filmstar Leonardo DiCaprio took his private jet over 12,000 kilometers – to pick up an environmental award! See here and here.

Gulfstream 450

Need to pick up an environmental award in a hurry? We’ve got the ideal private jet! Image cropped at www.gulfstream.com/.

While the millionaire Hollywood star jets-sets across the globe between stays at his mansions, awards and yachts, he likes to preach to the rest of the struggling world on responsible, humble and sustainable living.

DiCaprio’s Dilemma

Probably one of the most telling aspects of the affair is the decision process leading up to this junket. The award in New York City happened to coincide with the Cannes film festival – an event the California-residing Mr. DiCaprio obviously didn’t plan on missing. Yet, he really wanted that image-polishing environmental award as well. In a normal world a normal person in such a dilemma would have foregone one or the other. Indeed if the environment and climate were as important to Mr. DiCaprio as he likes to profess it is, he certainly would have skipped the star-studded Euro-Festival altogether, or if anything at least cut the Cannes fling short and picked up his award on the way back. That, after all, would have sent a clear signal that he is quite serious about the environment and that it precludes material things like Cannes. Remember DiCaprio’s own words:

Climate change is real. It is happening right now, it is the most urgent threat facing our entire species.”

The other option would have been to skip the environmental award, citing scheduling problems. But that would not have gone over well either. Doing so would have sent the message that having fun at Cannes was more important than the stinking environment and shown that maybe he wasn’t really sincere about the environment.

So you do what people like DiCaprio do in such a bind. You simply flaunt the very rules you profess, and you do both – even if it means clandestinely indulging in an orgy of fossil fuel burning and environmental rape. Besides, you can always offset later. It’s Leo first. Rules apply to us, but not to him.

DiCaprio took the private jet to Cannes, then back to New York to pick up the environmental award, and then shuttled back to Cannes. After that, who knows?

Enough fuel for 10,000 automobiles!

Just how much fuel did that particular 12,000-kilometer environmental round-trip junket consume? No one knows for sure, but we can estimate it. The round trip involved around 16 hours of flight time – if not more – in a longer range private jet, e.g. a Gulfstream G450, which has a fuel capacity of 29,500 lbs,  or approx. 16,000 liters. For the 16-hour long haul roundtrip, refueling once, such a jet would need close to 30,000 liters of fuel – fuel that gets burned right where greenhouse gases are claimed to be the most effective.

30,000 liters is a huge amount of fuel. A normal compact European car can travel some 600,000 kilometers, or some 30 years, on that amount. In a single day, 30,000 liters are enough fuel to power some 10,000 cars!

Clearly if you hold Mr. DiCaprio’s beliefs, private jets are the most environmentally damaging form of transport imaginable. They ought to be banned outright. Yet, Mr. DiCaprio saw no problem committing this mass environmental climate crime. What Leo wants, Leo gets. The environment be damned.

Interestingly the Gulfstream websites overviewing the various models do not include fuel consumption and CO2 emission ratings in order to let the jet-setting millionaires and Hollywood environmental activists know the damage they do to the environment. In Europe brochures and new car stickers clearly state the vehicle’s fuel consumption and CO2 emissions so that people can judge the alleged damage to the environment (er, never mind for now the recent scandalous car exhaust test manipulations).

Sorry, I forgot. Fuel consumption awareness and environmental protection are only for the little folks.

 

43 responses to “DiCaprio’s Private Jet Junket Burned 30,000 Liters Of Fuel …Enough For 10,000 Cars An Entire Day!”

  1. Pethefin

    All animals are equal, some animals…

  2. ClimateOtter

    20 kilometers per litre works out to approx. 48 miles per gallon. Is that right for European compacts?

    1. Robert Folkerts

      Us gallon is less than Imperial gallon so fuel mileage numbers can appear odd at first glance.

      1. Loodt Pretorius

        As a rule of thumb use 5 bottles of wine for a US gallon and 6 bottles of wine for an imperial gallon. (Now go and check and you will this approximation suits most everyday needs) Therefore a US gallon is 5/6th of an Imperial gallon.

  3. AndyG55

    OT.. because the topic of Di Caprio is a pointless and meaningless waste of space.

    Let’s talk about something that actually matters.

    El Nino 3.4 index drops quickly back to near zero.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/23/say-goodbye-to-the-201516-el-nino/

    1. DirkH

      AndyG55 23. May 2016 at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “OT.. because the topic of Di Caprio is a pointless and meaningless waste of space. ”

      Not at all. Di Caprio is an actor. I don’t think he’s playing the warmunist pied piper for free. More like a billionaire crony paying him to keep the scare and the renewables subsidies running.

      Other examples: Angelina Jolie with her constant UNESCO/UN NWO propaganda, she’s even member of the CFR, do you think she knows the first thing about any of that? *I* don’t , she’s much too busy chosing her beauty surgeons. All of this is likely bankrolled by the likes of Rockefeller, CFR head honcho.

      Emma Watson. Sweet girl, but should be seen not heard. UN posterchild for feminism. Payed. Somebody’s got to pay her fine clothes. It’s not like she PRODUCES anything of value. Or has ever uttered anything of intellectual value.

      And then a whole bunch of UK actors who just got payed for making Anti BREXIT propaganda, they all profit from EU sponsored film productions and the likes.

      I find the workings of the propaganda mill at least as important as Gavin Schmidt’s data forgery and the rest of the science distorters at the warmunist institutes. These are the CHEAP cogs in the big fraud machine.

  4. John F. Hultquist

    I live where winter travel in a 4 wheel-drive auto is advised. Mine is a Subaru, 8 years old, and gets about 28 miles per gallon. Newer ones get over 30 mpg. Other brands with more recent engine and weight reduction do better still. There is a smaller bunch of autos but they do not serve my need – carrying a bunch of stuff on narrow mountain roads. A car for city streets and the daily routine can do better – hybrids are doing well over 40 mpg.

    But I digress.

    The jet-set should stay home and use electronic technology. Claim has been made that Bill Clinton flies on someone’s private jet many times a year, for reasons unknown.

    Worse, there’s the new disclosure that Bill took 26 flights on a sex offender’s plane, an aircraft actually called “The Lolita Express.”
    Link to news story

    1. DirkH
  5. Doug Proctor

    In previous cycles, what DiCaprio et al do was called “raising awareness”. The new label is “value signalling”. Interestingly, the old concept was increasing the numbers of people who perceived a social problem to be addressed. The new term describes an individual’s positive orientation towards issues that others already perceive as a social problem to be addressed. Communal values have been replaced by the narcissistic individual ones.

    Regardless, both “raising awareness” and “value signalling” are recognized by the soft idealist as promoting “proper” thinking rather than efforts towards resolving something. DiCaprio is right in thinking he can jet set CO2 across the globe AND be a UN-sponsored “environmentalist”. He isn’t expected to DO anything except voice platitudes. Governments are the place for action, not the individual. The individual is powerless and cannot be expected to unnecessarily minimize his life in a competitive world – he will support better rules when everyone has to do similarly, but until then no one believes he should beggar himself while others do not.

    The environmental Eco-green is not a personal environmentalist, but a crowd envronmentalist. He lives in suburbia and uses herbicides and pesticides to control unwanted life forms in his gardens – until the municipality says he is not to do so, at which point he will happily explain the suffering he does for the benefit of “the world”. In previous centuries he also applauded the burning of witches in the public square because the crowd – the group as wells as the authorities – said it was for the common good and the “witches” we’re bad people. Those burnings did not occur to a crowd of one, but once the social acceptance was withdrawn, then the group disavowed the acts (and their participation except as under force).

    DiCaprio is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. He is an actor who takes on roles, gets immersed in them for believability (a “method” actor). His role here as global enthusiast just never has an end-of-the-production date. He is like David Suzuki and Bill Nye and Al Gore. He’s a role-player without understanding that his public and private life WOULD be consistent if he were truly, philosophically, deep-down an environmentalist alarmed at the rise of CO2.

    “Raising awareness” and “value signalling” are the two least impressive personal activities. They are akin to Jerry Falwell preaching to the converted while he bangs prostitutes in the adjacent room. The greatest disappointment is that the listening-masses don’t demand better representation for social improvements that are, regardless of political stance, overall increases in quality of human life. And why? Because the DiCaprios are like the Catholic priests of old, not demanding actual change but only surface expression and regular confessions of sin.

    1. Analitik

      No criticism from the usually ultra green ABC about Leo flying his friends from Australia to the USA in a chartered 747 back in 2012/2013 so they could use the timezones to celebrate 2 New Years Eve parties.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-31/celebrities-touchdown-in-canberra-for-nye/4448410

      But hey, “Leo’s a wonk” when it comes to climate science and “There are very few civilians who have the same understanding that this guy has of climate change.”
      He probably does know as much as the climate scientists that he hangs with – ie NOTHING AT ALL
      And he offers the lame excuse

      The day there is a sustainable way to travel, I’ll be first in line

      http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/features/inside-leonardo-dicaprios-crusade-to-save-the-world-20160218

      Let’s all watch on and see just how successful “The Solutions Project” is in the next few years for providing ways to “transition to 100% clean, renewable energy for all people and purposes”
      http://thesolutionsproject.org/#tsp-section-story

      I mean how can they not fail with a team like this
      http://thesolutionsproject.org/#tsp-section-directors

      1. stan stendera

        Have you heard about the fire and shutdown at Ivanpah.

      2. yonason

        “No criticism from the usually ultra green ABC” – Analitik

        But some of his erstwhile fans are none too pleased
        http://www.msn.com/en-au/entertainment/celebrity/leonardo-dicaprio-takes-private-jet-to-environmental-award/ar-BBtl3Lj

        H/T – John Ray (4th down here)
        http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2016/05/top-scientist-resigns-global-warming-is.html

  6. Henning Nielsen

    Ah yes. The celebs. A separate species of the human race. And how endearing they are, to be sure:

    “I have a private plane. But I fly commercial when I go to environmental conferences.”
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/arnold_schwarzenegger.html

    Btw, Hitler never went to Oslo in a tank, but here are some German tanks rolling into Oslo, or at least having just rolled off the ship, in April 1940:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neubaufahrzeug

    1. David Appell

      Henning: What is the source of that Arnold S quote?

      Or do you just accept everything you read on the Internet as true?

      1. Henning Nielsen

        My source is the link I provided. I have no way of verifying it, but if he has denied it, I’m sure you can give information about it.

  7. mwhite

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36345768

    “The charity said promoting low-fat food had had “disastrous health consequences” and should be reversed.”

    This story has been on the radio pretty much all day.

  8. DICK R

    What is wrong with using up the fuel,I presume he paid for it ,it does no harm .

    1. DirkH

      “What is wrong with using up the fuel,I presume he paid for it ,it does no harm .”

      Leo Di Caprio acts inconsistently by claiming CO2 destroys the planet yet emitting needlessly much of it.
      Interestingly the warmunist watercarriers do not care at all about such inconsistencies. Their brains cannot comprehend the concept of an inconsistency anymore – meaning, the real problem that humanity faces is not CO2 or slightly warmer weather but genetic decay.
      For the individual it is an opportunity though. People are getting stupider, it is irreversible, evolution is just another tall tale. Young warmunist watercarriers are the proof. Ironically, the stupider they get the easier they are to convince that they are getting smarter. Hey their phone is already smarter than they are. And that’s not too smart given the performance of four ARM cores.

      1. Robert Folkerts

        Spot on Dirk. I also understand humanity is devolving downward, not evolving upward. Plenty of evidences to show this as reality.

        1. AndyG55

          Those with usable minds, tend to have a minimal number of children..

          Those without usable minds, tend to have many.

          This is DEVOLUTION. !!

          Eventually the system must collapse.

  9. Casey

    “Do as I say, not as I do”; the catch-cry of the elitists.

  10. AndyG55
  11. David Appell

    Does di Caprio offset his carbon emissions?

    If I had to guess, I would guess that he does.

    I see Pierre didn’t bother to check that.

    PS: And why would Pierre care? He doesn’t think CO2 emissions warm the climate. (I smell pure inconsistency.) Or maybe he think only he’s allowed to emit carbon.

    1. Robert Folkerts

      What is your problem with carbon, Appell? Apart from your water content you ARE essentially carbon, what you eat is mostly carbon. Please show us how you can exist were it not for carbon. Carbon itself and in its CO2 form is in no way our enemy. It is what is needed for me to grow grass to feed my animals which in turn feed us. This autumn has been a bit warmer in NZ and grass growth has been phenomenal. Marvellous. I’m pleased neither you or anyone else can control our climate. If it were possible there would ensue much trouble, I’m sure.

      1. AndyG55

        “you ARE essentially carbon”

        more likely sulphur…. with some hydrogen.

        1. Robert Folkerts

          Brilliant, AndyG55 . I like it.

          1. AndyG55

            I suspect, since he hates carbon so much, that he comes from a planet that is mainly sulphur..

            …. therefore doesn’t notice his own brain-farts

      2. Mindert Eiting

        Or silicon. You did not check, Robert, whether Appell isn’t a computer program spreading quasi scientific texts over the internet.

  12. sod

    This line of attack is utterly dishonest.

    Di Caprio might fly as far has he can, he will not do similar damage to the environment as the oil industry does on a single day.