I’ve been thinking about John Travolta’s global warming comments after hearing several parties dismiss them as off-the-cuff remarks of such a sweet guy which ought to just be ignored. Well, can we make ignoring these comments a rule, not just an exception because he’s a nice guy? Would that it were the case that society (and particularly policymakers) ignored celebrity opinions, either the spontaneous or the scripted “I’m-not-just-an-artist-I’ve-got-things-to-say” shtick.

It isn’t. I first came to town with Washington still abuzz over Meryl Streep having weepily testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on what are otherwise complex matters of toxicology (during the Alar scam), which is of a kind with Jessica Lange, Jane Fonda and Sissy Spacek appearing before Congress to inform them of the plight of the American farmer (they made movies about it). The practice of treating celebrity opinion as facially worthy of consideration because they’re celebrities does not appear to be going away. Admittedly, Travolta’s comments appear to be received more as humorous, hypocritical novelty than most, but why are actors and crooners regularly asked these things in the first place?

[Note: yes, Michael Crichton has testified on global warming, though anyone familiar with this knows he’s possessed of more appropriate training and ability to substantively argue the matter than Al Gore. I suggest IMHO that writing a heavily sourced work – even if fiction – requires greater substantive grasp than acting out a script; it is for this reason that, say, Stephen Ambrose is more credible on D-Day than Tom Hanks (who, it is worth mentioning, actually has given serious consideration of the matter beyond producing related works).]

As such, let us address the inanity of these remarks – at their substance, not their source – which are quite in line with opinions expressed by the likes of Gore and most any member much of the entertainment community now falling over themselves to climb on board the trendy bandwagon of catastrophic man-made global warming. Like John Kerry.

According to London’s Evening Standard, Travolta sayeth:

“It [global warming] is a very valid issue,” Travolta declared. “I’m wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.”

We need to think about relocating to other planets; this is a new way of saying that people face lifestyle changes. Notice the absence of a clothes-line or windmill on the aerial shot of his house, however. It is safe to say that, once again, we are talking about other people who face significant lifestyle change.

“Everyone [sic] can do their bit. But I don’t know if it’s not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.”

Put up some windmills (somewhere else), move to Mars. It’s all good.

The concluding line, however, is what’s sticking in my craw.

“I’m probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.
“I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it’s part of this industry – otherwise I couldn’t be here doing this and I wouldn’t be here now.”

You see, he has valid reasons for his energy use, no matter how profligate. We wouldn’t experience his premiers and public appearances but for this consumption, let alone his art. This betrays the underlying argument of all of the elite demand that we “do something”; all of those other people need to change things because — unlike with (particularly the noisiest) activists and hand wringers — their consumption is harmful and/or illegitimate.

It is this amazing detachment, liberally sprinkled with elite arrogance, that is so off-putting and explains the eye-rolls with which the public greets the policy stances of celebrities whose, e.g., product endorsements they otherwise appear to consider as valid. Though these outbursts are treated with seriousness – or, at minimum, opportunism – by the media, even Woman of the People Katie Couric gets it.