As I said, why isn't he suggesting to these world leaders that they should find better alternatives to these mega conferences, for the good of the planet. He's hardly the only bigwig with a private plane and a security detail, why isn't he leading from the front and telling everyone they should conference call and save the money, the fuel, the security costs for all these countries and THE PLANET.

All these fucking conferences over all these years and what, exactly, has been accomplished? A bunch of rich and powerful bureaucrats and celebrities making speeches about how we're all destroying the planet and need to do something, meanwhile they're destroying the planet and doing nothing.

So which is worse? Flying to Milan on a private plane and staying in really nice comped rooms to talk about environmental issues or flying to Mar a Lago every weekend, charging the government to stay in their own palace, and saying, "Fuck it, drill everywhere, don't put up those wind turbines anywhere near me, and why the hell do we need all these national monument thingies anyway? They don't make any money."

I think I'd rather the hypocrite who talks a good game than the guy who does all the same things and preaches from the anti-environmental bible.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Two interesting reads:

https://fas.org/...crs/misc/RL34631.pdf

https://thepointsguy.com/...rmer-presidents-fly/

The second links to the report in the first link.

So, this trip was to raise money for the Obama Foundation, but the taxpayers footed the bill?

I just went outside and turned up my pool heater in protest.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

C'mon Kenny. We're just poking fun at the Ex-President. The OP was a good joke. It's all fun and laughs...now.

Half of those people seem to hardly use computers. Politicians aren't exactly the tech savvy type it seems. I'm sure many many conversations happen on the phone. It would be hard to have literally no boots on the ground interaction under any circumstances.

---

----
Don't hold back

So, this trip was to raise money for the Obama Foundation, but the taxpayers footed the bill?

Well, he is a private citizen now, and, one would hope can do as he likes. BUT, as has been stated here several times, for some time he will, I am guessing HAVE TO have a very expensive security detail around him at all times, whatever he does, and where ever he goes. That's not his call or say, it's controlled by the U.S. Government and the Secret Service, and yes, it's Tax-Payer dollars.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

And as Brownie says, he doesn't need to fly to a different country to discuss climate change. Do you or Kenny have anything to say to that?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

What travel is a former President allowed to do? Let us know what kinds of travel he can take in which the Secret Service will provide protection, and those in which it won't. Or are you suggesting that a former President should be given a bill for services rendered?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

So this is an excuse for wasting money and not finding an efficient way of conducting policy discussions in the 21st century?

See above.

Good, now we're getting somewhere!

I agree. What I vehemently disagree with are these massive conferences in major EU or US hubs that cost taxpayers of every nation millions of dollars, multiple times every year, so politicians and celebrities can finger-wag and say we've gotta stop killing our planet and get a free vacation out of it.

I know business needs to be often be conducted face-to-face, but again: these massive climate summits are bad PR for anyone who says they care about carbon emissions then flies privately and has a massive entourage. In fact I'd bet my 401K that it would be incredible publicity for any pol or celebrity with any clout to refuse to go and make a big thing about setting up a climate-friendly internet summit, but the people who really care about these things--enough to make personal sacrifices and concessions to reduce their own footprint--aren't actually going to these conferences anyway.

Perhaps other leaders do need it. Perhaps the optics are such that it is important for certain (ex-)leaders to be physically present so as to make domestic policy decisions easier. Perhaps returning to their countries and saying "We met with President Obama via Skype and here's what we will do" just doesn't cut it?

Why do Presidents make trips to do anything, where they can just set up a teleconference?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Tiny drop in the bucket vs being able to successfully get policy changed. Obama is out there trying to push it forward while the Republicans try to dismantle it.

---

----
Don't hold back

First, I think particularly with climate summits it's bad PR. Second, look at the calendar's of big climate conferences, there's literally one every month or so across the globe. I bet if our politicians pledged to stop holding conferences on how to save the planet every few weeks we'd be closer to these goals they keep setting then ignoring at these important conferences where no decisions are made.

Your final question shouldn't be rhetorical: I think the cost of politicians conducting business is an absolute farce. The amount of money we spend as a country on travel for politicians is insane, and what Trump is doing is embarrassing. All of this political theater and grandiosity pisses me off, they're public servants conducting public business, obviously the security needs to be there but I'm never in favor of glorifying excess and I think a lot of the travel our various pols do is just that: excessive.

Yes, in the 21st century there should be more teleconferencing. Yes, politicians still need to travel and have big conferences to get leaders in a room together. I think there is far too much of that going on, however, these world-wide summits for the UN, for climate, for G6, G20, on and on, with taxpayers around the globe footing the bill.

And as Brownie says, he doesn't need to fly to a different country to discuss climate change. Do you or Kenny have anything to say to that?


This is true, no counter argument from me on that.

However, you could say that about any business. Does the bike business need to all assemble in Las Vegas in Sept. for Interbike?

There is a value in having all the key people involved in something in the same room together. I agree that it seems counter, to the anti-global warming movement, because flying is one of the dirtier things we do these days.

You could level the same accusation against David Suzuki - I think he's cut-back on travel substantially of late (I sense this has more to do with his age), but there was a time when he traveled the world, extensively, pushing the green movement and a low-carbon footprint.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

But But TRUMP!!!

But just so we all get your message. Environmental hypocrisy good, Presidential travel (if that President disagrees with you) home on weekends bad.

You do realize that trips like Obama's are why so many think that the AGW message, and messengers is/are a joke? The guilt ridden rich and famous get to fly around in private jets while staying in footprint busting, over the top lavish hotels and come up with great plans to take money from the first world middle class and transfer it to the political class in third world countries. Great message. Sorry, the fact that your cool with Obama's hypocrisy is enough to make you a hypocrite.

Who footed the bill? Is that an improper question to ask when his (and presumably his security detail's) accommodations were:

On Tuesday afternoon the former president delivered a speech on climate change at the annual Seeds and Chips conference - for which 3,500 people have paid €850 each for a ticket, The Times reported.
This has raised almost €3million for the Obama Foundation, which was set up to help further his project of 'renewal and global progress'.
Obama made the most of his two-day trip to Italy by reportedly staying at a sprawling $20,000-a-night hilltop villa in Tuscany and a five-star hotel in Milan.
He reportedly took over two floors of the Park Hyatt hotel - where presidential suite rooms cost almost $10,000 a night.

I think I'd rather the hypocrite who talks a good game than the guy who does all the same things and preaches from the anti-environmental bible.


Is that what you say about the preacher committing adultry?
That can't be true. It appears you are blinded by your bias.

Learn to read.

Point out where I said it was good or cool with it. In fact I called him a hypocrite. Being less worse does not equal good.

But you knew all that already. You were just being a dumbass on purpose.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Virtue signaling is important for these functions. That being said, the level of hypocrisy here isn't that critical for me. I mean, there are consistent justifications for this use of carbon.

I don't think former Presidents should get any Secret Service protection for free. If Obama wants to have security he should be paying for that. I also don't think they should get any pension from the government. I read this article that said it GWB has cost the government 800k in one year. That is ridiculous. Why are we paying millions of dollars to our mostly rich ex-Presidents every year when we should be using that money for something good.

I am not sure what level of security they have. They both ride motorbikes around london and i believe have been seen without security

Williams done search and rescue jobs in two parts of the country and whilst i am sure his home is secured he must have latitude in security on the job the same way harry did in his tours in afghanistan

No I'm saying that anyone living in the first world probably has an unsustainable level of consumption.