Here are some photos of Leonardo DiCaprio in Japan this week to promote the Japanese premiere of The Revenant. Japan usually gets films several months later than America and Europe, so this is no big deal. And Leo has a lot of Japanese fans, and many of them literally dressed up as bears to see him in Tokyo. During the press conference for the film, Leo was asked about one of his signature issues: the environment, or more specifically, the reality and politics of climate change. His answer was pretty pointed, even though he didn’t specifically name names.
Fresh from his Oscar-winning role in “The Revenant,” Leonardo DiCaprio suggested Wednesday that his upcoming documentary on climate change could help raise awareness about a phenomenon that some US presidential candidates reject. DiCaprio said one of the collaborators for the film to be released before the November election was Fisher Stevens, a producer of the 2010 Oscar-winning documentary “The Cove” about dolphin-killing in the small Japanese town of Taiji.
“We’ve been travelling around the world documenting climate change,” DiCaprio told a press conference in Tokyo, adding they visited China, India and the North Pole and South Pole.
Though he did not offer any names, he said some candidates seeking the highest US office are falling short in their environmental attitudes.
“We should not have a candidate who doesn’t believe in modern science to be leading our country,” he said. “Climate change is one of the most concerning issues facing all humanity and the United States needs to do its part.”
Republican front-runner Donald Trump said last year he did not believe in climate change, while his key rival Ted Cruz has dismissed it as “pseudo-scientific theory”.
While it seems like his statement is actually pretty obvious, and that the overwhelmingly majority of people would agree, it actually IS being treated as a controversy in the conservative media. Because they would disagree with the fundamental idea that the president of the United States should believe/know that climate change is real, that all of this is really happening. It is SCIENCE, despite what a handful of oil-and-gas “scientists” want to tell the GOP. That’s what I never understood about the GOP side of this argument – if they want to say that we shouldn’t do anything about climate change, then argue that point. Don’t make it into an argument about whether climate change is real, because yes, then you do sound anti-science. And dumb.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
It’s easier for the GOP to convince people it’s not real (I unfortunately know people who buy it hook, line & sinker) than it is to say “we’re not going to do anything about climate change because of moneylust.”
I am with him on this one. Too many people think that climate change is a remote possibility not a certain future.
A colleague of mine is a Jeovah’s witness and he doesn’t believe in evolutionism.
How dumb is that.
Being from Europe, where there is no real opposition to climate change or evolution ( or at least in my country) it’s so shocking that in a country as advanced as the US these things are denied so vocally, especially coming from politicians who could be elected in the highest parts of the government. I could somewhat understand denieing climate change, because it’s tied to money, but things like evolution?
Fellow european here with a shitty government here.
*raises hand*
I agree with you.
There are very, very few politicians that deny evolution here. Even Sarah Palin believes in evolution, she just thought that “the hand of God” was involved. Ted Cruz refuses to talk about evolution. Most of them refuse to discuss it or say that creationism should be taught in addition to other “theories”. My take? They know it’s real, but pander to the stupid masses. And it’s getting worse as the political parties move further and further apart.
Receipts:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JDrhVR8d2Gk
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/pope-francis-gop-s-bad-science
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/
The US isn’t really that advanced, but it’s rich, powerful, influential. It can seem advanced because of its history of innovation and early technology adoption, but its infrastructure is in bad shape, education and health care are under-funded and inequitable, abortion services limited by Christian fundamentalists in government, reduced worker rights, fairly unrestricted polluting, public-health crisis from gun violence, anti-vaccination campaigns, and economic and racial injustice spread across all 50 states. Between the legacy of slavery and the power of the church establishment, the moderating forces have suffered. It’s a really sad state of affairs.
I worked with someone who would proudly state that climate change didn’t exist because it was cold outside that day.
What? Wow that’s pretty frightening.
Lmao they all did that when there was that Arctic freeze two years ago and then it was 70 degrees in NY on Christmas and they’re nowhere to be found.
Of course there is climate change and it has been going on since the beginning of time, long before humans were on this planet. Has Leo read about the Ice Age? All that ice melted and not a car or factory in sight. Extreme climate change made this planet habitable for humans!
Just last week a study came out that weather was more extreme in the early 1900’s than the early 2000’s.
Humans cause horrible pollution, not global weather changes. I wish people like Leo would talk about cleaning our air and waters rather than spewing nonsense about man causing global climate changes. If he would pick up a science history book and actually study it he will find that this planet has always been affected by massive weather extremes.
Your ‘arguments’ read as if they’re straight from from a climate denier site like Watt’s Up With That.
Actual climate scientists disagree with you.
Cr, arguments? Do you deny that there was an Ice Age? Do you not believe in evolution? Do you remember studying the extreme climate changes that created life as we know it on this planet?
Low-information voters, gotta love ’em.
I’ve studied quite a bit on climate change and weather, and what you’re doing is regurgitating climate denier talking points.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/
Of about 11,000 papers discussing climate change that were reviewed, under 1/3 claimed that anthropogenic climate change was real. Ninety-seven percent of those authors reiterated their claim…so under 1/3 of the total number of scientists claimed that anthropogenic climate change is real.
If you read the linked abstract, you will find that almost TWO THIRDS of the 12,000 papers reviewed expressed NO position on whether AGW is real. So really, cr, actual climate scientists disagree with YOU.
And Leo’s a total hypocrite.
Robin, I’m not sure if you’re trolling or what. You clearly stated yourself that 2/3 of the articles took no position on whether climate change was affected by man and 1/3 said it was. No position is VERY clearly not the same as saying that people play no role in climate change. ????????!!!!!
So I think what you might have meant is “1/3 of scientists agree with you and 2/3 have no comment”?
You know, I used to teach a presentation skills class at the top science academy in China. My doctorate students had to give a final presentation, and about 2/3rds of them did it on global warming.
There is no global debate about the causes of global warming. A country like China, which faces an almost insurmountable challenges to development, has FAR more invested in man-made climate change denial than the United States. If a case could credibly be made, they would use it. But around a decade ago, the country embarked on a new policy paradigm of development driven by science and technology–not ideology. This means scientific consensus matters, and the country is currently spending a phenomenal amount of money developing the smart grid infrastructure needed to eventually phase coal (and fossil fuels) out of their primary energy portfolio entirely.
Funny=you telling Leo he hasn’t ever read a science history book when what you’re referring to (the fact that climate changes) is common knowledge–not science–so your conclusions do not follow.
I love this comment.
You might want to reconsider your sources. Politifact is hardly objective and Skeptical Science is a biased blog run by a cartoonist who does not allow comments that disagree with his opinion.
Keep that head in the sand
Boba, what caused the Ice Age? Do you consider that climate change? Modern science says it happened, yet no humans were around. I think you have your head in the sand. 😉
-Climate change
-Global warming
Please refer to dictionary to identify topic of conversation here.
@itdoesntreallymatter I don’t think anyone here or scientists refute that the earth has gone through climate changes through its existence. However, I believe many scientists from various principles believe the current rate of change is unprecedented and is of great concern. I never heard of anyone denying there was an Ice Age, except maybe evolution deniers.
There is going to be massive debate about this on this side of the pond forever. Do I believe that we are effecting nature? Absolutely. Fast than the normal cycle? Absolutely. Is this new? Not from what the scientists up in the Arctic have found, we are just increasing the speed drastically. Does this mean we should do nothing? Hell no. My biggest issue? People listening to celebrities who don’t know their a$$es from a hole in the ground and are the biggest hypocrites ever. Leo and his comments on the chinooks in southern Alberta when they were filming there. That is a normal weather pattern Leo, sorry to burst your bubble. Hell, they are so normal, we named a fish after them (not really but it sounds good in writing, kinda like his comment). This was the complete end of any respect I had for him and his enviromental cause. Give up the boats, the cars, the planes, the limos and the rest of the fancy lifestyle and then you can lecture the rest of us on climate change.
Oh and Suzuki, that goes for you to, with your massive houses, your world speaking engagements and your pompous attitude.
Sorry, I live in the greenie capital of Canada. It gets a bit overbearing sometimes with the two-faced people here.
Yes! Love this comment. Fellow Canadian 🙂
I’ll note this denial isn’t just about climate change, there’s also a denial about evolution, and other science.
I’m old enough to remember when Republicans didn’t hate science, but apparently now they do.
Chris Mooney has done some excellent writing on this subject over the years.
China is the largest polluter in the world yet the Democrats want to police every industry in the US. And when you put a ton of regulations on US corporations, they will just move to China. So we will lose jobs and China will continue polluting.
USA and China are The biggest polluter countries of the world https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
And China still doubles what the US produces.
Well, no. There have been many, many cost benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions in the United States (never mind the rest of the world), and this is rather a simplistic argument. One that also overlooks the long term costs of doing nothing.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-would-it-really-cost-reduce-carbon-emissions
http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/reducing-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#.VvVQxDFGR4M
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/faqs/how-much-will-it-cost-to-cut-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
China, India, Brazil and many other emerging countries are ginormous polluters, yes. But the truth is, this is still our pollution, we simply outsourced it. The reason why they are polluting is to produce all the crap we’re buying. We want to buy more stuff and we want to buy cheap stuff so companies move abroad where there are no unions, no or ridiculously low minimum wages and generally, no labour laws. As long as they can find countries with very cheap workers, corporations will outsource, environmental regulations are just an excuse. So we need to break the cycle and stop buying more than we actually need, try to buy locally, take care of what we have and refuse the culture of obsolescence.
But not doing anything because others aren’t doing their part is not something we can afford anymore.
Not to mention that people simply have the right to development. Between India and China, a billion people have been lifted out of poverty. What people don’t get is that 330 million Americans will not be able to continue to consume a quarter of the world’s resources because they aren’t entitled to them. So sorry, but 3 billion Indians and Chinese have just as much right to their share of resources. That post-war period when the US could consume and pollute as much as it wanted because nobody else was? That was the anomaly. And it’s over.
Oh! I completely agree with you. We (the USA, most of the EU/UK, Can, Aus and NZ) are very rich countries with very rich citizens (whatever we might say sometime) and we made all this money by completely destroying our planet and consume like all these ressources were limitless. It then make sense for us to do more, to sacrifice more. Even a more modest lifestyle according to our standards is still so much better than what others have! So let’s reduce, let’s have tougher laws and let the billions of people have their share of the pie, they deserve it just as much. Once they reach our level, then they’ll be asked to do the same sacrifices. As Chinese know by now, they’ll have no choice anyway because the pollution is global and everyone feel its effect. But we’re the ones that have started all this so we’re the ones that have to do the most.
We know what Melissa cares about, $$$$$$$. Who cares if we destroy our planet, we need more money.
Leo is still on a party yacht, but now its disguised as a scientific mission.
Seriously. I completely agree with his argument, but he has no leg to stand on. If he cared that much he wouldn’t be flying his entourage all over the world in private jets and hanging out on MASSIVE yachts.
Whatever is going on with the world it’s definitely our fault, it’s stupid to think that our actions will not face consequences. Modernization is good, but forgetting the type of energy that entails and pollution it causes is wrong.
Even more frustrating is the FACT that we have had the technology to combat this issue for a while now, but good old fashioned greed has kept us in this vicious destructive cycle.
Deep down I always hope global warming deniers will get washed out to sea with rising ocean waters. And anti-vaxxers will all get sick, win a shared Darwin Award, and spare us all a lot of trouble.
“We’ve been travelling around the world documenting climate change.”
Abd probably creating a nice amount of pollution to add to the mix… I firmly believe humans are destroying and will destroy this planet, but I hate the way he claims to be trying to save the world when his own lifestyle is much more polluting than the average person who’s reading this. Oh but it’s okay because he drives a Prius…
It is hard for me to take anyone seriously who uses private jets and yachts. Follow your own advice, womanizer.
You are not alone! I can’t take him seriously on this topic either…
I don’t understand the whole “controversy” either. All you have to do is open your eyes and look around at what’s going on in the world and see the effects it’s having on the climate and manifestation on the earth. I don’t need a study to tell me that. I agree with the point that if politicians want to say, “Hey, it’s not a priority for me right now” it would be much more palatable (only just) than closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and and yelling “nah, nah, nah, nah” in hopes that we won’t notice the devastating effects of climate change.
Leo and other high profile environmentalists should be donating money and lending their profile to promoting Jill Stein’s campaign: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/12/when-plan-a-meets-plan-b-talking-politics-and-revolution-with-the-green-partys-jill-stein/
I just signed this petition. Some of you might be interested in signing it too:
https://www.change.org/p/quicken-loans-arena-allow-open-carry-of-firearms-at-the-quicken-loans-arena-during-the-rnc-convention-in-july-2/sponsors/new
I know Leo is focused on climate change but many politicians are also anti-GMO and the science has proved they, too, are safe. Politicians also need to take a strong stand again anti-vaxx which are also proved scientifically safe and sound.