By the very nature of the number of vehicles and houses he owns and maintains as well as the amount he travels. Simple math says that he consumes vastly more resources than the average person.
And since when is consumption a judgement? I'm all for greenifying things, but to think I'm judging someone for consuming more resources than another is silly. I have no problem with people on either side of the spectrum, but if you believe in something, you had better be willing to back it up with your own actions. No judgement, just asking for consistency.
And to prove that money does not necessarily lead to a lifestyle like that, just look at Warren Buffet, living one of the most low-key, normal existences possible, when, based on his bankroll, he could take a hoverboard to work every day, burn it, pay a team of designers to invent a jet pack for him to fly home in, then punch them all in the groin before donning baby seal slippers and walking home...if he really wanted to.
As for the green economy, Americans are fitting in where they always do: on the more highly skilled side. We are the people that get calls to design and outfit large solar arrays in other countries (I have a enough friends in the design and installation side of the business that I can attest to the number of calls they get from outside the US). Manufacture will always go to the lowest bidder, especially when there is already a premium on the price of green goods. So it's not that we're missing our chance to be a part of a green economy, just missing sight of our proper place if we believe our place is on the manufacturing side of things.
-Nick
The point regarding Cameron is this, simply saying that he has a lot of stuff isn't a cogent argument. As I said above: Nobody's saying that we can simply stop using gasoline or petroleum products today. But what people are saying is that if everyone took steps to reduce their usage of such things through the available alternatives, it would be a positive step.
If, relative to his own usage, Cameron has "lightened his footprint," while he has a bigger footprint than you or I, that alone does not make him a hypocrite. Do you know for sure that he hasn't reduced his energy usage? Do you know for sure that he doesn't now drive a more fuel efficient car?
If he switched from a hummer (arbitrary examples here, I have no idea if he owns a hummer or not) to say a Lexus, he's reducing his carbon footprint. Maybe he sets his thermostat at 72 now instead of 68. Maybe he has switched all his incandescent bulbs to CFLS. Do you know that he hasn't?
He and Al Gore fly. Yeah, and? Nobody is suggesting that nobody should be able to fly, least of all Al Gore and James Cameron. What they (not necessarily them personally, but the larger "green movement in general) are saying is that we should look into alternative forms of jet fuel (ala Richard Branson).
Or, to ask the inverse of this question, at what point, in the collective judgment of the posters here (for example) does Cameron NOT become a hypocrite? What sacrifices does he have to make in order to not be labeled a hypocrite? If this answer cannot be defined by those calling him a hypocrite, I question the logic of calling him a hypocrite in the first place.
Again, I think a lot of this criticism is based on a straw man fallacy that we are all somehow being commanded to live some spartan existence. That's not the message. It's more like "if we all take little steps, those small steps add up."
As far as the green economy, I would actually say we agree more than we disagree. The point of mentioning solar panels was just an example. As I said above, the larger point is that we WILL miss out on potential economic opportunities if we just sit on our hands. That is regardless of one's belief or non belief in climate change, because the market for "green" stuff doesn't simply disappear if a section of the American population doesn't want to buy it. As China's economy overtakes ours, the demands of the American consumer will have less precedence in the global economy anyways.
