The article also describes him as the kind of environmentalist who makes my eyes roll - a rich person principally concerned with making sure their local area looks untouched and beautiful so they can ride their Ferrari through it.

That's a good point. I have less criticism there because there is potential for someone like that to affect national or global policy and the individual can't often do much on a persona consumption level. Like I dont want to nitpick someone for driving a corvette or using paper cups. Its not like driving an SUV or running the dishwasher daily is so much better. If he lived a very modest life, would anything be different environmentally? Maybe slightly less carbon out there? The same way I dont think reusing straws is helping for me.

But the carbon footprint of the jetset crowd is significant and worth pointing out. And, yes, how a lot of it is things like protecting wealthy-coded wildlife touristy-type areas in California and such and less effort in cleaning up factories in Alabama or India and such. Or how as a capital owning class person, he negotiated against the working class with his productions, and as such the dynamics that make Alabama and India poor, the capitalistic effect of driving down wages and the political power of these working people who want reform, well, he's part of the problem there too. He can't be both 'the boss' and a worker at the same time.

And the zero effort for him and his cohorts to fly first class instead of private jet or take a regular boat and not a mega yacht or other massive carbon producers.

But his behavior on set, his bias in "The Truth,' and his hiring policies are entirely his choice and can be made nearly entirely meritorious. He simply decided to not act meritorious.