‘THERE’D BE NO CLIMATE CRISIS IF IT WASN’T FOR RACISM,’ JANE FONDA CLAIMS ON TALK SHOW: While wearing Tom Brady’s jersey, promoting her new film, 80 for Brady. So it’s worth exploring: How Much Energy Does The Super Bowl Use?

Overall, the Super Bowl costs almost $25 million in energy every year – quite a bill for one football game. It also requires nearly 75.5 GWh of energy, almost twice the equivalent amount of electricity that the entire country of Morocco can generate over the same five-hour period (given their 6.8 GW of capacity that existed in 2012).

Meanwhile, there’s Jane’s own energy consumption: An Inconvenient Truth: Hollywood’s Huge Carbon Footprint.

The movie industry is huge, complete with its own pollution. But this hasn’t stopped them from lecturing movie-goers on a wide range of issues including income disparity, social injustices, mining, and its new favorite — the environment. And if this sanctimony seems like a new trend, a quick browse through IMDB should set you right.

According to a 2006 two-year study by UCLA, the Hollywood film and television industry produces more air pollution in the five-county Los Angeles region than almost all of the other five sectors studied. In other words, Hollywood creates more pollution than individually produced by aerospace manufacturing, apparel, hotels, and even semiconductor manufacturing. Only the petroleum industry and its fuel refineries contributed more emissions.

The study also found that the industry produced 140,000 tons of ozone and diesel particulate emissions per year.

To coin an Insta-phrase, I’ll believe that global warming is a crisis, when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves. In the meantime, I don’t want to hear another word about Glenn Reynolds’ carbon footprint.

But given Jane’s contribution to it, hasn’t she just admitted she’s a huge racist? What will she do to make amends?