It's part of the human condition and reality that, in principle, problems need to be solved. Some people are better at solving some problems than others. Sports, in this sense, are essentially a representation of humanity determining who's better at solving problems that need to be solved. In conclusion, athletes, in principle, are the result of this idyllic representation of an ethically and merit-based method of determining the best people for problems that need to be solved. In order to reach this rarified atmosphere, of where the top athletes are, the whole package of physical and mental qualities are required. The "luck" factors of better genetics or better funding aren't enough. This is why athletes should be role models. They not only inspire people with their skills or problem-solving abilities but also demonstrate the best values without nepotism, luck, or unfair advantages.

First, the "climate change" science could be argued, but for the purposes of this debate, I'm granting it as true as you describe and imply it. Second, athletes that produce a significant "carbon footprint" only exist because they're better than others. 99% of athletes don't make it because they aren't good enough. Meaning, only the top 1% have a "cost" to the environment. Not only are these just a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands, in total, out of billions, but the numbers don't increase with exposure due to the nature of sports, competition, and what I've mentioned. Third, being sustainable, "climate friendly", etc., isn't the main priority for anyone or anything to be considered "great" or a "role model" as you are assuming. The first metric is always merit or competence. However, it is the case that even if someone or something is the best or the greatest but they are polluting, let's say, it would immediately disqualify them to the "bottom ranking" regardless. In any case, the first consideration remains merit or competence "at solving the problem". Fourth, I completely agree with you that scientists, engineers, physicians, etc., that contribute to better outcomes should be role models. However, this being true and "athletes should be role models" aren't mutually exclusive. You're implying that either athletes are role models or scientists are, which doesn't follow. Society, generally speaking, not "appreciating" scientists is a different problem that requires different solutions; it's beside the point. Fifth, it's also true that "fame doesn't equal wisdom". If the prompt was "Should entertainers be role models?" I would agree with you, for the most part. However, athletes, in principle, only exist because they have certain values of determination, work ethic, a healthy lifestyle, etc. Without these qualities, they couldn't compete, and without competition, we wouldn't know who's the best. So they're famous as a consequence of some good values, inherently. Meaning fame isn't necessarily bad. Sixth, hypothetically speaking, if society decides to completly shift the attention to role model scientists, it would also cost the enviroment from media attention, many more people moving to conventions and lectures, etc. I'm not suggesting the cost would be higher or lower in comparisson, just making the point that doing anything has a cost on the planet. Seventh, role models aren't required to represent all good values. It's only natural that role models exist in every walks of life that represent different values, paitence, compassion, professionalism, determination, creativity, enginuity, efficiency, etc. To assume role models need to represent every or most positive values is unreasonable and impossible. No one is perfect and, again, i'm not saying certain negative traits can't outweigh certain positive values, they do. But, for example, if an athelete demonstrates good values and is responsible with his/her choices towards the enviroment in a normal way, then there's nothing wrong with this. The ahelete might not be the best role model regarding "climate change" but he/she represents other good values. Just the same as people who are role models for contributing for "climate change" solutions, don't possess every or most positive values. And it's illogical to expect them too. In conclusion, you're incorrectly assuming or implying a "zero-some game" in some cases, "false binaries" in others and expecting perfection from "role models". As long as there is a significant positive balance between demonstration good values and being neutral towards others, then he/she, in principle, is a perfectly legitimate role model.

"When millions emulate a star's private jet..." - Not even elaborating on how few people can fly on a private jet, let alone own one, it's still a self-defeating argument because even if people want to emulate it, the vast majority can't produce enough wealth to do it. Regarding most athletes' situations, where they cost more to the environment due to success, moving often, attracting audiences that also move, etc., it's still an inevitable consequence of competency, which would also apply, and does, to scientist role models. Taylor Swift, for example, is a case where I would agree with you, but she isn't an athlete and does not apply to the prompt. "Being great at a sport doesn't qualify someone to shape values..." - They're not "shaping values", great athletes are role models because, among other things, they showcase "good values". Society determined what these "good values" are. Athletes are role models because they've adopted them. It's the other way around. "Fame is a megaphone... amplifies overconsumption..." - I already agreed with these problems, explained why, and even gave the example of Taylor Swift, which applies. The problems with this argument are as follows: First, you're requiring role models to represent specific "good values" which isn't logical or possible. Different role models represent different values. Some are brave but less creative; others are genius and creative but impulsive, etc. Whatever it may be, no role model represents most "good values" or always represents specific ones. Second, there are no "limited role model slots" as you are implying. Athletes being role models for hard work, determination, perseverance, skill, etc., doesn't affect in any way the existence of or the need for role models for "science" and sustainability. They aren't mutually exclusive. Finally, there are only ~1.5 million athletes in the world, and those who are considered role models, I'd argue, are less than 10,000. It's a very small pool we're talking about compared with 7 billion people. And, regardless of how well they represent "good values", they can and do justifiably lose their "role model status" by making unreasonable polluting decisions. This is the case. But this does not mean role model athletes that make normal "environmentally friendly" decisions cease to be role models. How are athletes role models more inherently polluting than other normal human decisions which are deemed positive, such as, museums, events, traditions, etc.?