What if celebrity news carried its own version of a nutrition label? But instead of calories, or health risks, how about a label that gets at celebrities’ impact on the planet?
People follow celebrities because “reality is scary and the surreal is not,” says Dr. William Rees, the UBC professor who invented the concept of the ecological footprint. “We have made wealth and glitter and this false world of celebrity into the ideal, and people glom onto it.” But, he adds, “in a sense, doing an eco-footprint of these folks might help ground us back into reality.”
Last week, Carbon Footprint calculated the impact of U2’s world tour. Ironically, U2 is outspoken about their commitment to the environment, but carbon output of their tour this year is far bigger even than Madonna’s high-maintenance carbon-heavy tour. U2’s carbon emissions will equal that of 90,000 people flying from Dublin to London, and are equivalent of the waste created by 6,500 average British or Irish people in an entire year (equal to leaving a standard 100 watt light bulb on for 159,000 years). “To offset this year’s carbon emissions, U2 would need to plant 20,118 trees.”
I plugged in the consumption numbers for an imaginary celebrity into this footprint calculator and this one, too. I assumed that the person had a private jet, flew more than 400 hours a year, had at least two large houses, and owned more than one car. Those consumption amounts exceeded the maximum inputs on the survey — there was no category for more than one house, or for private jet, for example. But even given that, the survey found it would take over 60 earths to support that lifestyle for everyone.
noting both the yin and yang of futurity, watching cover ups as they happen, fighting back, and wooking pa nub in all de wong places. that's what i do.
************************************
[the Other Outpost]
pieto liked this
ledgergermane posted this
