Can pop take on global warming?
Qu: Do you think this plan really could help to slow down global warming?
A: Maybe, if you mean by not very much, and be by the minute extra awareness it may create in the public's awareness, which could filter through to major corporations one day. Otherwise, a snowball’s chance in Greenland which, as pointed out on Saturday by one of said corporation's bosses on the Today programme - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/enjoy-today-tomorrow-is-looking-lot.html (well worth a scary 5 minutes of what's left of our lives), used to be roasty-toasty, so there really is no problem with global warming.
Qu: And does the involvement of stars in campaigns like this encourage you to take part in them, or does it put you off?
A: Depends on the star. And depends on the campaign. Some obviously are ordinary folk, just like the rest of us, and are entitled to be concerned about the situation and want to do something about it. This, sadly, smacks of a green-elite concoction between minders, PR folk and mates in the activist community with whom they had a Fairtrade Chardonnay last night at the Ivy. It's a nice thought, but to take on Shell, Nestle and Pepisco's carb-con trading budgets, or even their marketing might (who sponsors pop stars again?) will take an awful lot of download PRS dues. Check which way the wind is blowing before unzipping guys!
And it all can go the shape of a pear when one lobs up at a gig next year in a private chopper wearing a polar bear coat, as saving the planet was sooo last year.
If our PM can't stay on message for 10 seconds when the future career beckons, I reckon we'll see some others straying too.
And when that happens the deniers will say 'look, see, hypocrites', and the games will carry on. Ordinary folk will duck back in their bunkers and just try and manage.
But it is a nice excuse for some media luvvies to meet some yoof icons. When it gets out of this timeslot on broadcast, and the Guardian in print, for the right reasons, I’ll be less inclined to see it as more than a stunt.
ADDENDUM:
It is inevitable that, having been asked to comment, some see no irony in critiquing those who comment:
I guess you could call some responses cynical, but I’d like to think a few were in fact considered commentary. A question was asked, after all! To be more concerned with the characters of the respondents in such a situation seems a tad censorious, maybe? Perhaps there was an expectation of a series in gushing support?
It is interesting therefore, that if one took this blog’s participants as a cross-section (if not a very accurate one, statistically), the percentages would suggest that such actions, or at least the overt in-your-face PR-driven nature of them (as a personal financial transaction would not the same effect be created by simply doing it and not broadcasting hither and thither?) has not been as inspirational as desired. A bit like buying a Hybrid to attend the awards show (with tame Paparazzi and scribe to record), whilst keeping the Range Rover with the others in the climate-controlled garage for clubbing duties later on that night.
I doubt any would forget the mostly sincere effort and impact of Live Aid. However, though admittedly possibly coloured by recent reporting (the media can feed at both ends of such things) of late, there seem to have been some questions raised (many at the sharp end) as to the actual beneficial value in terms of return on investment of having a bit of a do, making squillions and squirting them elsewhere. Personally I think, at the time, it was a lot better than nothing. But times have moved on. Lessons have been learned. Cannot doubts be raised and questions asked if one feels a pre-traveled road is being trod again? I’ve lost count of the number of celebs who ‘are seeing for themselves’ things in places I can only dream of visiting, and indeed am being told I should not. Is there not a danger of a backlash from such a WIAC-YOAC ‘we’re in and can; you’re out and can’t’ culture, actively supported by the media industry who are always tagging along for the ride and the ratings?
Great that they are throwing some money at the problem, I just hope it is money they can afford and will be money well spent and not wasted (or turned for profit). Listening again to the heads of Nestle, Pepsico and Shell in that Today link above, I’d say they have their work cut out. Such guys have only one agenda, and amounts of money (not their own) to defend it.
Finally, since you ask, while I can’t speak for other respondents, by signing a lot of cheques (against home and pension) AND working very long hours I have created a free website (link in name above) that is designed to help ordinary folk find re:uses for everyday things (a few, amazingly, even found in the style sections of the glossies) - aimed at helping and inspiring Fiesta Family in Brum (whose main experience of carbon trading is the retroactive (the only aspect I have a probelm with) tax on their holiday flight) as much as Prius Person in Notting Hill, Westminster or their estate in Wiltshire.
Ultimately, I believe if this, mostly silent, struggling (mortgages, work not accessible by tube or taxi, kids to get to school en route, two weeks in summer and dying for some sun that only a few can take advantage of year-round on the verandah of their trailer... on location), but ultimately equally concerned majority can see how they too can make a difference, we can move corporations and governments to act.
No comments:
Post a Comment