OT: another found elsewhere - AGW is fine if you're rich
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Eeyore on July 22, 2008, 6:48 pm
Please log in for more thread options September 23, 07 Sting biographer Christopher Sandford explores the rock star's green beliefs, which turn out to be as deep as any other global warming preacher's: "We can't live here and be happy with less/With so many riches, so many souls/Everything we see that we want to possess", Sting sang, in one emotive passage. It was a theme to which he returned at this summer's Live Earth climate change concert. At one point in the performance, Sting pledged to the audience that he would "work to reduce" his carbon footprint in the future. A commendable objective - but what Sting didn't mention was how much larger his carbon footprint is than just about anyone else's. Earlier this year, a glimpse into Sting's daily routine at (his Wiltshire) mansion was provided by Jane Martin, 42, a cook who took the rock star and his wife Trudie Styler to an employment tribunal which awarded her £24,944 following her "shameful" dismissal from her job. The cook added that she had often been required to make an expensive rail and taxi journey between London and Salisbury just to prepare a soup and salad meal for the family, even though they also kept two housekeepers, two nannies and a butler on the premises. This same paragon of self-denying minimalism who reminds us all not to squander our resources also owns a three-storey mansion in Highgate, North London, a townhouse in Westminster and what's described as a workman's cottage in the Lake District. He also maintains a beach house in Malibu, California, and a 600-acre estate in Tuscany. Early in his career, he expressed the opinion that "I just don't agree with (procreation) any more. We have too many people - we're not the most important thing on the planet, and until we realise that, we're in deep s***." How ironic then that Sting has six children, from two wives, ranging in age from 30 to 11. There's nothing wrong with that - he's long since earned the right to live just as he likes - but, taken as a whole, it would seem to suggest that Sting's campaign against Western excess might not always be a priority in his own day-to-day life. No kidding. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/2007/09/23/ Graham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Joel Koltner on July 22, 2008, 7:03 pm
Please log in for more thread options > The cook added that she had often been required to make an expensive
> rail and taxi journey between London and Salisbury just to prepare a > soup and salad meal for the family, even though they also kept two > housekeepers, two nannies and a butler on the premises. It's something of a compliment to her that they'd rather have her prepare their meal than the other employees. Sting can easily buy his way to a zero carbon footprint if he feels like it, and still easily afford to have his cook make some extra trips. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Eeyore on July 22, 2008, 10:51 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Joel Koltner wrote: >
> > At one point in the performance, Sting pledged to the
> > audience that he would "work to reduce" his carbon footprint in the > > future. >
> > The cook added that she had often been required to make an expensive
> > rail and taxi journey between London and Salisbury just to prepare a > > soup and salad meal for the family, even though they also kept two > > housekeepers, two nannies and a butler on the premises. >
> It's something of a compliment to her that they'd rather have her prepare > their meal than the other employees. She wasn't too happy about it. I recall the case. I'm sure it involved her working very long hours. > Sting can easily buy his way to a zero carbon footprint if he feels like it,
> and still easily afford to have his cook make some extra trips. So you agree with the thread title then ? Graham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Joel Koltner on July 23, 2008, 12:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options > She wasn't too happy about it. I recall the case. I'm sure it involved her
> working very long hours. Probably should have asked for a raise or just put her foot down about her availability > So you agree with the thread title then ?
Nah, because Al Gore would have you believe that buying enough carbon credits to make yourself carbon neutral will prevent AGW. So it's more like, "There is no AGW if you're rich." :-) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 24, 2008, 5:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>> At one point in the performance, Sting pledged to the
>> audience that he would "work to reduce" his carbon footprint in the >> future. >
>> The cook added that she had often been required to make an expensive
>> rail and taxi journey between London and Salisbury just to prepare a >> soup and salad meal for the family, even though they also kept two >> housekeepers, two nannies and a butler on the premises. >
> It's something of a compliment to her that they'd rather have her > prepare their meal than the other employees. > > Sting can easily buy his way to a zero carbon footprint if he feels > like it, and still easily afford to have his cook make some extra > trips. > Sting is one individual rich person. I'm more interested in all of the non-"celebrities" who make choices that minimize pollution. It's the same old crap as teh Gore-obsession - claiming that anyone who is concerned abotu the environemtn and human health and so on is just ahypocritical idiot, based merely upon the actions of one or another celebrity. It's an exact analogy to defining motherhood solely on the basis of the actions of Britany Spears, and ignoring any and all good examples. Like, yeah, let's all behave like idiots and scumbage just becasue this or that celebrity says one thing, and does another. Yeesh. Sorry, but I've bought high-MPG cars, insulated my domiciles, and otherwise tried to avoid creating more pollution than necessary, since the early 1970s, not becasue some media-darling blithers that I should, but merely becasue I chose to do so. It's *at best* tiresome and silly to continually besmirch anyone and everyone who does try to live modestrly and carefully, *merely* on the basis of the perceived hypocricy of some "celebrity". | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> audience that he would "work to reduce" his carbon footprint in the
> future.