I hate to say that Ed is a hypocrite, but...

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

Well they can drive 4 cylinder corollas instead of SUVs, Ed can't tour in a Corolla

digster wrote:

This is certainly a valid point, especially when you consider that major band national (and global) tours are some of the most energy-using undertakings in the world of entertainment. Think of the countless numbers of buses, planes, amps, etc. Now, this isn't to condemn all of rock music, because how else where you going to do it? But I think that since many rock bands and artists (including Eddie Vedder) have become spokespeople for numerous environmental awareness programs, I think it could be considered somewhat hypocritical if these artists spoke out but did not take significant steps to curtail their own waste. Now, I hope that Eddie has followed Uncle Neil's lead, for example; he runs his tour buses on biodiesel. However, at United Palace I waited on line right next to the buses for approximately forty-five minutes on the line in, and the buses ran the entire time. Now, I think this argument that Eddie shouldn't be criticized because nobody's perfect is a bit exaggerated. Of course nobody's perfect; hell, the sinner that I am, two days ago I accidentally threw out a glass bottle in the trash. I am not perfect. But especially considering how much Eddie and the band have spoken about this issue, I think if this tour is blatantly wasting energy (i.e. letting five buses run for hours expending massive amounts of gas) it's a perfectly valid criticism. PJ is lucky to be a band that has the means to be at the vanguard, because big rock artists need to be the first ones to change their act, considering (as I said) the typically wasteful nature of the profession.

One band that has done better than any other in this regard is Radiohead. They, unlike many artists (including at times Eddie and PJ) have really stepped up with their most recent tour, doing as best they can to offset their footprint. They're doing all the little things that no one has ever thought to do, i.e. shipping their equipment instead of flying it, buses not running on gas, etc. etc.

rrivers wrote:

Ed could travel to the venue in a smaller car. I have seen the band get picked up after shows in two or three SUVs.

Jango wrote:

Pretty sad, yet not unexpected, that you posted this and it was all but ignored for the sake of keeping an argument going?

http://www.biodiversityscience.org/xp/CELB/partners/org/pearljam.xml
"Our partnership with the band Pearl Jam is focused on several Conservation Carbon projects that are supporting reforestation efforts in Ecuador’s critically endangered rainforests and protecting Madagascar’s last remaining primary forests. These efforts are helping to conserve biodiversity, reduce greenhouse emissions and promote sustainable livelihoods.

In 2008, Pearl Jam offset its CO2 emissions from the band’s 2007 concert tour. The offsets again came from the Ecuadorian carbon offset project that will help to restore degraded tropical forests in the northwestern part of the country.

In 2006, Pearl Jam offset emissions associated with the band’s 2006 concert tour, which was used to restore almost 30 hectares of degraded tropical forests in northwestern Ecuador. As this regenerated forest grows, it will absorb more than 6,000 tons of CO2 emissions over the next 30 years, provide habitat protection for endangered plant and animal species as well as direct support for local communities.

Pearl Jam also offset the 5,700 tons of CO2 emissions generated by their 2003 concert tour through an investment in CI’s Conservation Carbon program. This funding supported a joint project between CI and the Wildlife Conservation Society to protect rain forests in northeastern Madagascar.

In 2002, Pearl Jam performed two benefit shows in Seattle in an effort to raise money for several non-profit organizations, including CI, with the intention that the funds would be used to establish a replicable model for other bands to become "carbon neutral.""

Veddie Edder wrote:

Ed is just like Al Gore and all the Hollywood frauds....do as I say, not as I do.

Jango wrote:

Pretty sad, yet not unexpected, that you posted this and it was all but ignored for the sake of keeping an argument going?

http://www.biodiversityscience.org/xp/CELB/partners/org/pearljam.xml
"Our partnership with the band Pearl Jam is focused on several Conservation Carbon projects that are supporting reforestation efforts in Ecuador’s critically endangered rainforests and protecting Madagascar’s last remaining primary forests. These efforts are helping to conserve biodiversity, reduce greenhouse emissions and promote sustainable livelihoods.

In 2008, Pearl Jam offset its CO2 emissions from the band’s 2007 concert tour. The offsets again came from the Ecuadorian carbon offset project that will help to restore degraded tropical forests in the northwestern part of the country.

In 2006, Pearl Jam offset emissions associated with the band’s 2006 concert tour, which was used to restore almost 30 hectares of degraded tropical forests in northwestern Ecuador. As this regenerated forest grows, it will absorb more than 6,000 tons of CO2 emissions over the next 30 years, provide habitat protection for endangered plant and animal species as well as direct support for local communities.

Pearl Jam also offset the 5,700 tons of CO2 emissions generated by their 2003 concert tour through an investment in CI’s Conservation Carbon program. This funding supported a joint project between CI and the Wildlife Conservation Society to protect rain forests in northeastern Madagascar.

In 2002, Pearl Jam performed two benefit shows in Seattle in an effort to raise money for several non-profit organizations, including CI, with the intention that the funds would be used to establish a replicable model for other bands to become "carbon neutral.""

digster wrote:

I don't really understand this line of reasoning, to be honest...I don't see anyone here doubting Pearl Jam's committment to these issues and the steps they've taken to curtail their problematic footprint (from issues and initiatives, from my corner Stone really seems to have his hands involved in this issue and seem very committed), and this shows that there is no doubt that PJ has done very good work. However, wasted energy is wasted energy. As a complete hypothetical, let's say I donate 500 dollars in one month to an environmental awareness and climate change prevention program devoted to restoring tropical forests. Does that therefore mean that it's not a completely wasteful thing to run my air conditioner all day for a week, even if I'm not there most of the time? Of course not, wasted energy is wasted energy whether you a constant gas guzzler or not, and steps should be taken to prevent it.

Donating to tropical forest re-establishment and playing benefit concerts is great, but I would think that the best option of all is to not do the damage in the first place. Of course, this isn't limited to Eddie; we all have to commit to this, but that means he like everyone else is not immune from it either. Like someone said earlier, if a friend or acquaintance of mine was running their buses and vans all day needlessly, and if it was gas used in those buses, I would consider it a wasteful use of energy, no matter how much money they'd given away.