Billie Eilish criticize artists releasing several vinyl variants

Tim Simmons said:

Like most things in life, there’s trade offs. The trade off for driving business to local stores through fan service is environmental impact.

shitting on someone who cares is cynical. But yes it rings hollow when she has done what she’s complaining about. But the best you can do is to live, learn and change. Make the impact where you can. 

PJ has been very environmentally friendly, this isn’t necessarily in that direction, but I have no reason to believe their compass isn’t still pointing true. 

life is convoluted

But climate change is pitched as an existential threat. If you don't think this decision points in the correct direction, that's crazy. Having multiple colored vinyl variants is exceptionally trivial. If that sacrifice can't be made, why would anyone be expected to make more difficult choices.

(Again, unless we tend to believe but don't want to admit that we've advanced/industrialized to a certain point where we're just better off figuring out how to mitigate.)

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

The most unique/gimmicky LP ive ever purchased is from her.  She splattered it in paint and walked on the sleeve.  Like actual footprints.  I think people drove hundreds of miles to Third Man Records trying to buy one and there weren't many.  It's not a simple battle to fight.  

This isn't about PJ anyway.  Their new albums don't get sold in big box stores.  Maybe a black copy in Barnes n Noble and that's it.  This about her fellow stars who have fans who flood into target and walmart for each cover and each bonus song.  

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

Certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean people asking the questions or trying to do something are merely “virtue signaling,” in the critical way people tend to mean it. Very quickly you’ll get into a nihilism that justifies “nothing is impactful so therefore all action is meaningless.”  Clearly that can’t be true.  The oil lobby wants you to believe it’s your and my carbon footprint that’s driving this mess.  And to your point, sure, ours are way smaller than theirs.  But barring our ability to instantly make broad sweeping changes to how energy companies are impacting the environment, small efforts still count, unless you’re prepared to say that all action is meaningless.  I got a three year old.  I can’t afford to believe that, and I hope you don’t either.

I directionally agree with you (and Tim Simmons on his point about trade-offs) but where we diverge is on every little bit helping. I think you can do a lot of harm by asking people to make sacrifices that don't add up to tangible results. People will change their behavior but they want to see results. I'm optimistic that we'll have a cleaner energy breakthrough and don't want to burn a lot of goodwill before we get there. And it's a big part of the reason why I chafe (aka nerves touched) when someone like Billie Eilish takes a stand I believe is dubious.

It probably puts me in the minority of this fanbase but while I believe climate change is a problem I also have not remotely been convinced that there are any current collective actions that would make a dent. 

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

Certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean people asking the questions or trying to do something are merely “virtue signaling,” in the critical way people tend to mean it. Very quickly you’ll get into a nihilism that justifies “nothing is impactful so therefore all action is meaningless.”  Clearly that can’t be true.  The oil lobby wants you to believe it’s your and my carbon footprint that’s driving this mess.  And to your point, sure, ours are way smaller than theirs.  But barring our ability to instantly make broad sweeping changes to how energy companies are impacting the environment, small efforts still count, unless you’re prepared to say that all action is meaningless.  I got a three year old.  I can’t afford to believe that, and I hope you don’t either.

I directionally agree with you (and Tim Simmons on his point about trade-offs) but where we diverge is on every little bit helping. I think you can do a lot of harm by asking people to make sacrifices that don't add up to tangible results. People will change their behavior but they want to see results. I'm optimistic that we'll have a cleaner energy breakthrough and don't want to burn a lot of goodwill before we get there. And it's a big part of the reason why I chafe (aka nerves touched) when someone like Billie Eilish takes a stand I believe is dubious.

It probably puts me in the minority of this fanbase but while I believe climate change is a problem I also have not remotely been convinced that there are any current collective actions that would make a dent. 

So what should we do then? 

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

Certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean people asking the questions or trying to do something are merely “virtue signaling,” in the critical way people tend to mean it. Very quickly you’ll get into a nihilism that justifies “nothing is impactful so therefore all action is meaningless.”  Clearly that can’t be true.  The oil lobby wants you to believe it’s your and my carbon footprint that’s driving this mess.  And to your point, sure, ours are way smaller than theirs.  But barring our ability to instantly make broad sweeping changes to how energy companies are impacting the environment, small efforts still count, unless you’re prepared to say that all action is meaningless.  I got a three year old.  I can’t afford to believe that, and I hope you don’t either.

I directionally agree with you (and Tim Simmons on his point about trade-offs) but where we diverge is on every little bit helping. I think you can do a lot of harm by asking people to make sacrifices that don't add up to tangible results. People will change their behavior but they want to see results. I'm optimistic that we'll have a cleaner energy breakthrough and don't want to burn a lot of goodwill before we get there. And it's a big part of the reason why I chafe (aka nerves touched) when someone like Billie Eilish takes a stand I believe is dubious.

It probably puts me in the minority of this fanbase but while I believe climate change is a problem I also have not remotely been convinced that there are any current collective actions that would make a dent. 

So what should we do then? 

If results are all that matter, then won’t people who, say, donate money to a children’s cancer research organization conclude their actions weren't or aren’t worth taking unless there are tangible results immediately available?  And how would they measure whether a “dent” has or hasn’t been made?  Isn’t that one of the prime conundrums of living in a globalized world: you can’t ever measure your own impact so how do you know good from bad or right from wrong if “results” or “dents” are the only measure that matters?

This is all polite dialogue, so please don’t take the challenge as a hostile one.  Thanks for the conversation.

Same here by the way. The way I type I go back and read it and sometimes it comes off more confrontational than I intended. This would be way different if we were discussing it over beers.

Cancer research is a good analogy. I think people are very willing to donate time and money when it's going to something with a rigorous scientific process. What are we testing? Did we choose appropriate endpoints? What were the results? People are even very forgiving of failures when they're being acknowledged and especially if something was still learned.

Have we proven what effect carbon trade-off programs have? How about a couple decades of hybrid/electric cars? Fill in the blank. How do we take what we can measure in the short term like carbon emissions and translate that to more significant endpoints like stabilizing temperatures or sea levels? I don't see scientific programs sticking their neck out to that degree. Certainly not to the level of trials for cancer detection and treatment.

What we should do is promote programs that can (at least in strong theory if not proven fact) attack our primary problems with climate change. I think that's more funding research on cleaner fuels than reducing various forms of consumption but I'm open to the latter if one can actually demonstrate measurable results.