Live Hypocrisy

July 7, 2007

Madonna Is A Hypocrite

July 7. 2007

A little over a week ago on June 27, 2007, I did an article titled Hollywood Hypocrisy regarding Live Earth and its performers like Madonna hypocritically lecturing the world about climate change, when they are among the worst offenders. I wrote about the bad effects the concerts will have on the environment.

Since then several other articles have come out along those same lines about the hypocritical push that is Live Earth, which takes place today:

Madonna | Odds ‘n’ Ends

‘Green’ Means Money, Not Environmentalism to Madonna

Madonna had better clean up her business before she starts cleaning up the world.

The Material Mom is the headliner at tomorrow night’s Live Earth show from London’s Wembley Stadium. But guess what? For her, the word green means money, not the environment.

Madonna, who seems to be on top of all her many business endeavors, has actually invested about $2.7 million dollars in companies that are creating the destruction that Live Earth is trying to raise awareness about. She has invested in several companies named as the biggest corporate polluters in the world.

It’s a cruel irony that Madonna’s Ray of Light Foundation owns blocks of shares in companies that folks like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio would like to see punished and rehabilitated for their attitudes toward global warming, climate control and basic pollution.

The companies include Alcoa, Ingersoll Rand, Weyerhaeuser, and several others associated with oil exploration, digging, and refining including British Petroleum, Schlumberger (a chief competitor of Halliburton), Devon Energy, Peabody Energy, Emerson Electric, Kimberly Clark and Weatherford International.

In 2002, the University of Massachusetts’ Political Research Institute ranked Alcoa No. 9 on a list of all-time toxic American companies. And I don’t mean toxic as in toxic bachelor. This is toxic as in air pollution.

The same UMass PRI study ranked Ford Motor Company at No. 7 on the Toxic Top 10. Northrop Grumman was No. 17. Weyerhaeuser was No. 42. Emerson Electric was No. 56. 3M Corp was No. 70. Kimberly Clark was No. 96.

You get the picture. Madonna’s Ray of Light Foundation has stock in each of these companies. Her last published tax statement claims $4.2 million in corporate stock, and only $620,000 in donations to other charities including her pet project: the Kabbalah Center.

Madonna even has 175,000 shares of Ford Motor Company, which in 2005 — the last year for which Ray of Light Foundation’s tax form is available — had only one hybrid SUV in its fleet. Even now, but certainly then, Ford was/is not known as a green company. The only obvious thing Ford and Madonna have in common is Detroit — although it could be argued that only Ford has retained its Midwest accent.

Take Weyerhaeuser Corporation, a “forest products” company that is basically in the business of killing trees for paper and wood for housing. In 2005, Madonna owed roughly 1,100 shares valued at an average price of $63. Since then, the share price is up to around $80. If her number of shares remained constant, she’s made a nice profit over the last two years.

But Weyerhaeuser is no friend of the green community. A story posted on the Rainforest Action Network details Weyerhaeuser’s ongoing fight with environmental activists who call the Seattle-based corporation “a bad investment” and “one of America’s worst environmental performers.”

Even if more than half the Network’s characterizations of Weyerhaeuser are hyperbolic, one has to wonder why Madonna has put even a penny into the company if she has any feeling for environmental causes. But that’s an inconvenient question for the material girl as she prepares to close the Live Earth show live from London.

Worse — public relations-wise — than Weyerhaeuser is Madonna’s investment in Alcoa, the Aluminum Company of America. Alcoa is under fire all over the world, especially in Iceland, for building aluminum smelters that some feel threaten the environment.

The Ray of Light Foundation’s Schedule of Realized Gains and Losses is revealing in many ways. It shows that Madonna, while eager to espouse politically correct beliefs, simply does not put her money where her mouth is. The Ray of Light Foundation, for example, has only a few hundred shares of one media company: Viacom. Madonna didn’t even carry an investment in Warner Music Group, the company that releases her music. – Fox News


Madonna ‘least green’ at Live Earth

Madonna’s not perceived as very green

Madonna is perceived to be the least green artist on the bill at Live Earth, according to a survey.

And James Blunt, the Beastie Boys, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the Black Eyed Peas don’t strike the public as particularly environmentally friendly either.

The concert at Wembley is one of several taking place around the world on July 7 to highlight the need to stop global warming.

David Kuo, head of personal finance at fool.co.uk, which carried out the survey of 674 people, said: “Although none of us really know for sure how green celebrities really are, public perception plays an important part.

“Live Earth will go some way to help, but caring for the environment goes beyond exercising vocal chords, rapping and crooning. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if all the artists turned up to Live Earth on their bicycles?”

The Live Earth celebrities people believe to be the least green are:

:: Solo Artist

1. Madonna

2. James Blunt

3. Paolo Nutini

:: Group

1. Beastie Boys

2. Red Hot Chili Peppers

3. Black Eyed Peas

From the Virgin Media web site


Live Aid is promoting green to save the planet – what planet are they on?

Last updated at 10:51am on 7th July 2007 – Watching the veteran star lap up the adoration, her entourage could, however, be forgiven for exchanging slightly jaded glances – having witnessed her jet in for the concert from New York.

For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.

Hypocrisy: Madonna will strut on stage today preaching at her viewers to save the planet – yet she herself produces more than 100 times the average amount of waste produced by Britons in a year

Indeed, Madonna’s carbon footprint is dwarfed only by her ego – she has vowed that she will ‘speak to the planet’ at Wembley. In fact, an apology might be in order – for the superstar’s energy consumption is only the tip of the iceberg in this epic vanity-fest.

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: “a massive, hypocritical fraud”.

For while the organisers’ commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it ‘private jets for climate change’.

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts – nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists’ and spectators’ travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums – much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

Moreover, the pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote – with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world.

Sepermodel Kate Moss, another profligate polluter through her use of private jets, is producing a T-shirt for the event. Yet, Gore is touting the concerts as ‘carbon neutral’. So how can that be?

Let us start with some facts. Worldwide, an audience of around 1,268,500 is expected to attend the concerts – making it one of the largest global events in history.

Dr Andrea Collins, an expert in sustainability from Cardiff University, has researched the impact of such mass gatherings on the environment.

“An event of this size at Wembley – which holds 65,000 at a rock concert, will generate around 59 tonnes of waste,” she says. “That is largely composed of the rubbish from food and drink consumption.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/


Arctic Monkeys shiver at Live Earth ‘hypocrisy’

Jul 4 10:57 PM US/Eastern – Rock group Arctic Monkeys have become the latest music industry stars to question whether the performers taking part in Live Earth on Saturday are suitable climate change activists.

“It’s a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world,” said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore’s charity concerts.

“Especially when we’re using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It’d be a bit hypocritical,” he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Bass player Nick O’Malley chimes in: “And we’re always jetting off on aeroplanes!”

Large parts of the band’s hometown of Sheffield were flooded at the end of last month after a deluge of mid-summer rain that some blamed on global warming. Two people were killed.

But the band wonder why anyone would be interested in the opinion of rock stars on a complex scientific issue like climate change.

“Someone asked us to give a quote about what was happening in Sheffield and it’s like ‘who cares what we think about what’s happening’?” added Helders.

“There’s more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we’re in a band?”

The group, whose first record was the fastest-selling debut album in British history, will clock up thousands of air miles — in normal airliners not private jets, they say — during their tour to Asia and Australia in the next few months.

They are not the only stars to take a cynical view of Live Earth, which aims to raise awareness about global warming but which will require many longhaul flights and thousands of car journeys to and from the music venues.

Many of the biggest acts have questionable environmental credentials — the car-loving rapper Snoop Dogg appeared in a Chrysler commercial last year — and there are doubts about the ability of pop stars to galvanise the world into action.

Bob Geldof, the architect of Live Aid and Live 8, the two biggest awareness-raising concerts in history, had a public spat with Al Gore about the need for the event.

“Why is he (Gore) actually organising them?” Geldof said in an interview with a Dutch newspaper in May, adding that everyone was already aware of global warming and the event needed firm commitments from politicians and polluters.

Roger Daltrey, singer from 1970s British rock band The Who, told British newspaper The Sun in May that “the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.”

And the singer from 80s pop sensations The Pet Shop Boys, Neil Tennant, attacked the arrogance of pop stars who put themselves forward as role-models.

Story found here

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: