Tuesday, March 13

Does green make sense for SI? [updated]

The Sports Illustrated cover story this week is global warming. Ugh.

Flame on!

Objections in sequence:

1. What's the carbon footprint of sports? Add up the arenas, the travel of teams and fans. Etc.

Or, put it another way: How many resources, not to mention dollars, are essentially wasted on sports? You know, if you want to get down to the 'redeeming social value of spectator sports 'level?

- Granted, the oceans may rise one meter in the next 100 years. That would be a bad thing. But they might not. And maybe we can stop it. The human race is pretty resourceful that way. Overpopulation? Found new resources that put the nails in Malthus' coffin. Nuclear destruction? Everyone kept their cool.

Solar shade. Seed the clouds. Something else. It could happen. I think it will...

2. Please give me a break about golf courses. You cite one golf course that's gone green in Ohio. I can cite you 100 in Arizona with a couple of minutes' work that are not much more useful than a massive waste of fresh water.

3. Everyone's answer: buy more efficient light bulbs. Oh, and contribute to charity X, along with these celebrities. For example:

Join tennis and swimming stars John McEnroe, Martina Navratilova , Jim Courier, Janet Evans, Aaron Peirsol and others, who are signing on as ambassadors to provide clean water to developing nations with the Global Water Foundation.

This really chaps me. What percentage of their time and money are they giving to this foundation? Would it equal, by percentage, my hundred dollar check?

Example from something I love myself: 'This NFL player can't drive all of these people around, so could you please help the United Way?'

What a bunch of crap! Same question: 'What percentage...'

This statistic doesn't lie: wealthy people give less, as a percentage of their income, than poorer people. Bottom line.

Last example in this section: We're on the Disney Cruise and there's some deal about Disney's commitment to the environment and how they've given $10 million to...

Back up: $10 million! Who cares? That's a drop in the bucket for them! I'm not even going to dignify that statistic be looking up what they made last year!

Light bulbs and charities are little, almost negligible, answers when big answers are needed by and for the people who are really doing the damage!

Sure, fight global warming. Go for it. But do it in a way that makes sense. These suggestions are asinine.


Update:

Jason emailed me with some comments and corrections, so let me add 'em:

1. NASCAR! I meant to put it in! How on Earth could I forget it? NASCAR/NHRA/etc. Enough said!

2. Had to correct my 'sites' to 'cites'. Duh. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ;-)

4 comments:

Jay@Soob said...

From scientific theory to political dagger and now on to marketing tool. Amazing.

Ares looks great, btw.

Kathy said...

As soon as I started reading this post, I was thinking NASCAR. Glad that you added it to the bottom. The Oscars this year were "green" what in the world does that mean? Different light bulbs. Biodegradable fabrics on their 30,000 dollar gowns? My committment to a clean mouth prevents me from saying, "What the .......?"

Sean Meade said...

nothing really to add, but thanks, both of you, for your comments.

Jim said...

Sean,
Great post! Give em hell. I have not read the article; but it sounds like they got it coming!
Jim