Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Every Time You Board a Plane in Europe, A Polar Bear Loses Its Wings

Posted by on Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:00 AM

An upsetting new commercial for heavy-duty umbrellas to raise awareness of greenhouse gasses released by plane travel.

Thanks for the heads up, WOW Report.

 

Comments (41) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Matt from Denver 1
Great. More ammo for the "global warming is a myth" crowd. Do these people seriously think that this will make any of the unpersuaded think "wow, I better stop flying!" ? That's PETA-level stupidity.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM
2
Why are there polar bears in the sky over cities? Should we be afraid of being struck by one?
Posted by LovesChoad on November 24, 2009 at 10:09 AM
giffy 3
If we take care of the emissions we can, such as power generation and ground transportation, the ones from flying won't matter. Sorry, but I am not giving up air travel nor really changing my habits there at all.
Posted by giffy on November 24, 2009 at 10:12 AM
mason_bryant 4
It's raining pollarbears! Hallelujah!
Posted by mason_bryant on November 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM
5
@1: Have you been keeping up on the recent news that climate scientists are full of shit?
Posted by cliche on November 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 6
Matt, nobody ever said global warming was a myth. Anthropogenic global warming, well, ha ha, that belongs in the book with Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on November 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Telsa Grills 7
Since when did a polar bear become a greenhouse gas?
Posted by Telsa Grills on November 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Matt from Denver 8
@ 5, yep, because one stolen email with a shaky "gotcha" negates decades of peer reviewed studies that all point in one direction.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Will in Seattle 9
I'm busy training the First Taurean Airborne to defend the skies from angry polar bears.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 24, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Carollani 10
It's not about getting people to stop flying, it's about people thinking about the consequences of their actions and taking accountability.
Posted by Carollani http://twitter.com/carollani on November 24, 2009 at 10:22 AM
11
Matt, it was actually over 1000 emails and they reveal a conspiracy to squelch dissension, massage data, and hide raw data from those who were looking for it.
Posted by cliche on November 24, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Matt from Denver 12
Well, now that it's out, let's see the skeptics build a credible case. They've got a very tall order there.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM
13
@10: Well, your point is fair, but then why didn't they just make an ad about driving emissions and how that makes polar bears fall out of the sky?
Posted by Gloria on November 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM
14
How disappointing; I thought this might be some kind of subtle Lost season 6 promo.
Posted by mirth on November 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM
pissy mcslogbot 15
it's like a Michael Bay Klondike Bar and Roland Emmerich Coke commercial mash-up, produced by a batshit crazy Al Gore.
Posted by pissy mcslogbot on November 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM
16
A few years ago, I came across the information about just how much flying contributed to global warming. And since then, I've really cut back on my flying. Only one leisure trip, and I was even reluctant to make that trip. And believe me, I'm someone who enjoys flying.

But I fully acknowledge, I'm weird. I'm someone who will actually make tangible lifestyle sacrifices for abstract ethical reasons. It's impossible for me to imagine all but a small minority of Americans--or human beings--willfully reducing the amount they fly to reduce their carbon footprint.

P.S. I hate this commercial. The plight of polar bears is such a small, remote, "save the whales" aspect of climate change that it trivializes or compartmentalizes the problem.
Posted by cressona on November 24, 2009 at 10:43 AM
17
We could start simply by ending any subsidization of flight (mostly in the form of airport subsidies). Then we could move toward a fuel tax policy that in general internalizes the real costs of burning hydrocarbons. Then people wouldn't need to think about the environment. It would all be included in the price of their tickets and in the prices of the things they bought.
Posted by kinaidos on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM
18
Matt, I think you are a bit behind the debate. Even the climate crusaders have given up on the "global warming" scare terminology in favor of the more generic "climate change" for the very reason that it isn't actually getting warmer.
Posted by cliche on November 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Sargon Bighorn 19
And here I thought it was cars and the burning of forests that were the real bad guys. Silly me.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on November 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Matt from Denver 20
Actually, cliche, I've been using that term for a while. In the context of speaking to the skeptic's viewpoint I used their terminology.

Besides, the term is not inaccurate since the global average temperature is rising. It's just that people don't understand that global warming causes climate changes that include cooling in some regions.

Thanks for playing!
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Dee 21
@11 (cliche) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ci…

I was under the impression that the whole thing was a stunt by the denial industry. But, I must be wrong, since clearly you've read all 1000+ emails yourself? No, I daresay you've only read the snippets picked out by people who already had their minds made up. Why not watch some Fox news while you're at it?

I love how conspiracies are 'crazy' until they're pushed by big business. Oh, the people who make truckloads of money off of industry and consumerism surely don't have an agenda to dismiss climate change as a hoax. Those scientists, however, man... they are an evil bunch. Clearly they've done years of study and research and now they want to trick us so that they can um... um...?
Posted by Dee on November 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM
22
So, Matt, who is the burden of proof on then? Your definition of a climate skeptic sounds like someone who is just asking to see scientific evidence that humans have more than a minuscule roll in climate change. A roll that would warrant trillions of dollars in special interest political policy on the hope that we could change the climate by fractions of a degree. These stolen emails show that the scientists don't even have a handle on the raw data that is being used to make these decisions.
Posted by cliche on November 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM
23
Dee, are you honestly trying to argue that there are no big business interests on the climate-change-is-man-made side?
Posted by cliche on November 24, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Matt from Denver 24
@ 21, see: decades of peer reviewed studies (aka "science") that says this. See: that I already mentioned that upthread. See: that you either failed to read it (bad - poor comprehension) or ignored it (worse - disingenuous).

Given the overwhelming evidence supporting climate change, yes, the burden is completely on the skeptcs.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 24, 2009 at 11:12 AM
25
I believe in global warming. I also don't give a shit.
Posted by Davy Jones on November 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Max Solomon 26
the reason we need to cut almost all other GHG-creating activities is to SAVE JET TRAVEL, which is fucking awesome, even if you are treated like cattle. london is only 10 HOURS AWAY.
Posted by Max Solomon on November 24, 2009 at 11:18 AM
27
Global warming is caused by millions of poor people getting wealthier. I have no problem kicking them back down a rung or two; it's been 30 yrs sinces the prols started flying on the US and they've ruined it.
Posted by Davy Jones on November 24, 2009 at 11:18 AM
28
Strange, suddenly I feel like drinking a coca-cola.
Posted by Jonathank5 on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Julie in Eugene 29
Am I the only one who got a creepy 9/11, people falling from the WTC, vibe from this commercial?
Posted by Julie in Eugene on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Will in Seattle 30
OK, let me make it simple for you.

Want to go to Europe?

If you take a train ... oops, no train.

If you take a boat, it will be using dirty diesel bunker fuel for the trip, and the carbon impact from that is ten times WORSE than flying in an efficient jet.

If you fly turboprop it has the least impact (about half) of a jet, but the time taken means you'll consume more resources that had to be LIFTED into the air.

Your best bet is fly via jet to Europe in the most efficient plane, land in the UK, France, or Spain, and then use the efficient high speed passenger train system to travel between cities, renting a bike or using regular rail in places not served by high speed rail.

Period.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM
David Schmader 31
Jonathank5 @ 28 wins.
Posted by David Schmader on November 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 32
Am I hallucinating, or did that last post from Will in Seattle actually make sense?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on November 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM
33
And now the weather: our forecast is calling for light drizzle overnight, with isolated showers of polar bears through mid-morning, tapering off by tomorrow afternoon. Back to you, David.
Posted by bullwinkle http://www.youtube.com/user/jmalcolmcurrie on November 24, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Cato the Younger Younger 34
How many polar bears has Savage killed?
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on November 24, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Will in Seattle 35
@32 - the one about the First Taurean Airborne?

Yeah, it made a lot of sense.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Eric Arrr 36
Personal polar bear count since April 2007: 28
Posted by Eric Arrr on November 24, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Beetlecat 37
5280: Broken clock... twice-a-day... etc...
Posted by Beetlecat on November 24, 2009 at 12:22 PM
38

The earth has endured far worse things than anything us little humans can throw at it. To say differently is just plain arrogant.
Posted by balmonter on November 24, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Matt from Denver 39
@ 38, I'm sure the world will prevail, but I'd rather that we not make ourselves and countless other species extinct first.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 24, 2009 at 2:50 PM
40
I think global warming is real, and anthropogenic. But it also seems, based on what climate scientists are saying now, that it's too late to do anything about it. So I figure all I can do is hang on for the ride. Anything else, it seems, would be like trying to row our way back up Niagra Falls.
Posted by Orv on November 24, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Will in Seattle 41
@39 - you mean like asteroids hitting it, blotting out the sun, and killing off the dinsoaurs so that little shrew like mammals feasting on their rotting flesh and hibernating could replace them?

Uh. Yeah. Of course, that would still wipe out humanity and let our gerbil overlords replace us. Or maybe insects.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 24, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy