Vanity Fair's second annual "green issue" hits newsstands today (though it arrived last week in "special" cities like New York, L.A., and, apparently, Seattle). And I must say, though its inside contents can't compete with last year's edition featuring Grist's own Chip Giller, it does feature on its cover the equally lovable and (sorry, Chip) even more adorabler Knut. And for that, I applaud them.
I do not, however, applaud them for their use of non-recycled paper. A point I neglected to make (and was chastised for!) in my story about a number of glossy magazines going "green" last month. (And p.s., Vanity Fair, didn't you get the memo about how everyone was doing a green issue in April?) As one helpful reader pointed out, there are a number of magazines using environmentally responsible paper every month. Yay, them! Ahem.
So back to the content in this issue:
There's also a hilarious illustration entitled "Dante's Inferno: Green Edition" that puts the 62,039,073 Americans who re-elected Bush in the first circle of hell, Big Oil in the third, Michael Crichton in the eighth, and Bush, Cheney, and Inhofe in the depths with Satan. It's worth buying the magazine just to tear that out and put it on your (super-efficient) fridge.
But the best part of the whole package has got to be the video from the Knut photo shoot. So. Friggin'. Cute.
I swear, the li'l dude has found some sort of loophole in the limits of cuteness. Go forth and coo.
Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson
Happy birthday, EMA Awards ... and you other groups, too
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 1:19 am
11 Apr 2007
Advertiser supported magazines relentlessly promote consumerism; whether it's car ads, ads for "eco holidays" (airline travel), tschochkes, CDs, or just plain old needless stuff, the damage that advertiser supported magazines do through their advertising dwarfts the damage they do through their use of materials (or the good they do by being tree free).
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:41 am
11 Apr 2007
Of course, once he grows up, he would murder us all, and eat us; polar bears have such a cute sense of humor. But that is the sort of thing that makes Nature so much fun, nicht wahr, mein Herr?
Meanwhile, Chip should be assured -- I know this means a great deal to him -- , that I am still carrying a torch.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:17 am
11 Apr 2007
When we finally cancelled our subscription, about three years ago, we mentioned our displeasure with both the articles and the advertisements. I think the lady in subscriptions was rather taken aback. The Atlantic Monthly of course has a right to run such articles and ads; but darned if I'm going to pay to have them take up room in my magazine rack.
Permalink
smoothsilk Posted 2:50 am
11 Apr 2007
The same issue has struck me in regard to other "green" ideas and industries. One example would be those neat micro-hydro power machines, one of which graced the cover of Home Power Magazine recently. In the picture, the machine is being held by someone (I think the manufacturer or owner), and the use of PVC pipe as the material of choice in funneling the H20 to the impeller blades is obvious.
So what's wrong with PVC pipe? The manufacturing process is the primary gripe -- there is a lot of evidence, and court cases have been fought over this, to show that it causes rare forms of cancer in those who live near the PVC plants, as well as those who have suffered a type of bone degeneration who work with the stuff (in the factories). B. F. Goodrich, back in the early seventies, announced that four of their workers at one PVC plant had developed a rare liver sarcoma, and that it was directly related to their workplace exposure -- and this disease averages only about twenty people in the entire United States a year. (So one fifth of all cases were from this one plant). Likewise, in the early seventies, PVC bottles to house liquor were banned, because of chemical leaching into the party liquids, and the use of PVC related compounds as aerosol propellants was discontinued.
So should we be advocating usage of other materials, even other (safer) petro-chemical based
plastics? Yes.
I've got a Sunfrost refrigerator (one of the most efficient available worldwide), and although I love it, yes -- it too uses PVC pipe to channel its non-ozone depleting coolant. Likewise I have a wood-powered water stove from which I get all my heat and hot water, and some of the plumbing that channels the hot water into my house is PVC pipe. So yes -- the stuff is ubiquitous in our lives -- I'm not being hypocritical. But since I've found out about PVC's harmful manufacturing process, I have avoided using it almost completely. But I feel kind of silly knowing that we have so far to go to be a truly non (or less) toxic society.
Bill Moyers had a good PBS documentary that dealt (in part) with the PVC issue. And a good book to consult would be Deceit and Denial, which
Mr. Moyers plugs on the back cover.
And yes, there are many, many more examples of materials that are harmful -- or which the manufacturering process results in harm to the workers and surrounding communities -- and there needs to be more attention on this issue if we are ever to get past toxins. Greenpeace(for example) has attacked Apple computers for being so
laggard in graduating away from their use of harmful plastics in their products, compared to Dell and Acer.
So . . . we all need to push for new (or old) materials. A lot of PVC pipe used for water transfer could be replaced perhaps by vitrified clay pipe, which is stronger, albeit harder to work with (or, for that matter, find anywhere!). With more public attention, though, the availablity of clay pipe, and more user-friendly methods of connecting and using it, could easily become the new standard, and perhaps even completely replace PVC pipe.
Then there's bamboo, which the ancient Chinese used to channel natural gas (at apparently a high pressure) in intricate networks (according to a History Channel documentary . . . .
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 2:58 am
11 Apr 2007
When we finally cancelled our subscription, about three years ago, we mentioned our displeasure with both the articles and the advertisements. I think the lady in subscriptions was rather taken aback. The Atlantic Monthly of course has a right to run such articles and ads; but darned if I'm going to pay to have them take up room in my magazine rack.
Sadly, the lady in subscriptions was not surprised when I mentioned neocons, "balance", and Judy Miller in cancelling my NYTimes subscription.
I subscribe to Harpers now, for their pure, unadulterated refusal to adopt fair and balanced. I already live in Georgia, and get the opposing viewpoint without mulching trees, and for free.
Permalink
beej Posted 9:54 am
11 Apr 2007
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 2:51 am
12 Apr 2007
The American public is interested in lavish pop lifestyles, not saving the planet (I doubt DiCaprio's giant coat on the cover was made with recycled fibers - or even (gasp!) bought second-hand!). I agree with JMG. If we continue to defend superficial greenness - its consumerism, celebrity worship, vanity (forgive me!), and greed - then the current environmental renaissance will surely be nothing more than a passing fad.
Permalink
Papyrus Posted 7:34 am
17 Apr 2007
Pop Culture Paper Conservation at the Paper Planet (http://thepaperplanet.blogspot.com)
Permalink