Sheryl Crow: On Deception, Spin, and Losing Our Way

like a hypocrite, do as i say not as i do.

alot of these types are that way.

Are we talking light bulbs, toilet paper, or tour trucks that move her equipment from gig to gig?

As it is... do her words have the ring of truth? I mean after all, my own countries' administration (USA) has tried to teach us that the ends justify the means. How does torturing a few to save hundreds of millions differ from driving a few big trucks across country to get a message of conservation out to the youth of the nation? If I can justify subverting the constitution for physical safety... I can certainly justify driving a big truck to encourage conservation.

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

Enlarge Full coverage: Climate change in-depth

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.

"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.

so i guess you shouldnt have more than 1 child?

i mean its hurting the planet

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html

Here is a glib, non-pc observation - As a generality... stupid people tend to have more kids because they don't consider the cost of a condom versus the cost of raising a bunch of (often times illegitimate) rug rats. So called smart people tend to have less kids and therefore take their possibly smarter kids out of the gene pool.

Here is a real observation - as a whole, the human species has never had a problem crapping where they both eat and sleep... BUT... technology and medical science has allowed us to avoid the natural consequences of disease and death that is usually a result of meat eaters living in their own filth.

Here is another observation from an asian indian friend of mine - In the past, you needed to raise large families (in India) because you needed the hands for general labor, needed the children to take care of you in your old age, and because of attrition due to accident and disease. Today, those large families are not needed... but the tradition lives on. Can you say population...BOOM!

Real observation - Due to female infanticide in China... The current estimated ratio of men to women is 120 men to 100 women rather than a relatively normal ratio of 108.5 boys to 100 girls... there are literally millions of men who will never have a chance to get married. Bunch of sexually frustrated, unmarried men leads to what? Rape? Crime? Civil unrest? Or a bunch of canon fodder for the army?


In general, the human species has a whole, has never been too forward thinking about the consequences of their breeding behavior. I could come up with dozens more "stupid human tricks" re: our breeding practices that leave you thinking about just how smart we really are. Heck, just look at the megadeficit we in the US are building up for our children and grandchildren to pay for. I personally am on the tail end of the baby boom and think when I get old that all those kids are gonna be royally pissed - pardon me, extremely resentful - of the legacy they have been left. In the big scheme of things there is nothing wrong with this world that a good plague couldn't cure.

Your comments about children reminds me of a comedy bit George Carlin used to do (I think it was George). He used to state in a reporter's voice that recent medical research has found that saliva causes cancer... but only when swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.

Yeah RR... kids are dangerous and bad for the world. As a matter of fact mom always said us kids would be the death of her!

without four buses, two tractor trailers, several cars, loads of high-class booze and food, etc.?

I'm saying she shouldn't preach what she doesn't practice. I'm saying she really doesn't know what she is talking about.

its ok for the people to demand we give up gas guzzlers big homes but we shouldn't expect the same from them

hypocrites all of them

After all... what you and Ed are basing your argument on is the fact that she has to use tractor trailers to do her job. I think the real question is how she does things when she isn't working. Can you say what kind of car she drives at home? Can you say how she heats and lights her house? Can you say where she gets her food?

I don't dispute you may have a point... but to say this stuff you need to be able to back it up. Otherwise your just so much of a stone wall yourself, pontificating about how someone is a hypocrite.

You certainly just proved your ignorance of what your complaining about.

the promoter is to provide those items at the venue. Pretty much SOP. I thought you said she traveled with them?

And the high class food? Where is the pate de foi gras? Wait, she's a vegetarian. I guess it's that imported peanut-butter your calling her on, right?

Also by your own link she fuels her vehicles with bio-diesel.

I suggest you take the bullets out next time to avoid shooting yourself in the foot.

What difference does it make if she travels with items or if they are provided at the venue (didn't say that she traveled with it, BTW)? It makes NO DIFFERENCE at all. She is consuming them; that's the point.

I don't know what food she and her crew consume, but I doubt very much it's the cheap store brand, Crikey! And, vegetarian stuff tends to be on the expensive side.

Ah, the biodiesel. I believe I addressed that on another thread, but it's proof of what I said, she doesn't know what she's talking about. Even IF I believed she uses biodiesel in all her vehicles, which I don't (it makes no sense for a number of reasons) she is totally wrong to say it produces no carbon emissions. It does. She doesn't say what kind it is, 20%, 50%, 100%? Even if it's 100%, biodiesel does produce carbon emissions in similar amounts, in some cases MORE than regular diesel. There may be good reasons to use biodiesel, but it's not true to say it doesn't emit carbon. Howcum you enviro-geniuses don't know that?

So look at your own feet for bullet holes, not mine.

And again, I didn't (sic) you even once.