You’ve added a perfectly reasonable leisure activity, traveling for entertainment, and then put it next to ‘person literally takes a bus into the atmosphere for a few hours so they can get somewhere faster’. In what way is her mode of travel the burden of the concert-goers?
Individual choices make a difference, and I’m not begrudging someone for driving an hour and a half to the nearest Zoo, so I’ve got no problem with people in the US taking the only real means of transit available to them. Bands/groups can take tour busses, trains. They can fly to another country if needed. But land travel is still more economically and environmentally friendly than air travel. If they carpooled, because it’s a concert far enough away, even better.
My point is that a concert only exists due to concert goers paying for it, supporting it, and coming to it. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that the total environmental impact of the concert can then by divided by all the people who attended it, including everyone carrying their small share of responsibility that the singer travelled to sing for them.
I absolutely agree it’s mainly her responsibility for the choice of the mode of transport, but I do think everyone who buys a ticket is “complicit”, as everyone knows that’s how she does it and are still happy to support it. And I don’t blame any individual person, because for any individual person the share of responsibility is very small.
But that just feels like calling out people who buy jeans in the western world. Yes, I wear my jeans for years, patching them when possible. But a factory in Indonesia dyed these jeans indigo with child workers who take that poisoning home with them.
There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, or so they say, so why not subtract the 2 from both sides and pull it entirely out of the equation?
You’ve added a perfectly reasonable leisure activity, traveling for entertainment, and then put it next to ‘person literally takes a bus into the atmosphere for a few hours so they can get somewhere faster’. In what way is her mode of travel the burden of the concert-goers?
Individual choices make a difference, and I’m not begrudging someone for driving an hour and a half to the nearest Zoo, so I’ve got no problem with people in the US taking the only real means of transit available to them. Bands/groups can take tour busses, trains. They can fly to another country if needed. But land travel is still more economically and environmentally friendly than air travel. If they carpooled, because it’s a concert far enough away, even better.
My point is that a concert only exists due to concert goers paying for it, supporting it, and coming to it. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that the total environmental impact of the concert can then by divided by all the people who attended it, including everyone carrying their small share of responsibility that the singer travelled to sing for them.
I absolutely agree it’s mainly her responsibility for the choice of the mode of transport, but I do think everyone who buys a ticket is “complicit”, as everyone knows that’s how she does it and are still happy to support it. And I don’t blame any individual person, because for any individual person the share of responsibility is very small.
But that just feels like calling out people who buy jeans in the western world. Yes, I wear my jeans for years, patching them when possible. But a factory in Indonesia dyed these jeans indigo with child workers who take that poisoning home with them.
There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, or so they say, so why not subtract the 2 from both sides and pull it entirely out of the equation?