Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Yeah, well, if you look at sources of global warming and say 'but that source is bigger' you can always come up with something to excuse inaction.

Still, taxing flying and supporting HSR are more effective ways to deal with that than trying to create consumer guilt.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
trying to create consumer guilt

is not the only communications option. Consumers are massively exposed to image advertising on bottled water or air travel. Why is it wrong to fight on the same ground?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In general regulation is preferable to these kinds of grassroots or media initiatives by activists or NGOs - specifically the kind of advertising reguation that you see in Nordic countries (perhaps part of the reason Starvid doesn't see too many bottled water ads).

The situation is complicated elsewhere because we live in a media environment and have a general discourse where bans on ads in which cars make trees grow and flowers bloom would be considered government intrusion on freedom of speech.

So there is a point - still, as regulation is better it should remain the ultimate goal.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 05:22:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree regulation is the goal. But how to get there when, as you say, we live in a media environment?

If we just wave the "this-should-be-regulated" flag while sniffing at attempts to score points within the media environment (judgement of their quality and likely effectiveness set aside for the sake of argument), I suggest we are comfortably ignoring the way the world works. The image-makers, meanwhile, go on creating their "reality".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 01:47:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series