digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk

Radiohead turn down US trip because of global warming

news.bbc.co.uk — Radiohead have decided not to travel to the US for a promotional performance on Conan O'Brien because of concerns over global warming, appearing from London via satellite instead.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Shadowgamers, on 04/26/2008, -59/+16But the carbon emissions from them travelling to the studio! DD:
    • userperson, on 04/26/2008, -14/+6They now live there it's environmentally friendly. Don't you live where you work? or do you hate the earth? /s
    • init100, on 04/26/2008, -5/+10London has a pretty decent underground system (or subway if you are from the US). Nothing implies that they have to drive to work.
      • Shadowgamers, on 04/26/2008, -5/+1Ticket booth attendee for Waterloo had one hell of a laugh when I asked him where London Bridge station wass :[
    • DucoNihilum, on 04/26/2008, -6/+3WOHHHAWEEHEE WOOO WAAAA MEEEE TREEESSSS INNNNN MYYYYY KNEEESSSS SMEELLLLL LLIKEEE THE BIRDDSSS AND DEEE BEEESSS ONNNNN KEEEYYSSS ---Radiohead
    • Ataxia2008, on 04/26/2008, -11/+11To everyone below saying this is a stupid publicity stunt, I say: STFU

      They're not being hypocrites for doing a world tour, yet not doing this - It's the fact that they would be flying across the North Atlantic for ONE ***** SHOW. Think about it.
    • brycelb, on 04/27/2008, -1/+4Excellent, another global warming article on digg. The arrogance of the celebrities is just mind numbing. What makes all of this worse is most people eat it up.

      It's starting to remind me of the insanity that comes from the religious zealots. You know, the kind of people that think being gay is an abomination to mankind. Both groups have there heads up their asses and I choose to ignore all of them and stick with common sense.
  • deltaandroid, on 04/26/2008, -52/+18I may be Paranoid, but not an Android
  • Gullop, on 04/26/2008, -65/+49lame
  • etx313, on 04/26/2008, -99/+1226 Diggs and this is on the front page? I'm sure their flight is gonna fly regardless if they are on it or not. But at least they are trying i guess.
    • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -16/+7I'm pretty sure radio head has their own jet. Bands like Radiohead don't exactly fly coach, know what I mean?
      • Gutterpunk, on 04/26/2008, -12/+3"know what I mean"? Is there an hidden message in your sentence or something?
      • iamafatguy, on 04/26/2008, -4/+10I'm pretty sure Radiohead can fly on *another* jet, not their own, one that would be flying regardless if they were on it or not...
    • sublingo, on 04/26/2008, -13/+7Dude, please read into how Digg works, and the 26 Digg thing will all come clear to you.
      • etx313, on 04/26/2008, -28/+2Read how my fist works when it makes contact with your face.
        • retawd, on 04/26/2008, -3/+24Read how my balls work when they come in contact with your chin.
    • MrSlumberjack, on 04/26/2008, -3/+5I'm gonna nuke your face.
  • codaofchoice, on 04/26/2008, -177/+364Ultra-pretension. Jesus.
    • userperson, on 04/26/2008, -40/+18Why do you hate the earth they just spreading the word that internal combustion is bad. I bet you have a car -- earth hater! /s
    • pegothejerk, on 04/26/2008, -53/+141Since when is living by example instead of just preaching "ultra-pretension"?? Mr. Yorke's lyrics show concern for humanity and our state of evolution, and instead of just talking about it and raking in the dough, they provide examples here and there. It's obviously necessary for them to tour to do their jobs, but to fly just to promote when you are freakin HUGE seems like a waste if they don't deem it necessary. That's not pretension. That's honorable.

      Pretension would be to fly everywhere assuming the reporters will just flock to them as they come to each city, without calling ahead to confirm promotional events.
      • elevatedms, on 04/26/2008, -19/+7Honorable would be canceling the show and not stating why. This is for publicity.
        • ozydingo, on 04/26/2008, -5/+16That wouldn't be a good way to lead by example though, since noone else would know why they did it. It'd also be a great way to piss off fans.
        • pegothejerk, on 04/26/2008, -4/+6Isn't publicity the only way to get a message out? Hence the "public" part of the word.
        • PaulOwen, on 04/26/2008, -6/+10I think the issue here is that Radiohead are refusing to travel to the US, and most digg users are US citizens and they don't like that.

          Its not pretentious - the real offence they've committed is contempt of the US of A (at least here on digg).
        • DucoNihilum, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Wait, lyrics? I was under the impression that they just moaned for four minutes.
      • Extracheese, on 04/26/2008, -16/+25haha, "let them eat cake," is it? The rest of us who need to fly for business or to spend with our families can afford to take the hit to our karma. I'm tired of them spreading awareness about global warming, what about actual solutions to our energy problems? How about awareness for the fact that ethanol fuel is causing starvation around the world? Or to remove the stigma of nuclear power? awareness is a dead horse.

        "Leading by example?"....yeah because when we want to know how to live our life best, we look to our favorite musicians and do what they would do...
        • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -16/+6The answer to the energy crisis isnt more energy, but conservation and changing our behaviour.

          "awareness is a dead horse" -- because tools like you refuse to make any changes in your lives.
        • jgtg32a, on 04/26/2008, -7/+13@wageslaven
          Are you out of your mind?
          Christ this is why environmentalist are dumb.
          Isn't there that IBM commercial about how the girl goes to her boss and give a plan about how we can help the earth and he doesn't care. Then she says we can cut costs by 20% and 2x performance, saving millions and the new servers pay for themselves in the first year of operation easily paying for themselves. That is the approach that needs to be taken.

          The last thing that ANYONE want to be told is that their life style is wrong and it needs to be changed. If you want to go out into the wild and live with the trees, be my guest.
          • ShokDoktor, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Are you always such a ***** moron or do you rest on Sundays?
      • stonklit, on 04/26/2008, -6/+2You got somethin on your nose.
      • Rambeezle, on 04/26/2008, -11/+14Of all the places to pick your fight they choose this flight. Every time, from this point onward, that radiohead flies they fly in hypocrisy. (They fly a lot)
        • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -5/+12Flying over for a tour is one thing. Flying over for a one-song cameo on a talk show when they're not touring in the area is something else entirely.
        • Myonosken, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Did you miss the bit where they bought kit in the US so they don't need a whole extra plane to cart their tour stuff around?
        • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Reasonable people make compromises. If they refused to ever take a flight again, I might feel embarrassed for them because I understand that they have an international following and they need to travel in order for their fans to attend their performances. In this case though, they're deciding not to fly to New York to make a televised appearance because it can be done more easily if they don't leave London. They're wildly popular enough that a cost-benefit analysis wouldn't necessarily have led to this decision, but it makes a lot of sense nonetheless. We're conditioned to black and white characterizations of hypocrisy and "flip-flopping" all the time because various parties and interests have found that it is robust in its ability to attract and hold appeal, but to apply this yourself in your own life is madness.
      • Fygee, on 04/26/2008, -9/+10If they were to live by example, then they would never fly again, or do so only when absolutely necessary.

        They won't.

        Lyrics in a song are meaningless. Let's see them live like Ed Begley Jr., and then I'll consider them unpretentious environmentalists.
        • Myonosken, on 04/26/2008, -6/+9"then they would never fly again, or do so only when absolutely necessary."
          Isn't that what they've just done?
    • SouthsideIrish, on 04/26/2008, -18/+7Honorable will be never coming to the U.S. again to tour. Does he have the guts to do that. Oh, and there are things environmentalist can do to feel good about flying. There is a pass you can buy to offset the pollution. What he is doing is ultra-pretension.
      • mywhitenoise, on 04/26/2008, -6/+38I ordered that $80 In Rainbows album, took over a month and a half to get it shipped. Know why? Because they shipped them all by boat. Radiohead is pretty serious about this.
        • iamafatguy, on 04/26/2008, -6/+11Why not press it in other countries? Boats use fuel too.
        • ferrariman60, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7I hope it was by sailboat then, because you know, those engines they use in cargo ships aren't exactly environmentally friendly. They're MASSIVE! Turbos the size of washing machines! Cylinders 2 stories tall! Those things slurp diesel like it's hard to believe. I doubt that shipping by cargo ship has less of an impact on the environment than putting them on a 10 hour plane ride.
        • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Container ships use a lot of fuel, but they tend to carry an ungodly amount of cargo. According to wikipedia, it's about 35 100-car freight-trains worth of goods on a single ship, or 10,000 20×8.5×8.5 foot containers for a common large container ship. Try putting that on a plane.. As the mass of the cargo increases, the ship is pushed lower down into the sea (increasing the surface area of friction from the water) while decreasing air friction above the surface. A very significant benefit is that the increased mass of the cargo makes the forces of friction acting against the ship less significant in relation to its surface area. Cargo ships (and how they are used) are designed to have an extraordinarily high mass in relation to frontal area. As the size of the ship increases, the economies of scale improve -- and the energy required to move the mass of the fuel is ever decreasing.

          In contrast, a large proportion of the fuel onboard an aircraft is spent moving the fuel itself (I wish I could find numbers for this). On a boat, adding fuel just presses the ship's hull down into the water further.. but with a plane, you've got to accelerate it to high speed in a short distance and then lift it above 20,000 feet. I would say that jet planes don't have the same potential for efficiency due to their fundamental requirements. It uses about 50mpg to ship yourself in a plane. Work out the cost of this fuel, and compare this against the cost of some of your larger purchases from China.
      • Clark3934, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4Sailboat?
    • topgigmedia, on 04/26/2008, -17/+40using one's celebrity to engage people in conversation about incedibly important issues that impact all of humanity is not pretencious, it is noble. Look beyond the trivial fact that they choose not fly on one single plane, but the fact that they have people taking about global warming again.

      Drop in the bucket, but still better than learning about other senseless celebrity gossip, no?
      • hexydes, on 04/26/2008, -9/+8Celebrities are worthless, and I live much of my life trying to not live by their over-embellished example. The problem with celebrities and their little lessons they are supposedly trying to teach the "commoners" to live by, is that they are generally followed by an entourage of people, money, and resources, to support this lifestyle that they are trying to teach us all to follow.

        Sorry, most of us live in the real world. We pay mortgages on our tiny homes, and monthly payments on our family sedans, all on our meager wages/salaries. If you want me to follow your lifestyle, feel free to donate a few million dollars to the cause and I'll be glad to up-end my lifestyle to make you happy.

        Otherwise, stfu and sing/act/paint/whatever.
        • deskimo, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4You'll probably find it costs less money to live by their lifestyle, now that gas is in the $3-$4 range. Turning off the lights, maybe choosing to walk or bike to a place instead of drive, all of these things add up, making it cost less to live, not more. I don't care how hard your "real world" life is to you, some of us are able to live in the real world and be responsible stewards of it at the same time. These things are not mutually exclusive.
          • deskimo, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2I love it. I come out for saving the earth and I get dugg down.

            What the hell is a matter with you people?
          • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2If they could send you the next mass email in support of a 1-day boycott to protest against high gas prices, they'd probably do that too. I hate my generation.
          • jebudas, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2If Radiohead had flown across the pond, some people would call them hypocrites. They decide to stay home, and the same people call them pretentious.
    • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -12/+20I don't really agree with their stance here but calling it pretentious is flat wrong and just plain stupid. It's not pretentious for someone to live up to their principles, even if you don't agree with those principles.
      • ferrariman60, on 04/26/2008, -6/+8But it's pretentious to do that when you're making a statement. In a few months, they'll fly over to the US and take a diesel guzzling bus from place to place on tour. It's the selective application of those principles that is stupid.
        • Myonosken, on 04/26/2008, -5/+5"diesel guzzling bus"
          They've downsized theirs massively in comparison to most bands
        • Ataxia2008, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Diesel is better than normal gasoline
    • stellamaris, on 04/26/2008, -9/+14They are practicing what they preach, and utilizing technology in the best way possible. Anyone who saw their performance on New Years can tell you it was better than any straight up, broadcasted live performance.
    • dracostimpy, on 04/26/2008, -15/+6If they cared about their US fans, they'd come over on a sailboat. Radiohead just doesn't want to inconvenience themselves for a month in exchange for making, oh, $50 million or so in ticket sales. Selfish tossers!!!
      • Myonosken, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4A month? IT'S ONE ***** SHOW! They're still touring later in the year you retard.
    • Billions, on 04/26/2008, -5/+7Coda: If you read am article about how their flight they took over here was the carbon equivalent of driving a car for a year, and how they had done it, you would be posting some crap about how they are hypocrites. Seems there's no winning with guys like you.
      • Harbinger1080, on 04/26/2008, -3/+6well, if they're flying on a passenger jet, say a 757-300, there could be 243-289 total passengers on the plane. for the equivalent of 1 car for 1 year, moving that many people, their luggage, and the plane's crew, doesn't sound so bad to me.

        i understand what they're doing though-- drawing (more) attention to the issue; i also think "green week" is stupid, and i'm tired of EVERYthing i see mentioning how green it is.
        • rheaume, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2Yeah because they want to fly with a bunch of ***** retards like you
    • rheaume, on 04/26/2008, -11/+6My first response to your pompous comment?

      ***** YOU
    • lunarcanary, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7How dare you call my favorite hipster ban pretentious.

      You think that THEY THINK they are entitled?

      Seriously though, it's stuff like that that makes me happy I didn't pay for their album.
    • Aidenf77, on 04/26/2008, -4/+7There are few things as polarizing as opinions on politics, religion, music, or the environment. Considering this has to do with both music AND the environment... I'm surprised the chicken little ecomongers and fan boys didn't bury you. If I could, I'd digg you twice.

      I agree with you. They are pretentious ("making an exaggerated outward show") in that this is nothing more than a useless gesture. I'd be really impressed if they swore off all forms of carbon emitting transportation entirely. Then it would be a little less pretentious, and a little more sincere.

      ... and 3, 2, 1 commence with my burial.
    • xanadu2113, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4it was actually a great performance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUePwCD8RGY
    • MoClippa, on 04/26/2008, -4/+5Causing that big a carbon footprint for 1 show is absolutely ridiculous, and he was right to decline going all that way when you can just do the show via satellite... does it seriously change a viewers life to know that the band wasn't in Conan's bloody studio when they are watching it on TV anyways?

      It's not pretentiousness, its concern, and actions like this hopefully get people to realize or be reminded as to how serious this problem is.
    • DukeMojo, on 04/26/2008, -7/+3I don't need Radiohead jerkin' me off about this *****.
      • ShokDoktor, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2sounds like you have the jerking off down to a tee.
    • thailand1972, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Radiohead are already ultra-pretentious, but on this particular issue, I agree with them and think it makes them LESS pretentious as at least they are doing something, rather than talking about it.
    • BuzzRod, on 04/27/2008, -2/+0There are positive and negative ways to show support for environmentalism:
      http://xtreme-geek-gear.ireporter.tv/2008/April/Ne ...
      Radiohead seems to be going about this using the negative approach
  • wafflesomd, on 04/26/2008, -50/+40HAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Retarded.
  • ncrep, on 04/26/2008, -81/+5first
  • TotalHalibut, on 04/26/2008, -39/+27This will really help matters! It's absolutely not a vain publicity stunt.
    • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7Because no one is capable of sincerity in your world? How sad.
  • Intrusionv2, on 04/26/2008, -73/+6Did anyone else read this as "Redhead..." and clicked frantically?
  • Jyaif, on 04/26/2008, -53/+342me, I don't go to school because of the global warming.
    • userperson, on 04/26/2008, -26/+114The environmental movement appreciates you being dumb and obedient.
      • compu73rg33k, on 04/26/2008, -27/+2Do you have to hop a Jet to go to school? If so, I'm glad you stopped going to school.
    • crinzema, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12I suck car's exhaust pipes just to reduce C02 emissions
      • userperson, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2The environmental movement says this is a good start, but you're still exhaling -- It's a problem for them.
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3Psshhh I don't pay my rent on time every month cause of ol' global warming.
    • chlyon, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1Im building a underground bunker because of gobal warming , why you ask because of the source of global warming , (no not co2 ) planet x 21.12.2012 search youtube if you are uninformed enough not to know what im talking about . Good luck surviving it
    • worldchanger, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2that was epic.
  • t2t2, on 04/26/2008, -24/+11And at the same time (or same 24h):
    http://digg.com/environment/Greenpeace_founder_say ...
  • s0m31john, on 04/26/2008, -33/+11These comments suck.
    • SmellyFingers, on 04/26/2008, -9/+6On any other day, you'd be dugg for stating the obvious. Not today, loser.
    • MrSlumberjack, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5Thanks for contributing
    • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3The comments arent as bad as the moderation. Is this paranoid, delusional sociopath day on Digg?
    • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0Well, he did state the obvious.. but it's contributing to the problem.
    • Brad324, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2no, the burying brigade of fanboys who refuse to see this as anything else than a lame publicity stunt suck.
  • stonklit, on 04/26/2008, -47/+31***** LOL.

    They do realize that their ONE plane trip won't cancel out all the other tens of thousands of flights that go on per day, right?

    I mean, I appreciate the thought, but that's just silly.
    • trumpydumpy, on 04/26/2008, -21/+43Yeah, just like that ONE piece of litter won't cancel out all the other tens of thousands of morons that litter, right?

      I mean, ***** it, if everyone's doing it, lets all just throw ***** out our windows, and drive massive SUVs while doing it, right?
      • stonklit, on 04/26/2008, -7/+6Flying on a plane due to your ***** job and throwing trash out on the street are two entirely different things.

        If you're that stupid to where you can't figure that out, then I can't help you.

        You people are seriously idiots. Them not flying on the plane did NOTHING for global warming, because that ***** plane took off anyway.
        • init100, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6"Them not flying on the plane did NOTHING for global warming, because that ***** plane took off anyway."

          Sure, but if more people would fly less, airlines wouldn't have to put in an extra plane to meet the high demand.
        • MrSlumberjack, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3I can guarantee that Radiohead has at the very least one private jet
        • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3There is a relationship between the loaded-on-weight of a plane and fuel consumption you douche. Give your head a fcuking shake.
        • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2To "due" their job?

          They're not on tour. This was a ONE-SHOT deal. Flying over here for one night would have been retarded. Flying over for a 3 month tour makes sense, but not one damn night. Especially when it's a show about "Green week". Just how hypocritical would it have been for them to fly over for ONE show to highlight that we shouldn't be doing things like wasting petroleum needlessly?

          Who do you think they are, U2? "I forgot my hat for the poverty tour, here, fly it to me first class". Bono is a hypocritical douchebag.

          /hate both bands, but respect Radiohead and their decision on this one.
          • Ataxia2008, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Urgh, Don't mention Bono in the same comment as Radiohead
          • bjornski, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Sorry. I don't like either of 'em. wasn't mean to smear 'em together.

            I don't like Radiohead because I don't like their music. I don't like U2 because they're pretentious douchebags (and I don't like their music).
    • redcolumbine, on 04/26/2008, -2/+30As I recall from Sesame Street, all counting starts with 1.
      • stonklit, on 04/26/2008, -7/+2And reality starts with common sense.
        • kihadat, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7Exactly. Get some.
          • stonklit, on 04/26/2008, -5/+1LOL.

            Coming from people who think that just because they sit this one out, it will help global warming?

            Riiiiight. I think you could use some of your own advice ;)
    • mywhitenoise, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7Yeah really, why should I clean up my dogs ***** in the back yard? It's not like it's going to stop anything.
      Why should I buy a hybrid? Everyone else drives an SUV to cancel it out.
      Why should I turn off unused electronics? Everyone else has them on.
      • init100, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3"Why should I turn off unused electronics? Everyone else has them on."

        Well, it is *your* electricity bill.
        • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5There are externalized costs of electricity consumption, namely contribution to anthropogenic climate change.
    • tobsterius, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6I'm sure they do realize that... but they doing this to make a statement, really...
  • BigglesPiP, on 04/26/2008, -41/+21pussies
    • worldchanger, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1cats? no, silly. they're rockstars.
  • compcarp, on 04/26/2008, -20/+13Man-made Global Warming.. and just global warming is slowing becoming known to be a political and economical farce. However at least these guys are acting on their beliefs... unlike the Global Warming champions like Al Gore and his bunch. "Do as I say, not as I do..."
    • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4It was destined to be a farce regardless. Asking people all over the world, especially countries that just no had their industrial revolutions and became developed nations (India, china, etc), to give up cheap efficient systems that are already in place in favor of more expensive and less efficient systems that they would have to build their own infrastructure for... well you'd have to be stupid or high to think they actually would.

      Besides, companies that advertise that they are trying to be Green actually have to do something that can be said to be Green. If not it's false advertising... here in the states at least. So at least things should be improving... even if it is for all the wrong reasons.
      • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4"to give up cheap efficient systems that are already in place in favor of more expensive and less efficient systems "

        Fundamentally wrong. The existing systems are actually less efficient and more expensive. They take advantage of the externalized costs of emissions - and the a broken economic system that does nothing to properly account for them. Look up "whole cost accounting". Those emissions are causing Global Warming. Global Warming has an economic cost.

        According to this study done by Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank economist for the Gordon Brown government of the UK in 2006, says "world that it faces paying multi-trillion pound economic costs if it does not move urgently to act on climate change."

        Our systems and economics are built on the false premise of a planet with an unlimited potential to absorb our effluent -- it is not. Global Warming is just a single facet of the consequences of our inefficient and expensive systems.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/04/politics. ...
  • cledford, on 04/26/2008, -31/+15Why not take the money from the tour and put it toward global warming?

    tards.
    • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4What makes you think they don't?
      • PolymathicMan, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2What the hell makes you think they do?
        • Myonosken, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Thom Yorke sending huge donations to green charities?
        • terminal157, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2You were the one bringing it up as a criticism, you're the one who has to have something to go on. My point isn't that they do, my point is that their personal donations are unknown to you and not your business.
    • Supurcell, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5You can't pay the earth not to warm.
  • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -26/+14heh... I need to figure out how to shoe horn global warming into my advertising. If it works so well that even bands are doing it as a publicity stunt I need to try it out.
    • sublingo, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4Um, you could start by actually doing something environmentally friendly. Then you won't have to shoe horn it.
      • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1heh! Ever heard of false advertising? If I advertise being green I have to actually do something green. And actually I plan to replace my current vehicle with one that can run bio-diesel... save money and it is a renewable fuel source. I'd go with ethanol instead... but there's no ready supply of it in my area despite the resurgence in the popularity of corn amongst farmers here.

        Regardless, you missed the point. The point was it is a publicity stunt. The sub point was that every business I can name, including many of my own clients, have started advertising Green.
        • sublingo, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2I don't care what their motivation, be it to look good to customers, or a tax write-off, or genuine interest, in the end, a good cause is a good cause. The cynic will view it cynically, and the reverse will view it non-cynically. If you need a reason for charity, fine, to each his own.
        • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Food costs and demand for corn to feed our vehicles instead of people is already driving the costs of corn/ethanal up. Don't tell me you're stupid enough to think that it's going to remain "affordable" for very long.

          Good decision on the bio-diesel, until 100 other people in your town are all hitting the same restaurants you are to get their used oil too. The only reason it's a viable fuel source at the moment is the small number of people hitting the "fuel stations" to pick up their weekly dose.

          Driving "cheaply" is a thing of the past, and it's not going to get any more affordable in the future. Your best bet is to get a small, efficient gas-burner and don't drive like a jackass. That's all.

          Until we build enough electric vehicles to actually meet peoples needs, and the nuclear power plants to fuel them (***** coal), things aren't going to get better any time soon.
    • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3You seem to have confused cynicism with wisdom.
  • psyphen, on 04/26/2008, -30/+23i love radiohead, but this doesn't make any sense.
    • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -9/+17Jet fuel is bad, m'kay?
      • deezp1, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3If they are really concerned about global warming why don't they just cancel their world tour all together? Last I heard they are still doing a North American tour and I'm sure they are not using corn powered planes then..
        • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2The issue here is flying over for ONE SHOW, not a tour.

          If you're too dense to understand that, I see no further need to continue speaking in your general direction.
          • deezp1, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3That's my whole point, 1 show = 2 trip transatlantic trips (back and forth), 1 North American Tour = 2 transatlantic trips + several dozen other plane flights on a jet that will only have the band on it (Not very eco-friendly). If they really cared (and this is coming from a HUGE Radiohead fan), why don't fly over, then do the rest of the tour on a eco-friendly bus?

            Could the real reason why they are not coming is really because they are not getting paid for the appearance? Bands make money off of touring, not album sales (hence why they are "willing" to pollute the environment in their chartered jet during the tour). Bands that make appearances on shows like "Late Night" do it for publicity, now does Radiohead really need that much publicity after all the exposure they have been getting for the revolutionary new way of selling their album? I think not.

            So my response to you about being dense: Why don't you look deeper into things than apposed to just feeding into all the words of a 6-7 short paragraphed article. Don't get me wrong, Thom does a lot and is recognized for his views for a greener movement around the world, but because that creditability that he gets for his views, to me it is a hell of a good reason to get out of coming stateside for one appearance.
  • awm4, on 04/26/2008, -27/+17Sounds like a lame excuse to me. I wonder what the real reason is?
  • Fygee, on 04/26/2008, -23/+8Do they really think one lousy trip is going to affect anything? How can they possibly believe this PR stunt will affect anyone?

    They're essentially trying to destroy a brick wall with a marshmallow. It's completely and utterly pointless.
    • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -6/+4They could be making a statement. Raising public awareness and all that jazz... but I some how doubt it.
      • mywhitenoise, on 04/26/2008, -1/+9The point is to raise public awareness, problem is too many people (especially on digg) don't think global warming is a threat, and treat it as a joke.
        • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5You and I have butted heads before on technology issues, but for the life of me, I cannot understand how many diggers could possibly be such jaded, ignorant arses.

          Is this fraking arsehole day on Digg? Is lew rockwell and little green footballs down?

          Where did all the flat-earth global warming deniers come from? Did the GOP send you people an action-alert or something?
    • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4Maybe they just have certain principles and are trying to live by them? Is that so hard to believe?
      • Fygee, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1If that were the case then they would choose to completely abstain from flying, not just opt to skip out on it once.

        There are far better ways to raise public awareness than this. This just comes off as silly, self important, and ineffectual *****.
        • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2No it doesn't.

          Flying across the ocean for ONE SHOW is stupid and wasteful. I see their point entirely.
        • Fygee, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0Umm, yes it does.

          Why? Because after this little PR stunt is over, they'll continue flying in the same manner in the future. Also, this will do absolutely nothing to prevent others from flying. People need to get to places for whatever their reasons, and they're sure as hell not going to miss their flight or go through a huge hassle to use alternative methods of travel because "Radiohead decided not to fly overseas once to make a statement."
  • EjectGoose, on 04/26/2008, -24/+12As long as they keep putting out free albums, I'll let it slide.
  • Lnet, on 04/26/2008, -27/+5Their satellite waves are polluting my earth too
    • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -7/+2Yeh how much ***** was put into the atmosphere to put that satellite into orbit. Mixing 535,000 gallons of oxygen and hydrogen and then lighting it on fire can't be good for the environment.
      • iamafatguy, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Oxygen & hydrogen, in my atmosphere?
        It's more common than you think.
        http://space.newscientist.com/channel/space-tech/s ...
      • init100, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Hydrogen and oxygen isn't the problem, as it creates mostly water. Chemically, the reaction only produces water, but the takeoff takes place in air, and when you heat air enough, you get nitrous oxides. Anyway, the bigger problem is the solid rocket boosters. The aluminium and ammonium perchlorate mixture produces a quite large amount of toxic smoke.
    • Radan, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Waves... Waves? "Satellite waves" polluting the Earth? Do not ever say anything about anything related to anything more complicated than grade school physics ever again, and we will all be happy.
      • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1No kidding. And I'll put a buck down that says he's sitting not far from a wireless router.
  • xenonflash, on 04/26/2008, -191/+399I just lost a little respect for Radiohead.
    • CrimsonFate, on 04/26/2008, -40/+24An artist with a non-crucial service attempts to deny sharing said art with the greatest violator of the world's future health? God bless Radiohead for doing what more people should do: stand by what's right and not just try to make an extra buck.
      • joelement, on 04/26/2008, -9/+11So they didn't get paid for the Satellite performance?
        • Tochi, on 04/26/2008, -9/+4probably not as much as they would have for a live performance.
    • Janizzary, on 04/26/2008, -67/+65I've gained a lot more respect for them. This show would have given them even more publicity/money, but they turned it down for something they believe in. Start diggin' down, boys!
      • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -6/+19... did you read the article? No. No you didn't. They didn't turn down anything.
        • xenonflash, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7I bet they got even more attention by doing it by satellite because of global warming concerns. They've had tons of publicity recently though due to In Rainbows and its initial distribution method.
        • jgtg32a, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2@xeno
          Ding ding we have a winner.
      • jblack15, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5Well, if you said so...
        • nickcozy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Doing it over satellite also adds to global warming.BAHAHAHA.
      • bmnrocks, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7Try reading the article, or even just the summary before making a stupid remark.
    • ByteGuerilla, on 04/26/2008, -19/+9I've always liked their music but I always thought they were pretentious idiots too.
      • xenonflash, on 04/26/2008, -5/+7Kinda like U2.
        • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1They arent good honest boy flag waving ignorant rednecks?

          You have a problem with people who give a ***** about something other than themselves?
          • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Bono flying his hat to himself first class on a poverty awareness tour reeks of douchebaggery and hypocrisy.

            The Radiohead decision in my eyes makes sense. Even though I can't stand the band, I respect this decision.
        • jgtg32a, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Isn't your statement contradictory, wageslaven?
          if they're out waving their flag caring about their country then they don't only care about themselves, do they?
        • PolymathicMan, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2wageslaven, using hyperbole is a dead arguing method. Better luck next time.
      • retawd, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Plus, Thom's a Man U fan and that's difficult to forgive.
        • Ataxia2008, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1The fact he likes Premiership Football is difficult to forgive.
    • Llanowar, on 04/26/2008, -22/+18Same here, I understand the need for attention towards golbal warming and better environment and such, but this is just lame.
      • ScottMitchell, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3Maybe they just don't like to travel. Maybe this global warming thing is just an excuse for them not to have to fly half way around the world to play one stinkin' show. Maybe they're more comfortable at home hanging out than spending hours in airports, hours crammed in a plane, meeting a bunch of new people, etc.
        • ribo, on 04/26/2008, -4/+8Maybe they shouldn't have pursued a career in rock stardom, then.
          • ScottMitchell, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Maybe their initial interest was in the art of creating music. And maybe the enjoy the local scene. I don't know much about the musicians that make up the band (although I do enjoy their music), but I perhaps they didn't set out to become global rock stars.
            Just a thought.
      • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -4/+5What is "lame" about it? It was a zero-effort change to save emissions. What part of that dont you understand?
        • worldchanger, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2the plane that they were going to fly on still flew. there were just a few empty seats.
          unless they own their own plane, in which case they're not as eco-friendly as they like to claim, are they?
    • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -15/+29Yeah, damn, I hate it when musicians have a conscience and act on it. They should play music like good monkeys and shut up. They aren't real people, after all, and they owe us their very souls.
      • PolymathicMan, on 04/26/2008, -8/+2Uh, we pay them money to make music, not to preach.
        • id000001, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2You didn't paid them to do nothing else but music.
        • al3efroman, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Crap, I hadn't realized there had been a collection to get them to perform on Conan.
      • daizaru, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4Sarcasm + Digg = Fail. Most of the people are too dense.
    • bwdd, on 04/26/2008, -5/+5Meh, I'm more concerned that they played house of cards above other songs.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 04/26/2008, -12/+5I just lost a LOT of respect for radiohead. Is everyone in the world retarded? No. Are like pretty much 100% of people who listen to radiohead aware of such things as global warming? Yes. What kind of awareness are they raising?...awareness of how frickin pretentious they are. Stupid statements are all these douchebags make. Donate money to anti-global warming causes...build yourself a ***** mud hut and live in it with no modern, global warming-increasing appliances or machines. How about that? ...but no, because statements let you have your cake and eat it too.
      douchebags.
      • c0mputar, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1Well said.
      • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Wah! They wouldn't fly over here for ONE NIGHT to be on a TV show for me! I had to watch them on a satellite link on that TV show instead!

        Unless you were going to be there, in the audience, it didn't make a ***** bit of difference in how it affected you. You still got to see them, and it was still on your TV either way. It doesn't matter where they played.

        Now quit whining about it.
        • stonewaljacksn, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1what a loser you are. i didnt say anything about them wanting to see them play. as a matter of fact i live 20 miles from liberty park where they will be headlining 2 nights in august and GOD KNOWS they arent gonna turn down THAT MUCH MONEY for global warming...and i have no desire to even go see them there. just cuz you want to be a douchebag radiohead worshipping hipster who worships the ground they walk because its cool to do that doesnt mean I have to be. I'm sick and tired of these stupid trent reznors and radioheads being pretentious ***** trying to make it seem like they are making a difference in the world when all they are doing is making positive publicity stunt statements from their ivory towers and then people are supposed to bow down to them? ***** that.
          so you go on sucking the dicks of bands that dont give a flying ***** about you just because they made some retarded statement that did absolutely NOTHING to help the cause at all.
          • bjornski, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Excuse me? I hate Radiohead.

            But I respect them for turning down "that much money" to play for ONE ***** SHOW here when they're not on tour here, in order to "make their statement". I respect that a lot. I still think their music blows chunks, though.

            Sorry your ass hurts, but seriously. Get over it.
    • culbeda, on 04/26/2008, -13/+37Based on the fact that your ignorant statement already has 120 diggs and the other comments on here, I'd say I've lost what little respect I had left for Digg. Since when is doing what you believe to be in best interest of the planet / world at BAD thing?
      • TheRedNewt, on 04/26/2008, -6/+9I agree with the statement because they have a US tour starting in about a week. They're coming to the US either way. This is just a publicity stunt.
        • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Perhaps they would have had a reason to fly back to the UK before the start of the tour, and then promptly have to fly back to the US once again. Who knows when/how this was all scheduled. This kind of thing happens to me, and I'm just a guy rather than a band. This could be part of the story as to why they decided not to make the trip. Of course it's publicity that their appearance on Conan is right before their US tour.. and the publicity they get for doing something novel doesn't hurt.
      • thejamabides, on 04/26/2008, -6/+2Because there is a difference in 'making a difference for something they believe in' and 'doing something that won't make a damn bit of difference based on hack science and a way for 'green' people to make money off of retards like you'.
    • daizaru, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8How is this lame. They are denying a small studio audience the right to see them and instead filming something already for TV locally.

      Even if they were taking a public plan they free'd up some seats that would otherwise be full. If enough people did that it would be one less plane in the air. Every little bit helps.
    • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6The BBC headline put their decision in a somewhat ridiculous light - "Radiohead have decided not to travel to the US for a promotional performance because of concerns over global warming."

      After I got past that though, I decided that it does make sense on the whole. People are going to watch it on tv anyway. Why fly your band and equipment to New York for the filming just so that you can do it in Conan's studio in front of a small audience? To give his show face? As if it's not a real engagement unless they make the flight? Instead you can film it in London which is a more interesting novelty to me anyway. We take it for granted that a band will fly for a show, but I don't want it. It did make me think.

      They're experimental in their music and their other decisions. Hardly pretentious, that's just them.
    • Discobiscuits, on 04/26/2008, -5/+2Agreed. Radiohead seems to be evolving into a hippie-douche gathering of people who play instruments. ***** wankers.
  • Zimarooski, on 04/26/2008, -55/+69I don't get peoples idiot reaction to this. Everyones gotta start somewhere.
    • TheIinLive, on 04/26/2008, -6/+14I'm with ya man. Radiohead is a band that cares more about the enviroment and they actually *do* something other than digg artitlces on carbon emissions. They travel to the studio, do the performance, stay for a bit, then leave. What the hell is wrong with just skipping the trip, are people here really that....weird? I don't know what other word to use.
      • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -4/+8This thread has attracted every cynical jerk on Digg.
  • VIPAccess, on 04/26/2008, -26/+71Almost had a heart attack. Thought the headline meant the US Tour.
    • krisscofield, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Why is this being buried? All it said was "US Trip". It could've meant anything.
    • KrazyIan, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Same here, I about lost it thinking that my newly purchased Radiohead tickets were going to be for naught.
      • SaDan, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Maybe Radiohead would prefer everyone to stay home in order to be more green? They should televise their tour instead of traveling everywhere if they were truly serious about being "green".

        This is just a publicity stunt.
    • TheKarmaPolice, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1i screamed at my computer until i saw the description. i nearly died.
  • Vietrmx, on 04/26/2008, -19/+11They're saving all their carbon footprinting for the world tour. I think it's a rather noble move!
    ...
  • Melodik, on 04/26/2008, -19/+3You guys are forgetting the most important part. The collective essence of Radiohead is so strung-out on smack that Global Warming is actually their name for the final boss in Metroid Prime: Echoes.
  • wafflesomd, on 04/26/2008, -33/+12Not really a bad thing, since Radiohead is unbelievably terrible.
    • Budmandude, on 04/26/2008, -8/+5Seriously, as long as they aren't in the US, who cares how stupid their reason is for not coming. We dodged a bullet here folks.
    • diggSJaustin, on 04/26/2008, -6/+2Even though you'd have to be insane not to rate "The Bends" as one of the best albums of the '90s, I still approve of your comment because it made me laugh. Well done.
  • jameshighmore, on 04/26/2008, -30/+9Digg me down!
  • theragu40, on 04/26/2008, -54/+289I guess you have to respect the effort to make a difference on a personal level, but you know - there are transatlantic flights every day. If they take a flight that is already going overseas instead of flying a personal jet, they wouldn't really be contributing anything extra to emissions.
    • Tochi, on 04/26/2008, -21/+14Yeah I'm sure they would have no problems getting all their gear, instruments, and stage crew on a typical commercial flight. Maybe they can airpool with another band going over seas.
      Seems to me that they would be flying over seas for one performance... not really worth it when you consider how much pollution one jet makes
      • DJNephilim, on 04/26/2008, -6/+9You've obviously never heard of bands renting gear for gigs before to save the cost of transporting their own stuff. When I was in college, the band 311 used to rent my roommate's guitar and bass amps and stuff whenever they played in town.
        • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3So... you don't know much about the band, then.
        • culbeda, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Why don't they just go down to the pawnshop and pick up some gear while they're at it and donate it to charity. I mean, as long as we're chucking out ridiculous ideas.
      • execute85, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1I don't have to do anything but stay black and die.
        • edicius, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Michael Jackson has proven that you don't have to stay black.
    • diggSJaustin, on 04/26/2008, -15/+9Yeah, and they should just stow all their gear in the overhead bins.
    • LoadStar, on 04/26/2008, -20/+29Additionally, you have to wonder just how much carbon emissions they CREATED by having to bring in staff to the UK studio to handle the satellite feed. That's an additional entire shift worth of people - broadcast engineers, sound engineers, camera operators, lighting technicians, etc, etc. Unless all those people live on site, they had to drive to the studio, creating carbon emissions right there (unless the band required everyone working to take public transit). Just running the UK studio requires electricity, which also produces carbon emissions (unless the studio runs completely on green power like solar or wind). So on, and so forth.

      Had they just hopped on a commercial flight that was already coming here, and rented gear here, they may have actually produced less carbon emissions than what they did.
      • unorginalityftw, on 04/26/2008, -13/+20Or maybe, just maybe, the UK already has those people due to being, you know, a 1st world country, and they just hired their own there... ***** man, the US is not the only place with people in these professions. *facepalm*
        • hexydes, on 04/26/2008, -3/+10Uhm...what?

          I don't think he meant anything of the sort. He simply meant that the studio would have to have their employees drive to the studio to work, which creates emissions. And then they'd have to run the studio, creating more emissions.

          He never said that the UK didn't have these things and they'd have to hire out from another country, just that they'd have to bring them to the studio like they do everyday.

          Get over yourself. Are you just looking for a reason to be angry at another country?
          • unorginalityftw, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I doubt the fuel output from vehicles equals a jet engine.

            Other than that, he worded things very weird.
          • SaDan, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Ah, but due to the time difference between the UK and the US, it's probably an extra shift of people working the odd hours. Studio would be open with equipment running extra hours, that sort of thing.

            It was worded correctly, just interpreted wrong. It was an honest mistake.

            Personally, I think more communication should be done in this fashion. Why travel everywhere if you can do an uplink in high-def?
      • al3efroman, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Your statement assumes that satellite studios are not staffed unless Radiohead is performing. Something tells me, these people show up to work regardless of Radiohead's plans. Ever seen the BBC from someplace other the Great Britain?
    • raindogmx, on 04/26/2008, -10/+2If the plane has an empty seat, it WILL burn less fuel, which is a considerable amount of pollution per person, which is still nothing compared with all the filghts happening in one day. On the other hand, there's what LoadStar says: how much they pollute by communicating by satellite? and in the end, if we're going to think of actions of high significance but minimal impact, let's think about how 3-6 people not flying first class would affect airline economy with subsecuent detriment of people's jobs, etc.
      Perhaps Radiohead should build organic farms and employ everyone in them? paying nice wages of course.
    • thebrawl, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Also... "Frontman Thom Yorke said the band avoided leaving a carbon footprint equivalent to driving a car for a solid year by recording the track in London." If that's true, it would mean 365 people would have to stop driving for a day to equal the emissions of a single jet flight. So whether you're driving alone or flying with 300 people, it wouldn't make a difference emission-wise.
    • Texmurphy01, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Oh. I thought this was a protest against the emissions of the US... but then I didn't rtfa.
    • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1In relative terms, yes, their contribution to emissions would be small. In absolute terms, it makes no difference how many others are making the flight. This is the same reasoning I use to try and stay off the bandwagon.
  • kevinmotel, on 04/26/2008, -29/+17what about the exhaust from the rocket sending the satellite into orbit?
    • petrodollar, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5Sunk cost
    • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3The satellite "cost" emissions, but in its lifetime, but enabling people to do just as Radiohead has. Send broadcasts instead of tonnes of gear and people.

      Its like public transporation - achieve the goal with less over-all cost.
  • hellotherapist, on 04/26/2008, -14/+2Those ingrates.
  • loudly, on 04/26/2008, -18/+11roflffgfdh
    i don't travel cause i'm scared of killer bees
    now if you'll excuse me, i have bird flu and should get some rest
  • Aidenf77, on 04/26/2008, -31/+18Stop making excuses for not wanting to travel. Dispense with the PR stunts, please.

    Radiohead just lost credibility in my book.
    • sublingo, on 04/26/2008, -5/+8It could be they're trying to set an example. Like when U2 decided to ditch the super tall CD cases because they were wasteful. People accused them of jackassery. Now look, you can't find those old monstrous cases any more.
      • Aidenf77, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3You could be right, but I don't need rock bands to set examples for me. If you want to take your political, religious, moral, ethical, environmental, or whatever cues from your favorite rock artists... go right ahead. That doesn't mean I have to as well.

        Hey, and I liked super tall CD cases... now I know who to blame for their disappearance!
        • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3So they shouldn't follow their values because that might be setting an example for you?
          • Aidenf77, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3They can follow their values all they want, it doesn't mean I have to agree with or embrace them.
    • ClevelandBrown, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2too bad your 'book' doesn't mean dick all.
  • inspecality, on 04/26/2008, -15/+6Digg graveyard?
  • jakatan, on 04/26/2008, -24/+8Digg me down and I'll become more powerful than you can imagine
    • riskybeats, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Haha okay thats just kind of funny...but I still kind of hate you.
  • dafragsta, on 04/26/2008, -22/+10Wow, this is either a graveyard or the Radiohead fans that think Radiohead is infallible are turning out in droves to squash the criticism. I do like Radiohead, but they are the single most pretentious rock band that has ever dared to rock. Seriously? Global warming? I guess your first class tickets will just go to someone else then.
    • billybobbernard, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1I'm not sure they transport themselves, their guitars, effects, keyboards, synths, drums and amps on a 747.
      • p0s3r, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2They don't play with all that. Just some cardboard instruments and a soundtrack.
      • ZZeke, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Hey billy, ever heard of a professional carting service?
        Here's the one that 99.9% of signed recording artists use when they're in NYC: http://www.sirny.com
        You didn't really think that Pro bands bring all of their own equipment to a one-off show like this, did you?


    • ZZeke, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Maybe if the music media would stop lavishing unwarranted worship and praise on every piece of meandering dribble they produce, their god-complex could slightly diminish in stature.
    • TheIinLive, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3So it's pretentious for a big band to be for a cause now? Thom Yorke is part of the Big Ask, what is wrong with you? They've been an environmental band since forever. I'm digging you down,
      • ZZeke, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1They've been pretentious from the get-go, regardless of what activist group Mr. Yorke is affiliated with. "Global Warming" is the decade's biggest government hoax, which is being designed to put more of your hard-earned $$$ into global government and big-energy's coffers - nothing is going to change because of what Radiohead does. I do appreciate the way they released and sold their last album, though - that took balls, unlike this move, which was done purely to draw attention to the church of man-made global warming - a theory which is mighty pretentious to begin with. The Earth's climate has fluctuated drastically for millions of years, with or without us. To assume that we are the sole cause for climate change is like assuming that the earth is flat and lies at the center of the universe, with the sun and the rest of the planets rotating around it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be doing something about it, because anything we can do to reduce pollution would be a good thing - I'm just saying that the average person is captive to whatever energy source big government and business want us to use, and until they've pulled up every last drop of oil and charged us a premium for it, nothing will change. Furthermore, if and when there is a real shift to using "green" energy worldwide, the cretins in control of the energy business will put an outlandish premium on whatever the source is anyway. We are at the mercy of those who regulate energy, and they're still busy drilling for oil, as they will be for the next 100 years at least. Don't believe me? Go ahead and convert your home to solar/wind power, and let me know how long it takes for the power co. to figure out you're off the grid and charge you a monthly fee anyway, even if you don't use their power.
        It's not about Global Warming. It's about conditioning you to submit and obey, it's about getting you to fork over a bigger share of your hard earned pay just to survive - "global warming" is just the cover, just a mechanism used to make you feel that you HAVE to pay more in order to "save the planet". Meanwhile, the oil rigs keep bringing up black gold to the tune of 50 billion a year profits, and our countries keep waging a war - y'know, that war where they burn up hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel every day in order to keep control of the world's largest oil supplies...
        But don't worry - Radiohead is all over it, man - they'll put a stop to all of this and save us all.
  • stonklit, on 04/26/2008, -17/+8I'm going to stop paying my bills because of global warming. Hopefully others will join in and we can end all bill paying cycles.
  • toughpat, on 04/26/2008, -15/+4I love Radiohead, but the one thing I'm wondering is how are they going to travel to Lollapalooza? Take a boat--a sailboat?
    • Daniel591992, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Swim!
    • terminal157, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3It's part of larger tour. The problem here is flying just for one show, rather than an entire tour.
    • ZZeke, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Don't worry, that pays enough to drop the pious pretense. They could have just been honest and said that the Conan $$$ wouldn't even cover the fuel....
  • FatherVic, on 04/26/2008, -33/+33Good. I am sick of hearing celebrities tell me to conserve whilst traveling on their private jets and busses. Good for Radiohead.
    Just like Roger Daltry's comments to producers of "Live Earth" "...The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert. I can't believe it. Let's burn even more fuel.”
    Radiohead = Win
    weather or not you believe in global warming, at least they are being honest about it.
    • jnosanov, on 04/26/2008, -10/+10Dugg down for mixing up "Weather" with "Whether" IN AN COMMENT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
    • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Climate != weather.
    • zombo, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1I dugg you down for confusing honesty and PR stunt.
      • FatherVic, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1well it just proves that we conservatives are damned if we do and damned if we don't
  • SmellyFingers, on 04/26/2008, -21/+2***** THE RIAA
  • mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -22/+11The idea that humans are the cause of global warming is a hoax!
    • tracywood, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3Sorry, I did digg you, but it seems that even though you sit on your ass all day looking at digg, you can't spare 5 minutes to google the actual data and see that no cooling has taken place since 1998 and the data is in direct contradiction with the computer simulations that are used as "evidence" that global warming is a threat. Yes it IS a hoax, but people don't care.
      • Scheissen, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3um why 1988? why not the start of the Industrial Revolution to today?
      • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2So what your saying is that is that it definitely isn't humans causing global warming. I mean, the evidence you just gave shows that. 1988? We've been pumping out carbon dioxide for over a century. We actually pumped out most of it in the 40s-70s. So perhaps what you're saying is we need to pump out more carbon dioxide since when we slowed down global warming started.

        Here's the point: you are sheep. There is no verified evidence that directly correlates the actions of humans and global warming and, yes, I have looked. If you had looked, instead of just telling other people to, you would know what I am about to tell you. The only evidence is anecdotal evidence (ie the temperatures started rising 100 years ago (industrial revolution) and haven't stopped). There is NOTHING that hasn't been shot down by other climatologists in peer review that couldn't be written off as a coincidence.

        Also, in case you weren't aware the earth is over due for an ice age. Most ice ages start with the melting of the polar ice caps... which release tons of fresh water into the oceans and reduce their salinity... which changes their density, which changes their temperature, which changes the currents, so on and so forth until the global heat pump we call the 4 oceans finally goes completely ape ***** and the whole planet starts cooling. So yes, heating like this has happened naturally in the history of this planet... and will happen again no mater how eco-friendly we are.
        • tracywood, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2YOU are not only the one here to be classified as sheep, you're also an outright liar.
          "We actually pumped out most of it in the 40s-70s" Sorry, that's an absolute lie. Our emissions over the last 20 years dwarf anything we put out previously. And that's just the data.

          As per usual, those that want to scare mankind need to resort to the most ridiculous lies because they lack any substantive data.

          FAIL
        • wolferz, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2@tracy

          "Our emissions over the last 20 years dwarf anything we put out previously. And that's just the data."

          Perhaps in the US, not globally

          And I'm not trying to scare any one. My entire point was that there is no reason to get in a tizzy about global warming because there is no evidence to support us being the cause. Read my comment next time before calling me a liar.
          • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1"Perhaps in the US, not globally"

            No. Globally. Are you saying the rest of the planet has less emissions today than 20 years ago?

            Every year the total amount of emissions increases.

            No one needs to read your entire comment, its prima facie ridiculous. You're either a megalomaniac, paranoid or delusional to think you're correct.

            Some combination of the three I imagine.
  • gubatron2, on 04/26/2008, -19/+81On other news, Radiohead funds Teleporting Research project
  • tracywood, on 04/26/2008, -25/+12Buried as inaccurate for continuing a global hoax that has no reality in the data. No warming has taken place since 1998. NONE. It's a damn hoax, when are all the scientific data deniers going to stfu and get a clue.
    • Budmandude, on 04/26/2008, -10/+4Seriously, global warming is the most prentintious and self absorbed idea the human race has come up with.
      "We're so important we can change out climate. It's not one of the millions of factors outside of our control, it's not the sun, it's us US!!!"
    • ByteGuerilla, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2Then what the hell is causing the crazy weather we're getting in the U.K.?
    • keenedge, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Well byteguerilla, apparently you have missed the new scare campaign being launched which is that instead of global warming, now we might be heading to another ice age due to global cooling. It's hype, and it;s crap. Weather is cyclical, it always has been. Funding is the only thing that has kept the global warming debate alive. No global warming, no need for researches to look for a "cure", thus, lots of researches currently on government funding out of work. Do you see a conflict of interest here?

    • hanexar, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Tracywood is an hoax, he doesn't exist.
  • gplpark92, on 04/26/2008, -41/+172trust me, he's a reasonable man, get off his case
    • Greyscale88, on 04/26/2008, -6/+5Digg this up! Love that song.
    • letsnotlisten, on 04/26/2008, -10/+6i don't know...sounds like he's turning into a kicking, screaming, gucci, little piggy.
    • Rambeezle, on 04/26/2008, -5/+1How the hell can I trust you, you're a radiohead fan
    • DaMarsMan, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0nice one. Hopefully they still come to Florida in a week.
    • brad3378, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1No matter what side of the global warming debate you side with, you have to admit that this was a Brilliant marketing tactic. Sure they might lose a few fans, but they'll likely make up for it with the extra media exposure & free advertising.
  • jnosanov, on 04/26/2008, -20/+11Ok, this is just getting retarded. Unless they grow all of their own food, make all of their own clothes from cotton grown in their backyard, and pump all of their water up from a well they dug(g) with a shovel they made by hand, then this is the stupidest expression of support for a cause that I have ever seen.

    Unless they are just doing it to get attention.
    • Billions, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1The typical 'All or Nothing' argument. Everything someone does helps in a small way. Why swing the pendulum the OTHER way, which would be every private jumbo-jet flight for a single performance, creating more pollution to be stacked on the heap?
    • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1This is a very queer idea. Its just such lazy thinking.

      *WHY* would they "have to grow their own food, and make their own clothes"? What the hell does that matter? You're just looking for a way to (incorrectly) call them hypocrites which says nothing at all about what they've done here.

      Without a doubt, by not playing the show in NYC, they saved emissions. Without a doubt. That's it. They did a good thing. Full stop.

      And, what *about it* if they were doing this to get attention to the problem of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Every day there are hundreds of millions of dollars spent to get you to think what you think, buy what you buy, consume as you do -- are you bitter and angry that the public discourse is dominated by pro-consumption ideas?

      Do you sit around rail against McDonalds because it only spends money on advertising to sell hamburgers? Its gooddamn ridiculous.

      So, Radiohead does something to bring attention to an important problem, and your "angry"?

      Sounds to me like your searching for excuses to be selfish, and you dont like the cognative dissonance caused by people cabale of being a better person than yourself.
  • kingUssop, on 04/26/2008, -27/+157Did anyone read the article? NBC is having some kind of Green Week so it makes sense.
    • Gutterpunk, on 04/26/2008, -10/+2Surely you jest
    • p0s3r, on 04/26/2008, -13/+8The best thing NBC could do for Green Week is shutdown NBC and MSNBC completely.
      • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Right. Because the only solution is the ultimate solution. A kind of "Save the planet, kill yourself" idea is it?
      • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0I don't think so. If the most responsible people make those sorts of decisions, then the only people who remain in business are the irresponsible. As much as it hurts, you've got to be content with making small strides and speaking honestly, or else you've pushed yourself out of the picture entirely. Please don't shut yourself down to help me.
    • HanSolo69, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1How does it make sense? Are they stopping all transatlantic flights and traffic between the airport and NBC studios?
  • SSUK, on 04/26/2008, -15/+4I wouldn't want to appear on the Conan O'Brien show either.
    • sublingo, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Dugg down for dissing Conan.
      • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Dugg for posting the reply before the post.
        (yours is appearing as '6 hours ago', while his is '5 hours ago'..)
  • ryleyleckie, on 04/26/2008, -19/+7haha almost every comment here is -1 diggs or lower
    • wageslaven, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1This article has surely been posted on some right-wing "global warming is a hoax!!1! wake up sheeple!!1!" website somewhere.

      No clollection of random people (that more closely resembles the digg demo) could be this stupid. Somethings up here.
      • ryleyleckie, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1or no digg fan is a radiohead fan
  • UnarmedHippo, on 04/26/2008, -16/+4so does this mean they are never coming to the usa ever again?
    ridiculous
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 184 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.