Jump to content
🌙 COLDPLAY ANNOUNCE MOON MUSIC OUT OCTOBER 4TH 🎵

U2 is not environmentally friendly


TyM218

Recommended Posts

Just read this article about U2's 360 tour.

 

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/music/news/have-u2-created-a-monster-with-massive-carbon-footprint-of-360-tour-14388326.html

 

I managed to dig up some extra facts:

 

- it takes 5 days to set up U2's 180 foot tall stage

- U2's stage is tranported around in 120 transport trucks

- Since setup takes 5 days, U2 owns 3 stages to compensate for time.

- It costs $40 million to build U2's stage. Keep in mind they have 3 of them. I'm sure $40 million could be put to better use for your humanitarian work, couldn't it Bono?

 

Here's another article:

 

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/article/111530-u2-puts-plan-in-place-to-offset-its-carbon-footprint/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if a $40 million stage makes them more money, they can subsequently spend more money on humanitarian efforts.

 

Who are you to judge? They do plenty of good things, a lot more than most bands.

 

I am with you Josh.

 

First off, their stage may cost a lot, but the amount they take in from the concerts and make aside from their gigs a lot of it goes to humanitarian work.

the stages are so elaborate so they can give back to their fans and in which when their fans sell out shows, which they often do, it covers the costs right away and they can do lots for the world around them.

 

The trucks may be the only thing not environmently friendly but it's transport and hybrids aren't fully developed yet.

 

Obama flies everywhere, that's not environmentally friendly, yet he is still going for green.

 

Rubbish article, they do enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I suppose you donate lots of money to charity and don't keep the money you earned working, and yeah you don't use computers, tv, lights,energy in general to be enviromentally friendly (take into accoutn I'm a environment friendly activities close minded fan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just getting back to topic. i think all this charity talk to justify the carbon footprint of the tour is irrelevant. we all know that U2 does more than anyone else for charity but in reality it has little to do with the environmental impact of this tour. i think that U2 has gone a little overboard with this tour and could do more for the environment at least in supporting raising awareness of the issue. nonetheless you look at the money the tour is pumping into economy and compare it to other companies who are putting in just as much, i think we can safely say that U2's carbon footprint would be much smaller than theres.

 

but i guess i dont really have the evidence to back this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- It costs $40 million to build U2's stage. Keep in mind they have 3 of them. I'm sure $40 million could be put to better use for your humanitarian work, couldn't it Bono?

 

 

 

i think this is a very important point. U2 could still sell just as many tickets without using such an extravagant set. unless they feel that their music by itself cant bring the audiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if a $40 million stage makes them more money, they can subsequently spend more money on humanitarian efforts.

 

Who are you to judge? They do plenty of good things, a lot more than most bands.

 

this!

 

Just appreciating the beauty of signature :smug:

 

:smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...