Goodbye blue sky ... Photograph: Corbis
Richie Hawtin recently announced that he's going carbon neutral. "As an international performer I find there are few realistic alternatives to flying thousands of miles per year travelling between performances," said the Canadian techno DJ/producer. "Online or 'virtual' performances are currently no substitute for a 'real' physical public performance. Therefore, since January 1 of this year, [I] have been offsetting all of my flight carbon emissions."
Leaving aside the question of whether playing records constitutes a "real performance" - provided there's some jumping around and a bit of air punching, I'm prepared to concede the point - Hawtin's decision raises some pertinent issues.
Some bands, such as Coldplay, already offset their carbon emissions. (The results aren't always successful: the 10,000 mango trees planted to compensate for the environmental impact of Coldplay's second album, A Rush Of Blood To The Head, all died.) However, DJs like Hawtin have pygmy-sized footprints compared to Coldplay's clompers. Should all performers be carbon offsetting no matter how big they and their carbon footprint are?
Some bands, notably Radiohead, don't offset at all. Frontman Thom Yorke isn't convinced of the environmental benefits. Instead, he said he "would consider refusing to tour on environmental grounds if nothing started happening to change the way the touring operates." Meanwhile, KT Tunstall disagrees. She has said that that musicians can tour with a clear conscience if they raise awareness of environmental issues.
Offsetting? Not touring? Taking advantage of this open goal opportunity to suggest Coldplay do carbon emissions and music fans a favour by breaking up? I want to know what you think.
