[sumitrocks]

Originally Posted by swagatsinha

I read an article by Swaminnathan Aiyar in TOI a couple of months back. It talked about the protests by Lata Mangeshkar over a proposed flyover next to her home. She said " It would affect my vocal cords." Swami said " Because of her disapproval, the flyover got shifted to a lower level, causing more pollution for more people. Despite Lataji being an icon, the other citizens have no lesser rights than her." I tend to agree with him. Your thoughts??

I had read about this too! And while I respect and admire the lady's voice, I think she's being overly selfish. No disrespect meant, but for someone who has probably seen over 70 years of her life, it would've been a great and mature gesture to bow before a social cause. Lots of people would've had things easy, but then, unfortunately, it is easy to be apathetic to the hoi-polloi when you are a legend.

[diablorulez]

some articles of swaminathan aiyar on global warming

2002
Clean water or hot air?

2005
Saved by the greenback tsunami

2006
Untitled Document

2007
Untitled Document

[swagatsinha]

Does celebrity power in environmental issues make a difference? Does Aishwarya Rai's involvement with PETA really make an effect?
I doubt it. The normal reactions to this stuff (mine included), is that they're just doing blah blah.. for the money..and it doesn't change anything.

What say you people?

[diablorulez]

Originally Posted by swagatsinha

Does celebrity power in environmental issues make a difference? Does Aishwarya Rai's involvement with PETA really make an effect?
I doubt it. The normal reactions to this stuff (mine included), is that they're just doing blah blah.. for the money..and it doesn't change anything.

What say you people?

well thats for obvious reason.. even environmental issue are being given the liberty of having a brand face..

often ist misconstrued what the hell!! its been construed... that beauty n nature are used as comparative terms thats y the beauty is used for a statement.. but does it work? does it subvent the idea of protection ..thats something we need to understand.

hmm but if we dig deeper the AIDS campaign was pretty good.. isn't it.. the cinematic community has really worked for cause.. n it did help..

[sumitrocks]

Originally Posted by swagatsinha

Does celebrity power in environmental issues make a difference? Does Aishwarya Rai's involvement with PETA really make an effect?
I doubt it. The normal reactions to this stuff (mine included), is that they're just doing blah blah.. for the money..and it doesn't change anything.

Even if the celebs are not serious about the issue, I don't think their importance as revenue-generators can be doubted. For example, even if I have no interest whatsoever in say PETA's activities, I might buy a ticket to a fund-raising function just because there is a dance by Aishwarya Rai. Hence, part of the objective may be achieved.

Also, out of every 100 people who look at Ash's pic the next day, and read the article alongside, 1-2 people might read about PETA and be curious about its activities. Out of lots of such people, a few may sign up or spread further awareness about PETA.

Also, for promotional programs to help AIDS patients, accident victims etc., celebs play another important role. It is a cruel fact, that no one wants to look at suffering. People often turn away from someone who is hurt, or in pain, because they are repelled. However, if your favourite celebrity is on TV, talking about AIDS, you'd be riveted to the telly, and hopefully, at least some part of the message would get across.

[catapult]

Having spent sometime in the US, I'm amazed at the kind of power/oil consumption that people here indulge in. In India, we are used to "Save" everything - Money, Electricity, Old papers even plastic bags. Out here nobody cares zilch about saving anything.

@Office
India - The security guy goes to each floor and manually switches off all the tube lights after 9 PM. I have to beg him to leave mine ON.

US - ALL the lights in the office are always ON. And yes, these will be pretty big. Office Space per employee is double that of India.

@Shops, Malls
India - Everything closes on time. Some shops switch on their ACs only when customers come in.

US - The malls are huge (Macy's, Target, Walmart etc)Agreed having the ACs on (weather factor). Again, lights are almost always ON. Lot of power wastage. Nobody frequent some sections of the huge malls.

@Home
India - If you are not in a room, you switch off the light & fan. You save on water. Even now people don't use washing machine so much (only on weekends). Ok, we do lot of cooking so gas consumption is high

US - Washing Machine for one draws a lot of power. And then the dryers! Yes, the weather is not suitable in most places so they need a dryer. But even in places like Florida, California where sun shines bright for good 3-4 months, people don't dry their clothes outside in the sun. They prefer using dryers due to aesthetic reasons!

@Roads
India - Most still primarily use public transportation. The number of vehicles are rising.

US - A family of 4 must has atleast 2 cars & if a person is single he has one car minimum. Traffic is a problem even in US esp the cities and downtown areas.

I can go on and on like this. Comparision. It doesn't take a genius to tell which is better for the environment. Its foolish on the developed countries part to comment on countries like India & China blaming them for World Food problem.

While India consumes a lot of food, oil etc. , US wastes a lot of these. If only sense can prevail.

I may have diverted a bit from the topic, but I felt US is equally if not more responsible for global warming.

[willsurelywin]

Originally Posted by catapult

Having spent sometime in the US, I'm amazed at the kind of power/oil consumption that people here indulge in. In India, we are used to "Save" everything - Money, Electricity, Old papers even plastic bags. Out here nobody cares zilch about saving anything.

@Office
India - The security guy goes to each floor and manually switches off all the tube lights after 9 PM. I have to beg him to leave mine ON.

US - ALL the lights in the office are always ON. And yes, these will be pretty big. Office Space per employee is double that of India.

@Shops, Malls
India - Everything closes on time. Some shops switch on their ACs only when customers come in.

US - The malls are huge (Macy's, Target, Walmart etc)Agreed having the ACs on (weather factor). Again, lights are almost always ON. Lot of power wastage. Nobody frequent some sections of the huge malls.

@Home
India - If you are not in a room, you switch off the light & fan. You save on water. Even now people don't use washing machine so much (only on weekends). Ok, we do lot of cooking so gas consumption is high

US - Washing Machine for one draws a lot of power. And then the dryers! Yes, the weather is not suitable in most places so they need a dryer. But even in places like Florida, California where sun shines bright for good 3-4 months, people don't dry their clothes outside in the sun. They prefer using dryers due to aesthetic reasons!

@Roads
India - Most still primarily use public transportation. The number of vehicles are rising.

US - A family of 4 must has atleast 2 cars & if a person is single he has one car minimum. Traffic is a problem even in US esp the cities and downtown areas.

I can go on and on like this. Comparision. It doesn't take a genius to tell which is better for the environment. Its foolish on the developed countries part to comment on countries like India & China blaming them for World Food problem.

While India consumes a lot of food, oil etc. , US wastes a lot of these. If only sense can prevail.

I may have diverted a bit from the topic, but I felt US is equally if not more responsible for global warming.

USA people were living just on credit and now that bubble has bursted.
Now people in us have started having car pooling and stuff
USA days as a superpower are over yaar
INfact it is estimated that by 2010 almost 20% homes will be facing foreclosure due to default on loans...

people in USA were never as rich as they thought to be

[the_egonomist]

Originally Posted by swagatsinha

I read an article by Swaminnathan Aiyar in TOI ....protests by Lata Mangeshkar over a proposed flyover next to her home. She said " It would affect my vocal cords." Swami said " Because of her disapproval, the flyover got shifted to a lower level,

Well she has her right to object. And it was more to do with privacy than her voice. Now flyovers are a wicked bunch. If you were living in a city without flyover and traffic congestions are rampant. If flyovers are built, it just encourages the public to buy more vehicles and stop using the transit systems.

I read this in an article by a urban ergonomics specialists. Infrastructure always are made to encourage the public.

Originally Posted by sumitrocks

Lots of people would've had things easy, but then, unfortunately, it is easy to be apathetic to the hoi-polloi when you are a legend.

Agreed. There is just too much leeway given to people who are celeb and the likes.

Originally Posted by swagatsinha

Does celebrity power in environmental issues make a difference? Does Aishwarya Rai's involvement with PETA really make an effect?

Well people tend to react better to things endorsed by their favorite role models. Yes, awareness does increase with using celebs but again we tend to over do.

catapult:
We have been much better off even though we are wasteful. Its because by default we are miserly and made to be so.

[sumitrocks]

Recently, I read an article by a town planner, proposing a new solution for cities to save fuel, and ease congestion. That person was of the opinion that instead of having traffic lights, one could have a system of U-turns instead. For example, instead of cutting across traffic to take a right turn, you could be made to go some distance ahead, take a U-turn, and then take a left turn to go your way.

Even though you'd be travelling a longer distance, it would still save a lot of fuel, because there would be no wait time. In fact, this idea is being experimented with, in Europe. The initial tests seem promising, and the idea may find use in many major cities of the world.

Another added advantage is that there will be no chaotic situations caused by failing traffic lights.

[the_egonomist]

Ah Traffic Signals!

The system does make sense. But the feasibility in India seems far fetched. For one you would need very big roads to facilitate U-turns on a very busy road. Further, you would need people to follow the system without qualms.

Btw if you are waiting at a signal for less than a minute dont turn off the engine. You will end up wasting more fuel starting it up again.

Cheers.