Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Vanity Green

Posted by Don Hazen at 6:26 PM on April 16, 2006.


Vanity Fair goes green with some great journalism about climate disruption, but its movie stars don't have a clue about what it will take to save the planet.

The super slick May Vanity Fair weighs in with its first ever "green issue" and it is a doozey in so many ways... maddening, actually. The weirdness starts with the odd cover combo of Julia Roberts, strangely standing over George Clooney, Al Gore, and Bobby Kennedy Junior, while wearing a green-leaved crown, a la the Romans.

There is much to rant and rave about in this issue. On the rant side, the super star-studded "Green Portfolio" of dozens and dozens of environmental heroes, with more movie stars than one can quickly count, is infuriating. Nothing against movie stars doing good deeds,sometimes it helps, but all these stars -- I counted at least eight (oh, and Bono's wife, and Paul Newman's daughter, also) in the end are just not essential to fighting for the globes survival. I know they do really care and work hard, but for them it is so much easier than for real environmental heroes who also think about poverty, lead in paint, Katrina's environmental devastation on the poor neighborhoods of New Orleans, and on and on, and not whether they are driving around in a Prius.

The VF editors appear to think the environmental movement in all its facets, has no grass roots, no problems with the enormous amount of corporate dumping of toxic waste in poor communities and environmental racism and classicism overall. Hey, it's not just about the trees, the gardens, surfing, and building costly solar powered homes. They concluded, perhaps because the notion never entered their minds, that there are no African-Americans and Latino-American environmental heroes (African Noble Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai is included). While there are some wonderful people mixed in, it is kind of preposterous to just celebrate a gaggle of multi-millionaires, six white male mayors, and Governors Pataki and Schwarzennegger as saviors of our environmental future.

I will confess to having a love-hate relationship with Vanity Fair and its editor Graydon Carter, who combines paeans to the very rich and very powerful, while producing some of the best journalism anywhere. (It helps that they tend to pay the most money for their articles.) And the journalism in this issue is first-rate, lead by a shocker of a piece by veteran progressive journalist Mark Hertsgaard: "Three Feet of Water," along with maps depicting the damage a rise of three feet of water will have -- a level that has pretty strong endorsement from many scientists. Hertsgaard explains how the rest of the world gets it, but by using media tactics like big tobacco used to deny the hazards of smoking, the Bush administration and big oil managed to get global warming -- a.k.a, climate disruption -- labeled a "liberal hoax." Michael Shnayerson writes about the "Rape of Appalachia," mind-boggling devastation in the search for coal, lorded over by corporate bad guy titan Don Blakenship, CEO Of Massey Energy. There's plenty more including an essay by the enviro superstar Al Gore, who is the subject of a much-lauded upcoming documentary...

Carter, in his editorials, is a raging progressive populist. He wrote a critical book about the Bush administration in 2004 called: "What We Lost," which he describes as an "unrelenting account of the administrations actions, bungles, deceptions, half truths, untruths, and down right corruptions." However, what he does with the magazine is downright schizoid. Last month, he dumbly handed the magazine over to designer cum uber-brand Tom Ford to create his personal "Hollywood" issue, and the results were just plain dumb, and often insulting on many levels, including Ford sitting himself on the cover next to a naked Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson.

I, as a bonafide magazine addict, usually enjoy Vanity Fair, and surely don't mind photos of sexy women, but Tom Ford's view of the world as manifested in the photos and lay up were pretty insulting to the reader, if not misogynous to the participants in the photos. Must be hard to turn a cover shot in Vanity Fair down, but Rachel McAdam did, after being blindsided by Ford, who wanted her as the third naked body on the cover.

Anyway, that is ancient news. One of the factors that most bugged me about this issue is the "think positive" naivete of some of the participants, juxtaposed to the dire straits the authors describe. While the cover headline reads: "A Threat Greater Than Terrorism: Global Warming: How much of New York, Washington, and other American cities will be under water?" Yet here is Heather Halberstadt, who acted as editor for the "green portfolio," under Aimee Ball's leadership and doesn't believe you have to act on a grand scale to make a difference: "Turn off your faucet to brush your teeth, and recycle your Sunday newspaper. Little things can have an impact on a global scale." Sure, and don't spend any time battling with corporations, who have to be turned around to have any serious impact on global warming. Most people don't even use hot water to brush their teeth.

Yes, the prospects of global warming are depressing... real downers, and Julia Roberts thinks we shouldn't be so despairing. "Well, we can go forward in a different way." Roberts, new to environmentalism, drives a Prius to the multi-million dollar house she is building that will be solar-powered, she brings a metal cup for coffee, returns her paper bags for a nickel to the store and uses environmentally friendly diapers... pleeeeze. When Roberts, confronts all the waste and pollution caused by the next movie she is in, for which she gets paid $10 or $15 million dollars, or better yet investigates the policies of the corporations with product placements in her film, for their role in the environment, or even better, the next time she appears on NBC, owned by mega-polluter General Electric and calls them out and tells the audience to boycott them until they get their act together, maybe then she will be taking a serious step forward.

One of the most important books to come along in awhile will soon be hitting the book stores and the Internet: Hostile Takeover : How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--and How We Take It Back by David Sirota. The basic premise of the book is that there is no longer any lines between Big Business and government. They are one and the same -- both looking to fleece the average American as much as possible. This is true in every arena, but certainly true in the environment, where giant corporations, given complete license by the government, are raping and pillaging the country. If Julia Roberts wants her twins to grow up in a world where the environment is protected and we are saved from global catastrophe, her first step will be to read this book and see what she and the rest of us are up against. And then get beyond that nickel for bringing in her paper bags.

Digg!

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the rich but dumb vrs the poor but experienced?
Posted by: saywhat? on Apr 16, 2006 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and learning? thank you but no thanks./....i don't think vanity fair can do much other than promote pop culture...though they really have the photos down....i can only be concerned that this is the forum for mainstream political question...americans are doomed.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Like Enviro Super Pretender
Posted by: schmitta1573 on Apr 16, 2006 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enviro super pretender Al Gore and his Hollywood cronies talk-the-talk but they don’t walk-the-walk. They could do more for the environment by practicing what they preach rather than trying to make themselves feel good about their own consumerist excessive living. Please help us protect and save the environment while we live in our multimillion dollar homes and drive one of our 30 gas guzzling cars. It makes me sick to my stomach that any segment of our ignorant culture thinks that these people are in any way leaders and protectors of the environment. They are hypocrites trying to further fill their already inflated holier-than-thou egos!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"You DO Have to Live Like a Refugee?"
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 16, 2006 10:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose that making ecology into a "glam" issue cannot hurt. But, of course, "Vanity Fair" is in the business of selling magazines. That's done these days by lining up the celebrities, because Americans think that they know something. Or hope they do. Or hope somebody does.

It's like the recent article here on AlterNet about the woman who has written a book about celebrity religion. What's the connection between being religious and being a celebrity? None. Never was. Never will be. But it sells books.

What it illustrates is the pathetic inability of pop culture to do anything but mount gestures. Walrus calves dying because their ice sheets are melting? Wave a flag at it. Throw a celebrity at it. George Will tells us to keep cool. Easy for him to say, until it's his turn to be set adrift on a melting ice sheet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I HATE DEMOCRATS WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING!
Posted by: dmstern on Apr 17, 2006 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The largest danger to the environmental movement to come are the purists who claim not to watch tv, to only eat fallen fruit and to never have created a piece of garbage in their lives. Stop complaining you idiots! The only reason that the masses will read those well written articles is because of the celebrities on the cover. You are probably the same idiots who voted for Nader in 2000 and gave us George Bush in the first place. Any time people complain about celebrities all I hear is their own envy. This issue of Vanity Fair is only good news, so don't turn on people because they are famous. Self destruction and infighting is exactly what Republicans count on from democrats, every time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

David Rubinson
Posted by: Drubinson on Apr 17, 2006 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please make note of the incredible piece of journalism also included in this remarkabe issue- the brilliant expose of Don Blankenship and the Rape of Appalachia, by the excellent environmental writer Michael Schnayerson --
Thanks-
DR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vanity Fair's master?
Posted by: Knowmad on Apr 17, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if anyone knows who, or what, owns controlling interest in Conde Nast, VF's parent corporation. It might be very interesting to see the genuflecting required from Carter and his ilk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1 Way To Save the Planet Instead of 50
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 17, 2006 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire matrix of our country from it's economy through our lifestyle to it's demographic layout is a monument to waste. Doing the things on all these little lists is nice but accomplishes little in the aggregate.

How many of the Prius driving stars and starlets hop all over the world in fuel guzzling jets? When was the last time they took a much more fuel efficient train?
How many eat out of season fruits and vegetables flown in from Chile and other places?
How many live in outsized houses that guzzle energy and required massive amounts of energy to make?
How many of their homes were the result of tear-downs-- the destruction of a perfectly good house (or two) to construct their architectural statement?
How many of these houses are in sustainable communities, where one can actually WALK or ride a bicycle to many of the day's activities?

The bling-bling lifestyle has a huge carbon footprint. One of the most biting websites against John Kerry told of the fact that he met his wife at a 'Green' conference in South America that both of them attended via their own private jets (ouch) and the laundry list of huge homes they jointly own and keep heated and air-conditioned year round.

The one thing is to work for an overhaul of our system, legal & economic, to stop subsidizing waste. A complete overhaul from the efficiency of our appliances to the layout of our cities and agriculture is needed. Yes, it is a big order-- but it can be done.

The Soviet Union completely relocated it's industrial base during the German invasion of WWII and pulled it off. The US went from compact cities connected by trains to a vast suburbia connected by a car culture in less than a little more than a decade. China has went from a 3rd world nation to the workshop of the world in less about a decade. With a sense of urgency and dedication it can be done. All it will take is a real commitment and mandate by our people.

The overhaul will be expensive, but will also generate untold jobs in the process and the long term economic benefits will make it seem affordable. The environmental benefits will be priceless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VF's "Green Issue" on Virgin Paper
Posted by: The Composter on Apr 17, 2006 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Word is they considered running the "green" issue on 10 percent post-consumer waste recycled paper but decided it was just too big of a hassle.

That's just pathetic.

Most progressive magazines are printed on recycled paper these days with very high post-consumer recycled content.

Vanity Fair, walk your talk.

- brian in Oakland

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what really needs to happen is
Posted by: popsicle67 on Apr 17, 2006 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of you need to crawl back into your and quit pretending you matter. None of the people on that cover give a tinkers damn about your opinion. I do what everybody who really wants to register their displeasure with the pompous hollywood class does, I download their movies and don't pay a dime to see them. That system also insures that no advertiser gets a sheckel either. As long as they promote causes that rob people of their livelihoods and jobs I will advocate theft of their work

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]