Charity.
Slap that word in front of something, anything, and suddenly the task, the event, the 'expedition' is acceptable.
As my ma would say: Hogwash.
Take for example the latest gimmick by a boot company (name with held in order NOT to provide free advertisement) that sponsored Paul Hubner (and family!) to "ski both the South and North Pole in ONE season!"
Of course, Mr. Hubner was sponsored by the boot company in an effort to prove their boots are 'polar' worthy.
I presume, then, that the melting of the icecaps at the North Pole has completely escaped both Mr. Hubner and his handlers and the polar-boot company. How else could they justify flying Hubner, his family and the film crew (and all their paraphenalia) to the Poles in an effort to capture the gimmick on film?
In a world filled with technological advancements (such as labs that can mimic even the most extreme of weather conditions) it seems highly irresponsible for Hubner and his sponsors to pursue this ad tactic. Unless of course the charity they plan to donate to is "Build Earth's Bubble and Save the Human Parasite"?
Somehow, though, I don't think youth groups across North America, some of the recipients of the money raised, plan on constructing a breathable membrane dome.
Oh, wait...Hubner's advertorial money will also go to: Polar Bears International -- an organization that attempts to teach people about global warming (one major culprit: human transportation, in particular, air travel) and how this environmental crisis is pushing and pulling the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic, and further increasing the risk of polar bear extinction. Let's hope that money raised for the charity can offset the damage done by the Hubner-Boot Ad entourage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Definitely a case of environmental exploitation with (shall we presume) unintended harm. The bigger the boot, the bigger the 'footprint'?
Let's note that Hubner is President of unsaid footwear company, though.
It’s agreeable that Baffin could have done this for promotional purposes; in fact, I wouldn’t trust it if they said otherwise (which they didn’t). However, (as you noted) Hubner was raising charity money. Advertisement is just a happy bonus. There’s no reason why a company should withhold donatives simply because it marketed a product in the process.
Oh, but I do hope you forgive them someday. How thoughtless of them to personally test their own product in harsh climates to raise money for causes!
By the way, it was a very intensive test for the boots. They were worn with skis while Hubner pulled 150lbs worth of gear in –60°C weather.
About the melting icecaps and Paul’s expedition, they barely adjoin. It took me some time to even realize how you connected those two things. I don’t understand why you would take someone’s contributions to polar bears and children in the North (who can’t afford sports equipment) and twist it into an environmental rant as to why Baffin Boots doesn’t care about the earth. True, they flew over. Was he going to walk there? Admittedly, he would seem more determined, but I think trekking the poles and giving the money to charities is a strong enough campaign statement on it’s own. Amazingly, not all people who use planes are out to destroy the world.
(Also, I think you meant paraphernalia.)
I’d like to point out that I’m not anti-environment, just in case you were wondering.
And sorry for the free advertising. (I bet someone just ran out and bought five pairs of Baffins because I mentioned them.)
Good luck with your future writing!
Post a Comment