Shouldn't the situation be considered in context?

Sure the carbon footprint for Deacon's trip was big, but it resulted in the benefit of a larger group. In context, justifiable.

Compare to an individual drinking 10oz of water flown all the way to NY from Fiji. Not that justifiable, considering the high cost-to-benefit.

Jeez, that comment thread for Dan Deacon on Brooklyn Vegan is full of even more tools than this one. There is always a bigger fish I guess...

Just to add: if you criticize people flying on commercial planes -- that is, taking public transportation -- you should also criticize those who take trains, subways, and buses. Basically I guess the recommendation is that everyone just stay in their own neighborhoods?

Jen,

I'm the organizer of Citysol. A couple of things:

First, and most obviously, do you really think that we, Solar One, have any control over Dan Deacon's comings and goings on the days leading up to the festival? Were we expected to somehow sequester him in New York after his performance at McCarren just to keep 'our' carbon footprint down? Honestly, email me back and let me know if this is what you think would have made us truly green in your estimation. We did not fly Dan Deacon in for the show. We are a small organization and the event had no financial corporate sponsors. Most of the artists performed at way below market rate because they were receptive to the idea and the venue, and were just plain cool. We are incredibly thankful for their generosity and interest. And you may be interested in knowing that all but two of them were NYC-based that arrived in vans from the outer boroughs - is that sufficiently local for you?

Secondly, and more importantly, your own notion of what constitutes 'green' is a perfect example of how the term has quickly degenerated into something more akin to dieting than politics. What is a 'green' event in your judgment? We advertised that we were a solar-powered festival, and we used the festival as a means of raising awareness about our I Heart PV campaign to realize pro-solar legislation and regulation in New York, and to get letters written to the state Public Service Commission in support of our new initiative to secure stronger incentives for solar power in the state. We got over 400 of them drafted in two days - had there been no rain, we would have gotten double that. Why don't you mention that? Did you not come to the event, and peak on the north side of the building where tables were full of people writing letters? I guess that would have meant you would have had to buy an offset. We concentrate on policy where solutions can actually be reached, not preachy and completely obsessive standards that require that every molecule of carbon dioxide or every piece of trash must be hand-wrung over and apologized for. That way of thinking is a complete distraction that gets us absolutely nowhere, and is largely responsible for the green backlash that is now occurring. It creates expectations and targets that cannot be met and which only create fatigue and alienation among would-be constituents while diverting everyone's attention from the fact that political solutions are required.

And your own prescription for achieving greenness - carbon offsets - is highly, highly suspect. A single hour of research would have revealed to you that carbon offsets are, at best, an imperfect solution to actually reducing carbon emissions, in many cases can be destructive and wasteful, and that a significant debate is now occurring over the matter of their usefulness. We need new sources of energy brought to scale at a rapid rate, and New York should lead the way, as it has in the past, by creating a context for innovation and clean energy adoption. We invented the modern electricity system! Our mission and advocacy start there, rather than with the fantasy that offsets are going to carry the day. Give me a break. Offsets are indulgences that allay guilt, they don't solve any problems. Check out this link for an overview, hosted by solar one several months back, about the problems that are inherent to the offset approach - http://www.solar1.org/video/cap_and_trade/player.html

We also do not subscribe to the idea that artists or anyone who must travel a lot for work should stop flying in planes to play gigs. That's a complete non-starter that will never happen AND YOU KNOW IT! so quit dreaming and quit judging. The emergence of the carbon offset model is more a measure of how we have a tendency to rush to things that will clear our conscience easily rather than actually mobilize people in support of meaningful solutions - like pushing from the grassroots for more solar power in New York State. The ultimate solution to making air travel- which currently cannot be substituted like land travel for low carbon alternatives - less carbon intensive through innovation rather than cutely pretending that we should be holding out for teleconferenced concerts.

@metarobotic

the reason that the argument holds some water in the cases of al gore and bono is because THEY FLY IN PRIVATE JETS.

dan deacon rides on commercial flights that would not be cancelled if he decided to stay put. get it?

also, it says pretty clearly that they didn't find out that dan couldn't perform until the very last minute. he was there, it was his equipment that wasn't. it's probably next to impossible to find a replacement headliner in under an hour.

btw I don't speak for citysol. I initially made a comment bc of irresponsible reporting [that was later edited without note] but your comment is equally as misinformed.