Is this a relaunch of Shift Magazine or a completely different publication?

Based on a cursory examination of their site, I'm guessing this has got nothing to do with the earlier, more awesome, Shift Magazine from Canada.

To highlight "the changing face of environmentalism", they pick... Angelina Jolie?

While she certainly has done many admirable things, she is a conspicuous consumer par excellence, jetting all over the world for both vacations and humanitarian reasons. Heck, she flew to Ethiopia and Cambodia to adopt her two kids - weren't there any locally available?

With a very few exceptions (maybe Ed Begley Jr.), celebrities are THE most ridiculous idea of "environmentalists". They drive (or are driven in) huge cars, fly all over the world, own multiple (large and/or expensive) houses and consume, consume, consume.

The "changing face of environmentalism" is a caricature of America, writ large.

Brian,
While I'm with you on the fact that celebs often live lives that have huge ecological footprints,
I would point out that, due to the incredible esteem we give those that appear on our magic image boxes (tv), celebs can be very helpful in communicating important messages to the masses.

Due to this, their net impact as a person on the planet, despite their jetset lifestyles, might be better, in some cases way better, than you or I.

Thoughts?
Graham

celeb endorsement may push the latest wave of environmentalism further along its trajectory of becoming just another passing fad. The example these celebs are setting is hypocrisy (green words and token efforts undermined by unsustainable behaviour) + feel-good unnecessary consumption.

is this mag printed on post-consumer recycled or FSC friendly paper??

Graham -

In most cases, feel-good celebrity endorsement is probably a net gain or at least does no harm. When a celeb touts the Red Cross, the March of Dimes or St. Jude's, I think it generally helps, because there is rarely a cognitive disonance between a celeb fronting a charity and the celeb's lifestyle. The worst one might believe is that they are insincere or doing it for some public service - and unless they are notorious for bad behavior, I doubt even those thoughts pop up.

Yet every time I hear a celebrity talking about the environment or how money "isn't that important", the juxtaposition between the lifestyle they lead and the cause they espouse is jarring. I see a movie like Syriana (every single person working for an oil company is evil) and simulataneously think "how much oil was burned in the making of this movie"? The nadir of this oeuvre (to me) was "On Deadly Ground" where Steven Seagal spends an entire movie talking about the evils of the oil barons despoiling the Alaskan wilderness - while simultaneously exploding tons of ordinance, huge oil fires and blowing up buildings. It was a mind-boggling display of destroying the village in order to save it.

Again, if Angelina Jolie wants to be a spokesperson for foreign adoption or refugee relief, I can buy that - she lives that life pretty obviously. Find someone else who walks the walk on the environmental issues. Come on - doesn't Ed Begley Jr. have someone else in the carpool?

how about Dennis Weaver? Remember, from Gunsmoke? Ok maybe he isn't as sexy as leo or angelina but hey! he lives (well i heard he just sold it, so lived for over 10 years) in an earthship, a stellar amazing earthship mansion... and he also has backed a number of clean energy projects and developments... dennis weaver kicks butt! he & ed begly ought to do a road trip together (and film it like woody did) ....and race cloney while the're at it

I'm currently writing an article on hippiecrytes for an independent publication. Does anyone out there have any comments on either someone they find to be a hippiecryte, (define it as you will), or anything pertaining to the topic. I welcome any comments on the subject and would love to hear from any and everyone.