Username
Password


  Remember Me

    





















THROUGH THE EYES OF THE DEAD
"Skepsis"
Skepsis





DREAM EVIL
"In the Night"
In the Night





URGEHAL
"Ikonoklast"
Ikonoklast





TOXIC HOLOCAUST
"Evil Never Dies"
Evil Never Dies





THE KANDIDATE
"Until we are Outnumbered"
Until we are Outnumbered









Last Updated: February 9, 2010 4:53 PM




PEARL JAM Announces Carbon Portfolio Strategy For 2006 World Tour - July 10, 2006
In an effort to mitigate their own carbon emissions while raising the public's carbon consciousness, PEARL JAM today announced the launch of their 2006 Carbon Portfolio Strategy. Through this Strategy, the band will donate a total of $100,000 to nine organizations doing innovative work around climate change, renewable energy, and the environment.

"We established the Carbon Portfolio Strategy in the hopes of creating new models for businesses like ours looking to invest in the future health of our planet and its delicate ecosphere," said Stone Gossard of PEARL JAM. "Our Carbon Portfolio Strategy unites the combined efforts of nine diverse groups all approaching the issue of carbon in distinctive and unique ways. We hope that by highlighting and creating a commons for these groups, we can help to advance a broad and synergistic strategy that encourages preservation of existing ecosystems, restoration of degraded environments, and broad stimulus for clean, renewable energy technologies."

Since 2003, PEARL JAM has employed a variety of approaches — including rainforest preservation and the use of pure bio-diesel for their 2006 U.S. tour — to help offset carbon emissions produced by the band's tours and day-to-day business operations. The Carbon Portfolio Strategy builds on these earlier efforts by helping advance clean renewable energy and carbon mitigation. "We are honored to be part of this collaborative effort and would like to express our gratitude for the leadership and passion of all these diverse groups," remarked Gossard.

The nine organizations supported by the Carbon Portfolio Strategy are:

* American Solar Energy Society
* Bonneville Environmental Foundation
* Cascade Land Conservancy
* Conservation International
* EarthCorps
* Green Empowerment
* Honor the Earth
* IslandWood
* Washington Clean Energy Initiative

While the PEARL JAM Carbon Portfolio Strategy has national and international components, the band's initial focus is on the Pacific Northwest since it is their home. By identifying and supporting leaders in the environmental community, they hope to raise this region's carbon consciousness while also investing in a clean energy future.

Part of the band's goal is to encourage Northwest businesses and individuals to invest in these and other leading environmental organizations. Interested businesses and individuals can learn more about these organizations, calculate their own carbon emissions, and become part of the PEARL JAM Carbon Portfolio Strategy by visiting www.pearljam.com/activism.

The band encourages people outside the Pacific Northwest to identify and support leaders in their own community leading the charge for clean and renewable energy. In addition, the band hopes that everyone will take a close look at how their daily activities contribute to the increasing amounts of carbon emissions in the air.

For several years now, PEARL JAM has been committed to offsetting the carbon output produced by their tours. In 2003, the band joined forces with Conservation International to offset 5,700 tons of CO2 emissions released from trucks, buses, airplane travel, hotel rooms, concert venues — and the estimated one million fans driving to and from the concerts — by creating and managing a new protected area in the rainforest of Makira, Madagascar. Protecting forests, which naturally store carbon, helps prevent the release of nearly a quarter of world's annual the greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation and other land-use changes.

Additionally, Stone Gossard and his wife Liz Weber spearheaded an effort on the 2004 Vote for Change tour called the "Vote for Change Renewable Energy Project" that raised $77,000 to fund a variety of small-scale renewable energy projects in several of the states the tour traveled through. The DAVE MATTHEWS BAND, BONNIE RAITT, PEARL JAM and Stone Gossard individually donated money to this effort, which was overseen by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation. To date, the Vote for Change Renewable Energy Project has installed four solar photovoltaic power systems in states across the U.S., with four additional systems set for completion by the end of 2006. For more information on these projects, visit http://www.b-e-f.org/renewables/index.shtm.

In addition to the Carbon Portfolio Strategy, PEARL JAM are working to offset carbon emissions from their 2006 U.S. tour by using B100 — pure bio-diesel — in all production trucks on their 2006 U.S. tour and for their buses on leg two of this tour. B100 reduces emissions of carbon monoxide by approximately 50% and carbon dioxide by 78% on a net lifecycle basis. In contrast to fossil fuels, which release new carbon previously sequestered in the earth's crust, the carbon in B100 emissions is recycled from carbon already present in the atmosphere. The ultimate goal in all of these efforts is to get PEARL JAM at 0% net emissions for tours and business operations.

PEARL JAM's 2006 worldwide tour is in support of their new, self-titled studio record released May 1 in Europe and May 2 in North America.
To report any abusive, obscene, defamatory, racist, homophobic or threatening comments, or anything that may violate any applicable laws, please send an e-mail to bmouth@bellatlantic.net with pertinent details. Anyone posting such material will be immediately and permanently banned. IP addresses are recorded to aid us in enforcing these conditions.
COMMENT | ^^
posted by : defenestrated_corpse
7/10/2006 2:27:53 PM

Go back to driving your hummer, dick

COMMENT |
posted by : Chuck_Norris
7/10/2006 2:29:46 PM

I should roundhouse kick all these commie bastards back into reality. And then get their girlfriends/wives pregnant.

COMMENT | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 2:40:25 PM

most likely has never even touched a woman.

COMMENT | Hatetofeel
posted by : Chuck_Norris
7/10/2006 2:44:34 PM

"most likely has never even touched a woman."

Well if you don't watch that mouth of yours, son, you'll find your face against the pavement. And your woman will give birth to my baby nine months later.

COMMENT |
posted by : SAVAGE ANIMAL
7/10/2006 2:48:04 PM

It's good to see that they're actually doing something about it, and practicing what they preach (unlike those scumbags in System of a Down).

COMMENT | yeah ok chuck!
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 2:49:01 PM

whatever makes you feel more manly. you never get laid bro just admit it. try hard and im sure it will happen for you someday. take care bro!

COMMENT | hatetofeel
posted by : Chuck_Norris
7/10/2006 2:55:17 PM

For you information, i'm married with five kids. If you had done some research on me, you'd know that, fuckface. Now I suggest you watch your ass, because ol' Chuck will be kicking it soon.

COMMENT | look out chuck is on the loose.
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 3:00:51 PM

everybody run!

COMMENT | Chuck_Norris
posted by : mfiasco
7/10/2006 3:02:16 PM

the whole Chuck Norris he-man thing got old very fast....months ago.

COMMENT | mfiasco
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 3:05:24 PM

LOL, you rock!

chuck reminds me of another TEAPOT.

COMMENT | Morbius76
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 3:16:05 PM

i agree with you, i did not think TEAPOT was funny either. I think they are both lame. I support PJ as well.

COMMENT |
posted by : SAVAGE ANIMAL
7/10/2006 3:22:04 PM

Teapot was funny............Well, not really. It was just funny to watch him be banned, start a new account, be banned again, start another new account, and so on and so forth.


Chuck Norris can be funny, if he doesn't turn annoying, like many Chuck Norris jokes are today.

COMMENT | Wise up...
posted by : Iron Monkey
7/10/2006 3:24:26 PM

Why do I drive a big fat SUV because I am both big and fat.

BUSH in '08 - amend the constitution.

USA #1

COMMENT | teapot being banned over and over was too funny.
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 3:24:29 PM

that i can say for sure. he was not. why the hell did he get banned anyway?

COMMENT | hatetofeel
posted by : SAVAGE ANIMAL
7/10/2006 3:25:41 PM

Nobody knows, and, according to his myspace page, neither does Teapot. Bori never gave a reason why he was banned. Maybe he just got sick of him?

COMMENT | LOL, he probably did get sick of him.
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 3:28:56 PM

what about molotov and ken hawk? although i did notice there is a ken hawk II now.

COMMENT | hatetofeel
posted by : SAVAGE ANIMAL
7/10/2006 3:30:50 PM

Yeah, Ken Hawk is back. I have no fucking clue what happened to molotov - whether he stopped coming, or was banned.

COMMENT | ive seen all sorts of stuff on here
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 3:35:53 PM

and no one gets banned.

COMMENT | except for teapot
posted by : hatetofeel
7/10/2006 3:36:14 PM

:o)

COMMENT |
posted by : Anti-Cosmos_2012
7/10/2006 3:42:52 PM

I Should Have Been Banned Already. What Gives?

COMMENT | lastofthewild1s
posted by : SAVAGE ANIMAL
7/10/2006 3:46:12 PM

I honnestly don't know. I've seen some people banned for some things, and other people get away with it. I guess it depends on whether he sees you post it or not. Who knows.

COMMENT | .
posted by : thevalbomb
7/10/2006 4:05:32 PM

It's all meaningless until the US signs up to Kyoto, despite their good intentions.

COMMENT | oh brother...
posted by : IAmJacksWastedLife
7/10/2006 4:19:46 PM

Pearl Jam and all the rest of you global warming Chicken Littles should look into some science before taking a stand on this issue. The fact is that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles over time, and there is absolutely no evidence that the so called "greenhouse effect" or any other human action is responsible for the currant shift in global temperature.

30 years ago, the "experts" were all warning us about the coming ice age. Now all of a sudden it's the opposite? Give me a break.

If they really want to be good stewards for their fellow man, they should try do something about all the millions of people who die needlessly every year in undeveloped countries from easily preventable diseases like malaria.

COMMENT | Kudos To Pearl Jam
posted by : gadzooked1
7/10/2006 4:59:27 PM

I saw Pearl Jam last night at the Forum in LA. What a fantastic show. The place was fucking packed. I have been to literally hundreds of shows, but this was the most packed I have evr seen an arena. And the thing that was different was tyhere weren't a bunch of radio fans there that didn't care about the show. Quite the opposite. From the front to the back everyone was singing along, clapping, and standing. What an awesome show.

I especially loved how they took time to bash The Forum for using scabs to work their show. When the show was booked there was no strike. And Eddie let them have it. He said he would never play that building again and that management was like Dick Cheney, a bunch of assholes.

Congratulations needs to be given to them for being responsible for their own actions. If everyone would just clean up after themselves, then the world wouldn't be in the dire situation it is in.

COMMENT | Bannings...
posted by : Green Hell
7/10/2006 5:29:52 PM

I think that the only way people get banned on this site are if they get on Bori's nerves. T-Boner is a prime example, as he's been banned about a gazillion times. His incessant posts and fighting with himself via mutiple handles got him on Bori's shit list, I believe.

Same with Teapot. T-Boner was a least worth a few laughs- either directly or at his expense. Teapot was just annoying!

COMMENT | Bwahahaa
posted by : daginman
7/10/2006 5:58:50 PM

Oh...how gay. They obviously never saw Penn&Teller's Bullshit :)

COMMENT | Dodgeball anyone?
posted by : Incubus67
7/10/2006 7:32:39 PM

Can't believe no one has said this yet from the Dodgeball flick: Fuck you Chuck Norris!

And by the way Jack's wasted sperm, when you throw around clueless rhetoric about global warming like check the science it makes you sound retarded. It's obviously you who needs to check the science. Yes, the earth has always had climate shifts based on the seasons, but correlated with human activity and temperature, the shifts are becoming more pronounced leading to shorter seasons. I suppose the melting ice caps and drowning polar bears is a liberal conspiracy too. The Republican National Party Web site or Ann Coulter's smelly twat blog doesn't pass as credible, unbiased information. I suppose you believe Creationsim is science too. REAL SCIENTISTS who aren't political in the least have all said the climate shift is a real problem and that's 100 percent of the scientific community. Get a clue you fucking parrot.

COMMENT | VERY COOL
posted by : RiotAct666
7/10/2006 10:36:33 PM

Pearl jam kicks ass great band , live act can't wait for the tour.

COMMENT | i watched
posted by : rattler
7/10/2006 10:38:52 PM

pearl jam story tellers the other night . there album 10 was good but the rest of the musics not impressive . stock cords no riffs just kinda weak in my opinion

COMMENT | i think get banned
posted by : rattler
7/10/2006 10:47:16 PM

if u post constant off topic shit like im doing now

COMMENT | Ghostrider
posted by : enwll34
7/11/2006 3:32:59 AM

GR you are the biggest dork on here.You post the same sht every time.You should be banned for being a total idiot.You never make any sense so who is the crack smoker.

Pearl Jam rules.enough said

COMMENT | I have scooped blabbermouth
posted by : gadzooked1
7/11/2006 3:56:36 AM

Today on Kroq they have reported that Audioslave broke up. No detailed reason, but they are even saying no tour for the new album. Please god, bring back Soundgarden Chris!!!!!!!!!!

COMMENT | Global Warming is a FACT you morons!
posted by : SwordLord
7/11/2006 3:37:57 PM

>>Pearl Jam and all the rest of you global warming Chicken Littles should look into some science before taking a stand on this issue. The fact is that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles over time, and there is absolutely no evidence that the so called "greenhouse effect" or any other human action is responsible for the currant shift in global temperature.

>>30 years ago, the "experts" were all warning us about the coming ice age. Now all of a sudden it's the opposite? Give me a break.

>>If they really want to be good stewards for their fellow man, they should try do something about all the millions of people who die needlessly every year in undeveloped countries from easily preventable diseases like malaria.

***

It's impossible that you are this dumb! The Ice Age that was being talked about was BECAUSE of Global Warming you moron. When the Greenland ice shelf finally collapses into the sea, the cool air brought about by all of that millions of pounds of ice hitting an ocean that is too warm will cool the planet to temperatures that will not sustain most of the life on it. YOU'RE the one that needs to do the research. It's a proven fact that the dissention over Global Warming is MEDIA-RELATED only -- the scientific community has been talking about Global Warming now for years. Get up to speed, snuffy, and soon or you'll be wearing a parka year round.

COMMENT | Here's a google for last of dickwads
posted by : Incubus67
7/12/2006 12:15:33 AM

From SCIENCE magazine...not some dubious blog or politicized right wing fascist brainwash:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

COMMENT |
posted by : Dr NoX
7/13/2006 11:19:29 AM

or maybe you're just from canada...but you still suck.



In order to post a comment, please log in first.
If you aren't signed up, sign up now.


BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees.

|
Latest News | News Archive | CD Reviews | DVD Reviews | Contact | Submit News |
| Advertise | Wireless | Privacy Policy |

 
UPDATE YOUR PROFILE LOGOUT Latest News News Archive CD Reviews DVD Reviews Contact Submit News Advertise Wireless