alt Hacker NewsI like this but doesn't Burning Man itself constitute a hugely inefficient use of fossil fuels and unsustainable material use? The name has "burning" right in it. The climax is a bonfire. What about the air pollution? Perhaps it would be better for the planet if Burning Man didn't exist at all.
Replies
I doubt the amount of generators running constitute some sunstantial fossil fuel use, at least not more than 70,000 people sitting at home in air conditioning doing "nothing". I would welcome your math though.
I don't know anyone that goes to Burning Man that thinks it's some kind of conservation event. It was started on a beach in SF to mourn the loss of a relationship by a man with a broken heart. Then it got too big and moved to the desert. I think a lot of people have misconceptions about what Burning Man really is. The fact is, it's a lot of things to a lot of people, but one thing it is not is, is fuel efficiency or any kind of conservation.
The fact that it gets cleaned up is only due to the requirement to get a permit for the next year.
In 1997, BM was held on a private property, and the playa there was absolutely trashed, for as far as you could see. Bottles and cans littered everywhere. In the morning after the burn, I saw one woman was going around picking it all up. Others started to join in. It was not pretty. I think we made a dent in cleaning it up, but the trash was everywhere.
Unlike today, where people actually do make an attempt to clean up, but obviously some still do not give a single fuck about it.
The event produces a huge amount of trash too. Every year you can see videos on youtube of people taking their moop out of the playa and just dumping it wherever (shopping malls, parking lots, the side of the road) in Nevada and California. The ethos only happens at the event and then all bets are off. I say that as an ex-burner.