LONDON - A group of supermodels has illustrated the effect of climate change in the most immediately understandable way - by taking their clothes off.
Promoting climate campaign group 350.org, the nine models remove 40 layers of clothing, in a racy strip tease, until they are close to naked.
They tantalisingly promise the viewer they will remove their underwear if they "get your politicians to act now".
ADVERTISEMENT
350.org takes its name from the upper level of carbon scientists believe is safe to have in the atmosphere.
Last year NASA scientists published research stating that if there was more than 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere, we couldn't have a planet "similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted." Curren carbon levels are 390 ppm, and are rising 2 ppm a year.
350.org was behind this week's International Day of Climate Action, which saw campaigners around the world target local politicians in an effort to influence proceedings at the US Climate talks in Copenhagen.
The tantalizing promise of a glimpse of a young woman's fanny... is this the best the human mind can come up with to get some action going, vis-à-vis climate change? Man, that's sad.
Any excuse and clothes are whipped off; Calender's, Charity shoots, you name it - off they come. Please leave you clothes on and think of an idea that will actually make a difference.
"How is this different from the ads in the seventies that were branded sexist and creatively inept?"
Not at all different, other than in being absurdly more expensive to produce and broadcast - and watched by many fewer.
This doesnt work on so many levels:
- Supermodels as campaign spokespeople for anything related to the environment is totally disingenuous, when they're not advertising seal skin dresses with fox fur scarves, they're found schmoozing at the elite restaurants and clubs, havens of wastage and excess.
- The ad is counter-intuitive - are we led to believe the idea is we need to REDUCE global warming, in order for the models to take MORE clothes off? How does that make any sense?!
3) This ad is sexist - assuming men make all the decision about energy use and therefore carbon emissions.
4) The ad assumes that super models are the epitome of sexual desire and we should want more than anything to see them naked. In reality if they took any more layers off they'd be nothing more than walking skeletons, human clothes hangers without the clothes. Could they not have at least selected women sexually desirable - perhaps some celebs such as Cheryl Cole and Beyonce with general appeal. Even then, the other critical concerns apply.
- 30/10/2009
It's all complete nonsense. Who can't fail to remember Naomi Campbell champion the anti-fur cause and advertising campaign, yet two years later she's spotted leaving The Dorchester in the finest mink money can buy. Vapid nonsense.
Oh, another thing, who can't fail to spot the lack of the term 'global warming'. Now it's called climate change because to the social engineers horror, the climate has been cooling since 1998. Global warming is not even registered as a 'tag'. Now it's all about carbon ppm.
Call me a cynic but the weather in Chiswick is hardly tropical.
The whole campaign is indicative of our totally deluded culture and the lazy, indoctrinated, politically correct media that 'informs' us.
Supermodels and super expensive photo shoots all over the world... how do they get to these exotic places? Carbon footprint preaching from a bunch of hypocrites - I'm sure they didn't thong a lift.... I mean thumb a lift.
Comments
Grilla Login - 29/10/2009
The tantalizing promise of a glimpse of a young woman's fanny... is this the best the human mind can come up with to get some action going, vis-à-vis climate change? Man, that's sad.
kiki kendrick - 29/10/2009
Any excuse and clothes are whipped off; Calender's, Charity shoots, you name it - off they come. Please leave you clothes on and think of an idea that will actually make a difference.
Grilla Login - 29/10/2009
Will they sleep with me if I flash them a low-energy light bulb?
Aaron Savage - 29/10/2009
How is this different from the ads in the seventies that were branded sexist and creatively inept?
Fred Perkins - 29/10/2009
"How is this different from the ads in the seventies that were branded sexist and creatively inept?" Not at all different, other than in being absurdly more expensive to produce and broadcast - and watched by many fewer.
Andy Knell - 29/10/2009
This doesnt work on so many levels: - Supermodels as campaign spokespeople for anything related to the environment is totally disingenuous, when they're not advertising seal skin dresses with fox fur scarves, they're found schmoozing at the elite restaurants and clubs, havens of wastage and excess. - The ad is counter-intuitive - are we led to believe the idea is we need to REDUCE global warming, in order for the models to take MORE clothes off? How does that make any sense?! 3) This ad is sexist - assuming men make all the decision about energy use and therefore carbon emissions. 4) The ad assumes that super models are the epitome of sexual desire and we should want more than anything to see them naked. In reality if they took any more layers off they'd be nothing more than walking skeletons, human clothes hangers without the clothes. Could they not have at least selected women sexually desirable - perhaps some celebs such as Cheryl Cole and Beyonce with general appeal. Even then, the other critical concerns apply.
- 30/10/2009
It's all complete nonsense. Who can't fail to remember Naomi Campbell champion the anti-fur cause and advertising campaign, yet two years later she's spotted leaving The Dorchester in the finest mink money can buy. Vapid nonsense. Oh, another thing, who can't fail to spot the lack of the term 'global warming'. Now it's called climate change because to the social engineers horror, the climate has been cooling since 1998. Global warming is not even registered as a 'tag'. Now it's all about carbon ppm. Call me a cynic but the weather in Chiswick is hardly tropical. The whole campaign is indicative of our totally deluded culture and the lazy, indoctrinated, politically correct media that 'informs' us.
John Gallen - 30/10/2009
Supermodels and super expensive photo shoots all over the world... how do they get to these exotic places? Carbon footprint preaching from a bunch of hypocrites - I'm sure they didn't thong a lift.... I mean thumb a lift.