« Pop Heaven: Estelle featuring Kanye West - "American Boy" | Main | Guns n' Roses' "Sweet Child Of Mine" remixed into breakbeat rave magnificence »

Thom Yorke slags Glastonbury for not being green enough

Thom.Yorke---.jpgFinally! Even though I get sick to my teeth, sick in my teeth and all over someone else's teeth at rock stars preaching about [insert good cause here], I'm rather glad that Thom Yorke (he's in Radiohead, y'know?) has spoken up about Glastonbury and its clearly un-green ways.

Yorke's revealed that Radiohead didn’t play Glastonbury this year because of the lack of a local transport infrastructure around the festival site. He announced the decision while promoting the Big Ask Europe campaign in Brussels yesterday. He explained: “One of the conditions of the band carrying on touring is that we do everything we can to minimise our impact on the environment."

Yorke continued: “That has included buying two lots of equipment and keeping one in Europe and one in America so we never have to fly our kit around the world again. Another big one is shipping stuff rather than flying it. We also use new technology for our lighting rig. One of the interesting things we discovered is how people get to our big shows. A lot of the time people are driving with one or two people in a car and that’s an ecological disaster. What we’re trying to do now is only play in areas that have a public transport infrastructure in place. So that rules out Glastonbury for this year. Maybe we can work out a plan for the future. They’re probably sick of the sight of us anyway.”

You see Glastonbury, so concerned about the Earth, continually fails to acknowledge the fact that it's one of the least green events in the world. It's difficult to get to, which means you HAVE to drive. When I've been, you see the helicopters flying the headline acts in. Then there's the huge electrical usage of all the stages, food vendors, lighting... it's preposterous! So, thanks Thom, I don't really like your band but I'm loving this rant.

[via Gigwise]

Came straight to this page? Visit www.mychemicaltoilet.com for all the latest news.

Posted by mofgimmers on February 28, 2025 in Festival News, Glastonbury, Music News | Permalink

Comments

Oh pish and bollocks. This really was the wrong day for Anna to point out this blog to me....

First: "It's difficult to get to, which means you HAVE to drive"

Except for the past 20 years the festival has provided free buses from Castle Carry train station for all festival goes.

And runs shuttle buses from Bath and Bristol.

And First Great Western and Wessex Trains run extra trains from London, Reading and Swindon to Castle Carry.

And last year 20% of tickets (22,500) were sold as coach only tickets.

And National Express run additional coach services direct to the site from all around the country.

There's far more options for getting to Glastonbury by public transport than any other festival. If Thom York has to bring a helicoptor on site because he can't catch the bus that's his problem.

And if Thom wants to lessen the impact of his shows on the environment, how about a 20 date tour of smaller theatre venues, rather than 2 dates in massive arenas where people have to travel half the country to go and see them. But of course, that's a solution that might actually inconvenice him, and doesn't just amount to throwing money and the problem and telling the fans to catch the train to thier gigs.

Does Glasto use a lot of electric? Sure. But no more proportionally than any other festival, and a bunch is no-doubt cancelled out by having 150,000 people not using any electric themselves that they would use at home.

I'm something of a cynic and I don't buy the 'Glasto is all hippy fun' line. Plenty of people are making a lot of money of it, and I don't agree with some of the causes they support (Greenpeace, for one) but in this particular instance York is talking bollocks.

He's right about one thing though. I am sick of the sight of him.

Posted by: Dean | February 28, 2025 11:00 PM

"Does Glasto use a lot of electric? Sure. But no more proportionally than any other festival, and a bunch is no-doubt cancelled out by having 150,000 people not using any electric themselves that they would use at home."

I think the problem with that fact, though it's sound and probably true, is that many frequenters of Glasto go on about it as though it is some sort of utopia where the environment is only enriched by their all-knowing goodness towards the world. If more Glasto champions were truthful and said that they just plain enjoyed the experience, people would be softer on them.

Posted by: Orla | February 29, 2025 11:29 AM

The problem is the arguement reductio ad absurdum. Yes, not having Glastonbury would be better for the environment than having Glastonbury. But that applies to everything. Radiohead not touring at all would be better than them touring however many precautions they take. Not having a computer to post this on would be better for the environment than having one... Unless we walk everywhere and live in a house with no electricity and no modern amenities everything we do is going to have a degree of impact on the environment.
So if we accept we're going to have a Glastonbury because it's fun (and profitable), Glastonbury Festival Limited go out of thier way to say "how can we make this as environmentally sound as possible?" something that has never concerned, for example the V Festival. Where Radiohead played in 2006.

Of course, this story originated in The Sun, so I'm not sure how much of what York said was taken out of context etc, but it's frustrating seeing the whole story repeated over the internet without people checking the facts.

Unless, y'know, it puts people off going to Glasto and makes it easier to get tickets in April...

Posted by: Dean | February 29, 2025 5:37 PM

Post a comment






Type the characters you see in the picture above.