I’m not much of a fan of sensationalist metaphors, and raining polar bears that land in bloody splats around a US metropolis to represent the weight of the greenhouse gases you produce on an average European flight is definitely a sensationalist metaphor.
Visceral polar bear innards spread across cars and pavements as the ursine quadrupeds make their unfortunate arrivals to get me to give a shit about the payoff. The problem is, I’ve no idea what that payoff really means. I’ve taken a few European flights in my time and so, I’d imagine, have you, almost certainly on planes that were quite full. So we’d all find it reasonable to believe that millions of these flights have happened so far. Now, truthfully, is your daily life any different for that? Does 400kg of greenhouse gases really matter? If so then why are we not all dying under a cloud of sulphur from all the kajillion tonnes that must have been produced since the Wright Brothers had their little brainwave?
I understand that the polar bears have been used to demonstrate the animals that are suffering because of the proliferation of greenhouse gases, but they’ve rather oddly chosen to make a point about how much the gases weigh. Is the metaphor direct and physical or la-di-da and figurative? Why give me a double metaphor? I’ve got enough on my plate trying to work out why a polar bear that lands from 30,000 feet makes such a small impact. They should be going ten feet into the pavement, exploding in a mile-wide spray of furry nipples and giant white arses.
I think they’ve used a sledgehammer to crack an incomprehensible nut. And, ironically for this client, I would deem that a huge fucking waste.