Like a good portion of the world, I’m a huge U2 fan. My daughter and I jam to The Best of 1980-1990 and How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb weekly, if not daily. I would never argue about the band’s talent or simple sheer coolness—even though I occasionally miss Bono’s hair—and love the guys to death.

That said, I would argue that a band so keen on helping the planet and using both their fame and their music to try and instigate world change should be a bit more mindful when it comes to their own actions. A few years ago, when Bono paid $1,500 to have a freaking hat flown to him, I simply didn’t believe it. I dismissed it as a rumor, obstinate enough to think that a man who cared so much about poverty-stricken children and the environment and AIDS would rather spend such a chunk of change on—well, change—rather than hat transportation.

And now, during their 360 Tour, they’re spending over $40 million simply to build their own custom stage, and using 200 semi trucks to transport the whopping steel monstrosity across the European continent. This is a huge expenditure coming from a band who expects $1 donations to make a difference against poverty and AIDS—not to mention quite a bit of carbon.

While I read about this, I found myself thinking, “But doesn’t Bono & Co. care about the earth? Weren’t they at Live Earth and everything?” Well, that really wouldn’t make a difference much, would it? There were plenty of bands there that didn’t really give a damn about anything but the publicity. Still, I could have sworn they were there…

But they weren’t. And why? Because they thought it would “confuse the issue,” since they’re closely linked to Red, Make Poverty History, and other African Aid campaigns.

Um, what? You don’t do a concert to raise awareness about global warming because… people might think it’s about another one of your causes? Why is that such a bad thing?

The Edge defends their tour with this comment: “We’re spending the money on our fans. I don’t think there’s a better thing you can spend it on.”

Wow. I simply cannot believe he said that. Does that not negate everything else the band has stood for?

He went on to say that anyone going on tour is having a carbon footprint, and that the band researched greener alternatives for the transport of the stage but were unable to find more eco-friendly vehicles.

Right.

I’m thinking if Radiohead and Jack Johnson—who have considerably less funds than U2, I’m sure—can do green tours, U2 can definitely do them with no sweat—or excuses.

I’m left wondering if the band cares about the environment at all. What do you think? I’m not saying they should because they’re rich and famous—though I think everyone should simply as citizens of the planet; I’m saying that as much as they talk about changing the world, making a difference, and caring for the people of the earth, shouldn’t they care about the home that the people live on as well?