Live Earth

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

I find it insulting that you treat this problem as if it's not important. If you don't want to help take care of this planet, maybe go find another one.

...Considering how generally liberal this board's views are, I am shocked at the complete disregard to this issue. A lot of you are walking around with your noses in the air saying 'I wont change until everyone else does'. Good plan. Don't forget to appologize to your grandchildren.

So what if this event is causing more pollution than if it wasn't happening? That's like saying I'm not going to eat because I'll just crap it out later anyways.

I think it's important. I thought it was before Live Earth decided to add to the problem, and i will think it after Live Earth is finished with its massive carbon footprint. So as far as i am concerned Live Earth did nothing me, contribute to the problem, sell some CD's and possibly help promote Al Gore "the attention whore" in his bid of for 2008.

And i have liberal views as well - shocking isn't it.
________
Green Crack

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale. Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'. A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites. An event of this size at Wembley - which holds 65,000 at a rock concert, will generate around 59 tonnes of waste," she says. "That is largely composed of the rubbish from food and drink consumption."


She found that a Wembley-sized football match generated an 'ecological footprint' of 3,000 global hectares - an area the size of 4,166 football pitches. This is the amount of bioproductive land required to absorb the C02 emissions produced by such an event. The concert organisers are preaching carbon neutrality - but isn't that just a guilt-free excuse? Dr Collins estimates that the global audience for Live Earth will generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste. Travel forms the vast majority of the 'carbon footprint' talked of by ecological campaigners - contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental 'cost'.

Collins says: "It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn't have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel - precisely what we are trying to reduce.

"There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world - that is absolutely huge."

Indeed, an audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth, reveals that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets billow thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.

The Daily Mail has found that five of the top performing acts together have an annual output of almost 2,000 carbon tonnes. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes, according to John Buckley. John Rego, the environmental director of Live Earth, says he expects to purchase at least 3,000 tonnes of carbon credits to off-set the event. It is believed the organisers will spend in excess of £1million on carbon offsetting to counter criticism.

We get your hypocracy argument, and we know flying airplanes uses fuel.

It's just a ridiculous reason to say raising this issue is a bad idea.

[Devils'Advocate]

You seriously count the television sets watching the event?!?! As if those television sets were not going to be on watching something else!?!?

And I don't know what exactly makes people switch from Hydro1 (dirty, but cheap, energy) to Bullfrog power (clean, but expensive, energy). I don't know what exactly makes people switch from driving their SUVs to hybrids. But I think that when media of all shapes and sizes are preaching conservation that maybe, just maybe, someone will think about these things when making everyday decisions.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

We get your hypocracy argument, and we know flying airplanes uses fuel.

It's just a ridiculous reason to say raising this issue is a bad idea.

Once again no one is saying that raising the idea is bad.
The method of delivery was a terrible idea.
Does that not make sense to you? I know it's hard to accept other people's opinion's when you sway to for left, but get a grip.
________
Suzuki rm series specifications

[MarchHare]

Nobody is saying that the concerts themselves don't have a carbon footprint, but it's an incredibly large (and fallacious) stretch to state that Live Earth is the single largest polluter on the earth on July 7, 2007.

Do you really think the concerts are responsible for more CO2 emissions than all the dirty coal electricity plants run by the Chinese government? Or all the emissions produced by aircraft from a major airline or a shipping company like FedEx? Or the daily operations of the United States military, with all their gas-guzzling Hummers and armoured vehicles, not to mention hundreds of diesel-burning ships and thousands of jet aircraft?

Seriously?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You seriously count the television sets watching the event?!?! As if those television sets were not going to be on watching something else!?!?

And I don't know what exactly makes people switch from Hydro1 (dirty, but cheap, energy) to Bullfrog power (clean, but expensive, energy). I don't know what exactly makes people switch from driving their SUVs to hybrids. But I think that when media of all shapes and sizes are preaching conservation that maybe, just maybe, someone will think about these things when making everyday decisions.

You can't assume that all all. Stop footing around the facts.
Maybe do some more research on hybrid's you may be shocked. But you are going to have to search hard, because sometimes things get covered up.
________
Og kush seeds

[CaptainCraig]

[quote=Devils'Advocate;936641]You seriously count the television sets watching the event?!?! As if those television sets were not going to be on watching something else!?!?
quote]

Haha, I was thinking that too, I guess critics really want to bury this show....

One thing people,

Can we all agree that our climate does need care & attention? If people disagree with that then there will be a problem.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Nobody is saying that the concerts themselves don't have a carbon footprint, but it's an incredibly large (and fallacious) stretch to state that Live Earth is the single largest polluter on the earth on July 7, 2007.

Do you really think the concerts are responsible for more CO2 emissions than all the dirty coal electricity plants run by the Chinese government? Or all the emissions produced by aircraft from a major airline or a shipping company like FedEx? Or the daily operations of the United States military, with all their gas-guzzling Hummers and armoured vehicles, not to mention hundreds of diesel-burning ships and thousands of jet aircraft?

Seriously?

So basically, the collective singular event could produce maybe 80,000-90,000 metric tonnes of carbon emissions via certain estimates if they are accurate.

Current estimates of ALL Chinese coal-fired powerplants indicate that in 2007, they will produce something about 898,938 metric tonnes of carbon emissions PER DAY. That means the collective Live Earth event is producing as much pollution as 1/10th of ALL the coal powerplants put together in China today!!! I said the entire Live Earth event is probably one of the most polluting events happening on planet earth on July 7th, 2007...not the singular largest polluter.

[CaptainCraig]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Nobody is saying that the concerts themselves don't have a carbon footprint, but it's an incredibly large (and fallacious) stretch to state that Live Earth is the single largest polluter on the earth on July 7, 2007.

Do you really think the concerts are responsible for more CO2 emissions than all the dirty coal electricity plants run by the Chinese government? Or all the emissions produced by aircraft from a major airline or a shipping company like FedEx? Or the daily operations of the United States military, with all their gas-guzzling Hummers and armoured vehicles, not to mention hundreds of diesel-burning ships and thousands of jet aircraft?

Seriously?

That is actually a very good point

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

I'm sure you have a better idea in the works. My appologies.

Who sets trends in pop culture if not celebrities? The USA moreso than any other country is driven by what they see on TV.

So yes, I do really think this will have an impact on people. Not to say this event alone will break down our society into what it must become, but it sure as hell beats standing around doing nothing.

A better idea for working towards getting people to change their ways... tax breaks/incentives to act in a responsible manner is my first idea. Have a massive gov't/industry sponsored advertising campaign showing people the economical advantages to energy smart ways. People think moreso with their wallets than their hearts.

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Once again no one is saying that raising the idea is bad.
The method of delivery was a terrible idea.
Does that not make sense to you? I know it's hard to accept other people's opinion's when you sway to for left, but get a grip.

I'm just not seeing another way of doing it. If it's a good idea (which is all I can assume you believe since you state it's not a bad idea), then shouldn't you be able to look past the 'carbon footprint' it's making and see the good in cause?

I guess I just don't get how talking about this is a bad idea, regardless of where an artist had to fly to perform. And just to be clear, I'm not at all a radically progressive environmentalist. Also, I would love five minutes to give Jack Layton a peice of my mind...

I'm just average joe that's realized we need to do something about this whole thing...and I'll gladly support any cause going towards it, even if a few more airplanes will be taking off than usual.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

A better idea for working towards getting people to change their ways... tax breaks/incentives to act in a responsible manner is my first idea. Have a massive gov't/industry sponsored advertising campaign showing people the economical advantages to energy smart ways. People think moreso with their wallets than their hearts.

However, governments WON'T do that unless their is political pressure to do so. Unless the electorate demands that the government put in tax breaks/incentives, then they won't do it. And how do we get the electorate to demand these things from their government?

As for industry asking people to conserve.... mmm.... don't know about that one....

[Hack&Lube]

BTW, I am a huge music fan, I have DVDs of Live Aid and Live Eight...(did those accomplish anything in the long run? African poverty and debt is as high as ever) I love these big concerts for the opportunities to hear many great bands, especially ones from the past.

And I do care about the environment, I just do not agree whatsoever about the pop-culture sensational frenzy which the movement has taken on. I'm not a global warming skeptic, but I just find it utterly irrational to think that a global concert with have even a drop in the bucket effect on decreasing the world's carbon output in the long run. The people there who are already on the global warming bandwagon are already doing their part. The rest are just there for the music. For the rest of the world, life goes on.

If you want genuine change, you need to provide economic incentive. That's the only rule which people obey in general. If you want to save the environment, you need to show people how you are saving them from a future of unafforable energy and giving them energy economy...not hope that a bunch of rhetoric from hypocritical muscians and songs which have nothing to do with the environment will save the planet. In germany, the government has spawned a mass public adoption of solar panels on the roofs of houses, across vast tracts of farmland, on factories, buildings, along the autobahn, etc. by simply fixing the price of electricity for 20 years. Thereby, people realized they could actually save money, or even make money by putting a solar panel on their roofs. This security led to banks giving out loans for people to put up solar panels and it's even helped the economy by spawning a nacscent local solar panel manufacturing industry.

Sorry, I've watched most of Live Earth (and contributed to the carbon footprint) and there is frankly zero environmental message or sincerity that is sticking. It's 80% music and pop-culture commercialism. 20% hot air about the environment in a few speeches and comments that I find disingenous or self-serving from certain artists. When I see Al Gore there with all these bands, it actually reminded more of Al Gore and his wife's PMRC campaign in the 1980s about censoring music.

[Devils'Advocate]

Yes, but Germany has made their strides because of the Green Party having a good deal of political influence on their policies. Here in the West, neither Canada nor the U.S. have a party that puts the environment as a top priority that wield any kind of power. The Democrats and Liberals talk a good game, but it's all even more hot air.

In Germany the Greens got their power by proportional representation, something we don't have here. Without it, it will be hard to get the environment considered a top priority.. and it is unlikely that we will see the governments in North American make the same kind of initiatives as are found in Germany.

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

A better idea for working towards getting people to change their ways... tax breaks/incentives to act in a responsible manner is my first idea. Have a massive gov't/industry sponsored advertising campaign showing people the economical advantages to energy smart ways. People think moreso with their wallets than their hearts.

More people voted for American Idol than the US elections. Government doesn't exist in a lot of people's minds.

That said, I do agree that tax incentives are a good idea. Some are already in place.

[CaptainCraig]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

BTW, I am a huge music fan, I have DVDs of Live Aid and Live Eight...I love these big concerts for the opportunities to hear many great bands, especially ones from the past.

And I do care about the environment, I just do not agree whatsoever about the pop-culture sensational frenzy which the movement has taken on. I'm not a global warming skeptic, but I just find it utterly irrational to think that a global concert with have even a drop in the bucket effect on decreasing the world's carbon output in the long run. The people there who are already on the global warming bandwagon are already doing their part. The rest are just there for the music. For the rest of the world, life goes on.

If you want genuine change, you need to provide economic incentive. That's the only rule which people obey in general. If you want to save the environment, you need to show people how you are saving them from a future of unafforable energy and giving them energy economy...not hope that a bunch of rhetoric from hypocritical muscians and songs which have nothing to do with the environment will save the planet. In germany, the government has spawned a mass public adoption of solar panels on the roofs of houses, across vast tracts of farmland, on factories, buildings, along the autobahn, etc. by simply fixing the price of electricity for 20 years. Thereby, people realized they could actually save money, or even make money by putting a solar panel on their roofs. This security led to banks giving out loans for people to put up solar panels and it's even helped the economy by spawning a nacscent local solar panel manufacturing industry.

Sorry, I've watched most of Live Earth (and contributed to the carbon footprint) and there is frankly zero environmental message or sincerity that is sticking. It's 80% music and pop-culture commercialism. 20% hot air about the environment in a few speeches and comments.

You have some very good points & I find it very interesting what Germany is doing. That is great.

However how is this new "pop culture" movement bad. I agree with you about the show to some extent now, but are you talking about the new movement in general? If so that boggles my mind. That almost reminds me of the person who wore a Tampa jersey to the Redmile just to be different.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Nobody is saying that the concerts themselves don't have a carbon footprint, but it's an incredibly large (and fallacious) stretch to state that Live Earth is the single largest polluter on the earth on July 7, 2007.

Do you really think the concerts are responsible for more CO2 emissions than all the dirty coal electricity plants run by the Chinese government? Or all the emissions produced by aircraft from a major airline or a shipping company like FedEx? Or the daily operations of the United States military, with all their gas-guzzling Hummers and armoured vehicles, not to mention hundreds of diesel-burning ships and thousands of jet aircraft?

Seriously?

I didn't think that any of the coal electricity plants counted towards the carbon reduction plans in Kyoto because they're a developing nation.

BTW, I'm just having fun with you. But out of all of the audiences at this concept how many people do you think put in thier ipod headphones and listened to music during Al Gore's speech, and all of the videos because all they came out for was ROCK AND ROLL, CHICKS and GRASS.

These concerts do very little to raise awareness or affect changes. There were better ways to promote environmental issues then a rock concert.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

However, governments WON'T do that unless their is political pressure to do so. Unless the electorate demands that the government put in tax breaks/incentives, then they won't do it. And how do we get the electorate to demand these things from their government?

As for industry asking people to conserve.... mmm.... don't know about that one....

Governments are doing that though, there is already pressure which has lead to incentives for fuel efficient vehicles and a tax placed on SUVs. Really does a concert however change much in people's minds... no it just means that they got to listen to their favorite band. Do you think people turned into Live Aide because of people in Africa?

People for the most part will have turned in to watch their favorite performer and not because they have some undying love for the enviroment that will be confirmed by a lead singer

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There were better ways to promote environmental issues then a rock concert.

Such as? I think just about every other avenue has been attempted.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

I'm just not seeing another way of doing it. If it's a good idea (which is all I can assume you believe since you state it's not a bad idea), then shouldn't you be able to look past the 'carbon footprint' it's making and see the good in cause?

I guess I just don't get how talking about this is a bad idea, regardless of where an artist had to fly to perform. And just to be clear, I'm not at all a radically progressive environmentalist. Also, I would love five minutes to give Jack Layton a peice of my mind...

I'm just average joe that's realized we need to do something about this whole thing...and I'll gladly support any cause going towards it, even if a few more airplanes will be taking off than usual.

Its like you father smoke in hand telling his kids never to smoke.
________
ALTO LAPIN