China to be host of Global Peace Concert for Earth Day

Jeanwah

Byrnzie wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Could America's relationship with the Middle East be considered "peaceful"?

This is the second response to my question regarding China being peaceful where the response is not a direct answer, but refers to the U.S. I'm not talking about peace in the U.S., we all know we're not that peaceful internally, nor with other nations. I'm talking about China, here.

So you choose to apply different standards to China than those you apply to the U.S. Why is that?

Why is it that you can't answer a question directly, but rather twist it around? Are you a politician?

I'm asking a direct question...Do you think that their relationship with Tibet could be considered "peaceful"?

If the U.S. had a global concert for Peace and the Environment on Earth Day, I'd think it was somewhat of a joke too. It's no secret that China and the U.S. are the two most polluting countries in the world. It's hardly awareness when the host country demonstrates the worst in environmental awareness on the whole, nor are they the most peaceful.

Byrnzie

Jeanwah wrote:

Why is it that you can't answer a question directly, but rather twist it around? Are you a politician?

I'm asking a direct question...Do you think that their relationship with Tibet could be considered "peaceful"?

If the U.S. had a global concert for Peace and the Environment on Earth Day, I'd think it was somewhat of a joke too. It's no secret that China and the U.S. are the two most polluting countries in the world. It's hardly awareness when the host country demonstrates the worst in environmental awareness on the whole, nor are they the most peaceful.

So maybe Pearl Jam shouldn't play anywhere, but just sit at home instead.

Jeanwah

Byrnzie wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Why is it that you can't answer a question directly, but rather twist it around? Are you a politician?

I'm asking a direct question...Do you think that their relationship with Tibet could be considered "peaceful"?

If the U.S. had a global concert for Peace and the Environment on Earth Day, I'd think it was somewhat of a joke too. It's no secret that China and the U.S. are the two most polluting countries in the world. It's hardly awareness when the host country demonstrates the worst in environmental awareness on the whole, nor are they the most peaceful.

So maybe Pearl Jam shouldn't play anywhere, but just sit at home instead.

Still didn't answer it...this is getting tiresome. :?

Byrnzie

Jeanwah wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Why is it that you can't answer a question directly, but rather twist it around? Are you a politician?

I'm asking a direct question...Do you think that their relationship with Tibet could be considered "peaceful"?

If the U.S. had a global concert for Peace and the Environment on Earth Day, I'd think it was somewhat of a joke too. It's no secret that China and the U.S. are the two most polluting countries in the world. It's hardly awareness when the host country demonstrates the worst in environmental awareness on the whole, nor are they the most peaceful.

So maybe Pearl Jam shouldn't play anywhere, but just sit at home instead.

Still didn't answer it...this is getting tiresome. :?

Your question is irrelevant. The concert isn't being put on in order to support China's actions in Tibet. I expect it's something closer to the opposite. And this thread became tiresome as soon as you hopped on your moral high horse.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

So you choose to apply different standards to China than those you apply to the U.S. Why is that?

You really never answer a question.

It's comical the way you blast the US, Europe and yet defend China.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

So you choose to apply different standards to China than those you apply to the U.S. Why is that?

You really never answer a question.

It's comical the way you blast the US, Europe and yet defend China.

I wondered at what point you were gonna chime in with your two cents worth.

CJMST3K

Byrnzie wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Still didn't answer it...this is getting tiresome. :?

Your question is irrelevant.[/quote]

...and there's the answer to your question. :roll:

cincybearcat

I'm fine with having the concert wherever the promoter feels is best for their intentions. I'm sure they were waiting for my approval too.

But, I am willing to bet that it doesn't have any effect/impact on China in regards to environmentalism. The same arguments were given for awarding the Olympics to China, and little to no progress was made.

But in reality, any time just about anyone wants to put on a free concert, I think it's a great idea.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

So you choose to apply different standards to China than those you apply to the U.S. Why is that?

You really never answer a question.

It's comical the way you blast the US, Europe and yet defend China.

I wondered at what point you were gonna chime in with your two cents worth.

I'm glad I could ease your mind.

In all seriousness, it seems out of character for you to be defending China the way you do. It doesn't appear to be consistent at all.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

In all seriousness, it seems out of character for you to be defending China the way you do. It doesn't appear to be consistent at all.

Just putting things in their proper perspective is all. Like I said elsewhere, Americans are currently engaged in ransacking two sovereign countries, whilst also blocking any attempt at peace in the Middle East. The U.S is also the worlds biggest polluter. And yet you jump at the chance to get on your moral high horse when it comes to China? Why is that?

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

In all seriousness, it seems out of character for you to be defending China the way you do. It doesn't appear to be consistent at all.

Just putting things in their proper perspective is all. Like I said elsewhere, Americans are currently engaged in ransacking two sovereign countries, whilst also blocking any attempt at peace in the Middle East. The U.S is also the worlds biggest polluter. And yet you jump at the chance to get on your moral high horse when it comes to China? Why is that?

What did I say about China? Not sure I jumped on any moral high horse.

However, if this is regarding EARTH DAY, both China and the US have a ways to go, but China is close to last place in this race. But that is why it also makes sense to have the concert there. But, because of it's political system, the effect of a concert like this is most likely going to be close to zero in China.

Jeanwah

Byrnzie wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

So maybe Pearl Jam shouldn't play anywhere, but just sit at home instead.

Still didn't answer it...this is getting tiresome. :?

Your question is irrelevant. The concert isn't being put on in order to support China's actions in Tibet. I expect it's something closer to the opposite. And this thread became tiresome as soon as you hopped on your moral high horse.

Moral high horse? Because I point out that China is hardly deserving of a global peace and environmental awareness concert? Whatev.

You still refuse to answer the question. Is the gov't you live under not allowing you to?

Jeanwah

You have plenty to say about the U.S. Byrnzie...but change the topic, and you just try to veer it back to the U.S.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

However, if this is regarding EARTH DAY, both China and the US have a ways to go, but China is close to last place in this race. But that is why it also makes sense to have the concert there.

+1

cincybearcat wrote:

But, because of it's political system, the effect of a concert like this is most likely going to be close to zero in China.

Possibly, although if they do broadcast it across the country - even after editing out any remarks about the CCP that they deem offensive/confrontational - then it should generate some interest in these issues, and may lead to some positive action. China is slowly but surely opening up to the world and to foreign influences and ideas, so IMO this can only be good for China and ultimately for the rest of the world.

Byrnzie

Jeanwah wrote:

I point out that China is hardly deserving of a global peace and environmental awareness concert?

And I point out that you should take your blinkers off when looking at China. The Chinese are not the bogeymen that you believe they are.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100113/en ... 0113165333
"My belief in music as a universal language is the reason I returned to Beijing to voice my support for the Show of Peace," said Page, who performed the Led Zeppelin classic "Whole Lotta Love" at the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics last year.

"This (concert) is a tribute to the power of music and its positive effect. Music has been one of the most powerful languages that speaks to the heart of the people around the world."

Sponsors include the Chinese People?s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, the China-based non-profit Joint-US China Collaboration on Clean Energy, the United Nations? NGO Pathways to Peace, and Ted Turner's Captain Planet Foundation...'

Shame we can't all be this positive. :roll:

Jeanwah

Byrnzie wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I point out that China is hardly deserving of a global peace and environmental awareness concert?

And I point out that you should take your blinkers off when looking at China. The Chinese are not the bogeymen that you believe they are.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100113/en ... 0113165333
"My belief in music as a universal language is the reason I returned to Beijing to voice my support for the Show of Peace," said Page, who performed the Led Zeppelin classic "Whole Lotta Love" at the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics last year.

"This (concert) is a tribute to the power of music and its positive effect. Music has been one of the most powerful languages that speaks to the heart of the people around the world."

Sponsors include the Chinese People?s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, the China-based non-profit Joint-US China Collaboration on Clean Energy, the United Nations? NGO Pathways to Peace, and Ted Turner's Captain Planet Foundation...'

Shame we can't all be this positive. :roll:

I don't believe China is a bunch of boogeymen (well except for the govt). Just to be fair, you weren't defending China, you were changing the subject, up to this point.

Like Cincy, I'm all for a free concert as well, but don't think it will do anything about spreading awareness throughout that region (as well as possible the rest of the world). Not to mention the whole event will need to be sanctioned.

There's also something very oxymoronic about these supposed "Let's go Green by flying in all these musicians with their planes full of equipment to one place and play for the world so they can go Green." How about a free Live Internet event, having musicians play from their respective home areas? Now that's being Green.

cincybearcat

Jeanwah wrote:

There's also something very oxymoronic about these supposed "Let's go Green by flying in all these musicians with their planes full of equipment to one place and play for the world so they can go Green." How about a free Live Internet event, having musicians play from their respective home areas? Now that's being Green.

True, but sometimes you gotta spend money to make money...if you know what I mean.

You wouldn't get the same attention from the general public from an internet concert.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

There's also something very oxymoronic about these supposed "Let's go Green by flying in all these musicians with their planes full of equipment to one place and play for the world so they can go Green." How about a free Live Internet event, having musicians play from their respective home areas? Now that's being Green.

True, but sometimes you gotta spend money to make money...if you know what I mean.

You wouldn't get the same attention from the general public from an internet concert.

Not to mention that something of this sort has never occurred in China before, so, like the Olympics, the Chinese will go crazy for it.

Smellyman

The US is a big polluter, but is a big country. Per capita Australia is the biggest Carbon polluters. Europe as a whole is a much bigger polluter than the US and a much bigger population. China if they actually reported anything would BY FAR be the biggest polluter in the world.

Byrnzie

Smellyman wrote:

The US is a big polluter, but is a big country. Per capita Australia is the biggest Carbon polluters. Europe as a whole is a much bigger polluter than the US and a much bigger population. China if they actually reported anything would BY FAR be the biggest polluter in the world.

Looks like you're right. Then what better place to hold an environment festival than China?



http://www.thenewecologist.com/2009/10/ ... polluters/

'China has now overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest polluter; its carbon emissions have more than doubled in a decade. However, US and China, world’s biggest polluters, promise to address global climate change at the Climate Change Summit at the UN General Assembly in New York, recently.

India, now the fourth biggest polluter, is also rapidly increasing its emissions, and is increasing its population of 1.15 billion people far faster than any other country; soon its human numbers will be on a par with China’s and its emissions following suit.

Australia has overtaken the USA and is now classified most at risk out of 185 countries, according to the CO2 Energy Emissions Index (CEEI), released by UK based, global risks analyst, Maplecroft.

Australians now emit 20.58 tons of CO2 per person annually, whereas American’s emit 19.78 tons, almost a 4% difference. Canada meanwhile emits 18.81 tons per person.

In sharp contrast the emerging markets of China and India, considered two of the world’s worst overall CO2 polluters, annually emit 4.5 and 1.16 tons per person respectively.

http://www.euromonitor.com/Mapping_glob ... _polluters

'China is the world's biggest polluter with 7.3 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in 2008. Rapid economic growth (averaging 10.0% annually over 2000-2008) and a large manufacturing sector have resulted in China overtaking the USA as the biggest polluter. In November 2009, China announced ahead of the UN summit that it would decrease its carbon intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP) by 40-45% by 2020 from 2005 levels;
The USA is the second largest polluter in the world with 5.9 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in 2008. The USA announced in November 2009 that it would reduce carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels.

While emerging markets are catching up with developed markets in terms of total emissions (with Russia and India also amongst the top polluters), their per capita emissions are generally much lower than advanced economies leading to controversy of where responsibility lies for climate change. Many emerging markets argue that emissions targets will come at the expense of their development:
North America's per capita CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, for example, was 19,251 kg per capita in 2008 compared to 3,379 kg per capita in Asia Pacific;
Australia is the OECD's biggest polluter in per capita terms stemming from its large mining sector and reliance on coal at 20,619 kg per capita in 2008. In comparison, China had 5,508 kg per capita in the same year and Nigeria just 712 kg per capita.