Live Earth and Hypocisy

Coming back to life

mdigenakis wrote:

PJ should of played Live Earth. Practice what you preach.

That's the problem. All these numpties don't. I reckon my carbon footprint is less than any one musician who's playing live earth, yet while they could retire today with the money they've got, they are telling people who are living on a shoestring to turn the kettle off, turn the tap off, turn the tv off, take 2 hours to go 10 miles on public transport to work when there's no work nearer, etc, etc. I hope they enjoy their numerous flights a year and their end of tour parties, which use up more rubbish than I'm told I'm allowed to put in the bin. I'm proud of PJ for not playing the most plastic gig ever, pun intended.

mdigenakis

Coming back to life wrote:

That's the problem. All these numpties don't. I reckon my carbon footprint is less than any one musician who's playing live earth, yet while they could retire today with the money they've got, they are telling people who are living on a shoestring to turn the kettle off, turn the tap off, turn the tv off, take 2 hours to go 10 miles on public transport to work when there's no work nearer, etc, etc. I hope they enjoy their numerous flights a year and their end of tour parties, which use up more rubbish than I'm told I'm allowed to put in the bin. I'm proud of PJ for not playing the most plastic gig ever, pun intended.

good point.

Medicated-Genius

Jeanwah wrote:

I agree. There are a lot of people out there who insist on concentrating on the problem, rather than the solution, and it's usually the people who refuse to do anything about the environment anyway in the first place.

For those who believe that these concerts are doing more harm than good, I ask you -- And what do you propose? What are your solutions to global warming and are you out there increasing awareness and initiating change? How about quit the bitching and be part of the solution, rather than the problem.

Well, I do my bit. I try to live an environmentally friendly life, I try my best to instill that in my children as well. I am far from perfect and could probably do a whole lot more. Not sure if you were referring to me, but i wasn't bitching so much, I was commenting and offering my opinion on the article posted and my thoughts about the whole thing. Raising awareness of issues like this is never a bad thing, I just think it's a little ironic that in supporting and promoting the awareness of this particular cause, it's going to produce a whole lot of the pollution, emissions and waste that they are trying to decrease.

binauralsounds

Coming back to life wrote:

That's the problem. All these numpties don't. I reckon my carbon footprint is less than any one musician who's playing live earth, yet while they could retire today with the money they've got, they are telling people who are living on a shoestring to turn the kettle off, turn the tap off, turn the tv off, take 2 hours to go 10 miles on public transport to work when there's no work nearer, etc, etc. I hope they enjoy their numerous flights a year and their end of tour parties, which use up more rubbish than I'm told I'm allowed to put in the bin. I'm proud of PJ for not playing the most plastic gig ever, pun intended.

Me too. Glad PJ isn't apart of this most polluted Live concert shit on Earth!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Worldwide Live Earth Concerts Draw Massive Crowds:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070707/music-live-earth/

Jeanwah

Medicated-Genius wrote:

Well, I do my bit. I try to live an environmentally friendly life, I try my best to instill that in my children as well. I am far from perfect and could probably do a whole lot more. Not sure if you were referring to me, but i wasn't bitching so much, I was commenting and offering my opinion on the article posted and my thoughts about the whole thing. Raising awareness of issues like this is never a bad thing, I just think it's a little ironic that in supporting and promoting the awareness of this particular cause, it's going to produce a whole lot of the pollution, emissions and waste that they are trying to decrease.

I wasn't aiming that post to anyone individually, I should have stated that, sorry. And I agree that they could have done better at walking the walk with the way that Live Earth is organized.

Ms. Haiku

A live concert 24 hours/7 continents will be remembered as big concerts like this are remembered. The message will live longer if not the memory of the concert will longer than many of us. Our children and grandchildren will know about this concert. I was 1 when Woodstock occured, but when I see the movie I get chills. There is a long term impact from a big concert like this. There will be reunion concerts, and radio/computer stations 10 or 20 years from now airing bits and pieces of it. The message will resurface every time it's mentioned.

It's a concert bottom line. I love concerts. I was listening to a little of the Snow Patrol and Linkin Park bit, and I wish I could see it.

I don't know how much waste will be landfilled compared to how much waste that will be given a *second life* as compost, recycled stuff etc, but the concert is big enough that the message in the long run may neutralize some negatives affects. A concert is a more enjoyable protest than a day long march on the Washington Mall. I've been to concerts and protests/marches. They can both inspire, and there are waste management issues for both.

Has anyone actually visited the Live Earth site and reviewed the waste management policies?

Found it! http://www.liveearth.org

With support from the U.S. Green Building Council, creators of the LEED Green Building Rating System, Live Earth will implement new Green Event Guidelines. All Live Earth venues will be designed and constructed by a team of sustainability engineers who will address the environmental and energy management challenges of each concert site, as well as the operations of sponsors, partners and other Live Earth affiliates. Each venue will not only be designed to maintain a minimum environmental impact, but will showcase the latest state-of-the-art energy efficiency, on-site power generation, and sustainable facilities management practices.

Excellent they are using USGBC! It would be interesting to see how the architecture/engineering of the concerts differ than those that don't focus on sustainable practices. Once data is collected after the concerts it would be interesting to see if the promoters/organizers adhered to the marketed principles of the concert, or if they created a hoax.

RainDog

Meh, it's less hypocritical than bombing for peace.

And considering that most of the people "opposed" to this concert are all for war, I'd say the concert organizers are far less hypocritical than the average Iraq war supporters.

But I can't blame them. They need to stop things like this concert from getting it's message out. After all, it's electoral poison for their side.

Truthmonger

Is it just me, or is anyone else thinking like this ? : that all the measures being taken right now, no matter how onerous, amount to a hill of beans. Its tokenism. When you have 6.5 billion people consuming and polluting the planet, its game over. Why do we think that reducing pollution etc. by 10-20% will matter. It won't. I don't mean to be fatalistic, but it will take revolutionary changes in how we live in order for us to continue living here.

By the way, I'm a hypocrite like many others. I'm just calling like I see it.

JOEJOEJOE

Its true that the concerts may cause some pollution, but if they raise awareness that helps the planet in the future, then its all good.

For those who say that the event won't do anything to raise awareness, think about how much a certain guitar player has done for the CCFA. People here flock like sheep to his cause.

Just because you don't like the BEPs or KT Tunstall, many others do, and if their performances help raise awareness, we all win.

||Release_Me||

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Its true that the concerts may cause some pollution, but if they raise awareness that helps the planet in the future, then its all good.

For those who say that the event won't do anything to raise awareness, think about how much a certain guitar player has done for the CCFA. People here flock like sheep to his cause.

Just because you don't like the BEPs or KT Tunstall, many others do, and if their performances help raise awareness, we all win.

I agree. And besides, the Foo Fighters rocked the place.

keeponrockin

||Release_Me|| wrote:

I agree. And besides, the Foo Fighters rocked the place.

+1

Hinny

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Its true that the concerts may cause some pollution, but if they raise awareness that helps the planet in the future, then its all good..

I guess the question is is there actually anyone out there with half a clue who isn't aware of global warming already?

I reckon it's great that they went to all the trouble of powering everything with bio-diesel generators. But instead of using all that on a bunch of purposely organised concerts, ok, keeping the music and environmental theme, just as easily they could've checked in with all the big bands who were scheduled to play their own shows on a particular day, and coordinate with everyone so all those concerts which would be going ahead anyway would all take on an environmental message, and power them up with bio-diesel as well. No extra litter, no extra energy used, no acts purposely flying in to any particular on private jets for a one off show.

And no need to produce a big batch of those 'oh look at me I support a cause' plastic wristbands.

OneLove

Hinny wrote:

I guess the question is is there actually anyone out there with half a clue who isn't aware of global warming already?

I reckon it's great that they went to all the trouble of powering everything with bio-diesel generators. But instead of using all that on a bunch of purposely organised concerts, ok, keeping the music and environmental theme, just as easily they could've checked in with all the big bands who were scheduled to play their own shows on a particular day, and coordinate with everyone so all those concerts which would be going ahead anyway would all take on an environmental message, and power them up with bio-diesel as well. No extra litter, no extra energy used, no acts purposely flying in to any particular on private jets for a one off show.

And no need to produce a big batch of those 'oh look at me I support a cause' plastic wristbands.

I think the point of the concert was to get people talking, which it certainly has. One could define that as a success in and of itself.

Yes, most folks have heard something about global warming. I would argue that the average person has no real clue what it means though. So perhaps in addition to getting people talking, they've also educated some people as well.

What really irritates me about all the whining about live earth is that if PJ had performed there, as there would be twice the positive energy put into this. Because PJ didn't play, there seems to be a school of thought on this board that there MUST be something wrong with it.

Bash all you want, but I firmly believe that the essense of what is happening is good.

meme

Jeanwah wrote:

You do realize you're talking about PJ too, don't you? I don't want to abolish that.

I say just keep Pearl Jam and the couple other bands who are worth seeing.

PissBottleMan

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

For those who say that the event won't do anything to raise awareness, think about how much a certain guitar player has done for the CCFA. People here flock like sheep to his cause.

That's an excellent point Joe. Prior to 2003, the only quasi-celebrity that I knew that had Crohn's was Kelsey Grammer's wife.

If you have the platform to make a difference, use it.

Change starts with awareness. If you are cognizant of the dire situation at hand, then, you are more likely to keep in with you.

PBM

polaris

this is a tough one ... it falls into the same thing as the greenwashing that is going on with the big companies like home depot and wal-mart ... in one hand a step forward is better then nothing but on another hand - it really isn't the change we need to see happen ...

the modern-day environmental movement struggles with who and what we embrace ... there is an effort to be more inclusive to try and foster change but in the end - we don't want to be exploited either ...

i hope this concert raised enuf awareness to compensate for the excessiveness - but it remains to be seen ...

CorporateWhore

The economist in me wants to ask, "What's the net benefit of the concerts? Sure, they produce tons of pollution but if they convince enough people NOT to pollute, they result in a net 'benefit' for the environment."

Like Madonna. Her annual output was something like 1000tonnes right? And the average Briton uses just 10 tonnes? But, what if she convinces 1000 Britons to decrease their output by 1 tonne to 9 tonnes. Then that results in a negation of her carbon footprint. If she convinces more than that, then more people decrease their output and there is a not benefit for the environment.

Now, this is assuming you believe in all of that enviro-nazi bullshit. I don't.

This also assumes that Madonna can convince anyone of anything other than that she's a smoking hot milf.

jrb112476

binauralsounds wrote:

Scream for change for mother Earth, but lets fuck it up some more by really fuckin polluting it for a day. It's okay if we do it, cause We are Al Gore and Superstars. Fuck the common man. They'll get over it...


"Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.

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.

Remember, the average Briton produces just ten tonnes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=466775&in_page_id=1879

so, how do you propose we travel to different countries?? sailboat??

onelongsong

i'm waiting to hear how private interest groups raising a bunch of money will curb emissions. on sunday there was just as many cars on the road. walmart was just as packed as any other sunday and everyone still left with their purchaces in plastic bags made from oil. they still bought products made from oil.
while most bands earn at least $1 million a year; wouldn't it have been better for the artists to donate to the cause and save the extra emissions generated by the concerts? oh; wait; now we're back to the rich giving giving to charity thread.