Live Earth Concert - unwatchable propaganda crap - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

POS · #1 07-07-2007, 05:46 PM

Geeze. I watched some of this today because I wanted to see some of the bands, but after a good hour or so, I turned it off. Unwatchable. In between bands were short films about how the climate change is human's fault, how erosion is human's fault, how climate change needs to "fixed", how US consumes too much of this, too much of that. We're all evil here on the planet, and we're killing everything.

Yuck. Al Gore should be banned from America. Total propoganda and brain washing sponsored by idiots. Sometimes I wish I could just turn off the flow information into my personal world, but I think there's a responsibility there for all of us.

Palangi · #2 07-07-2007, 06:30 PM

Yep, I wonder how much fossil fuel was expended in putting on this extravaganza.

cmac2012 · #3 07-09-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palangi

Yep, I wonder how much fossil fuel was expended in putting on this extravaganza.

A fair amount, no doubt. I think it was the Red Hot Chili Peppers I heard about, saying they were going to appear in 3 different concerts in 3 different continents, like, all on the same day, dude!! Whoa, rock on!!

Dee8go · #4 07-09-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

A fair amount, no doubt. I think it was the Red Hot Chili Peppers I heard about, saying they were going to appear in 3 different concerts in 3 different continents, like, all on the same day, dude!! Whoa, rock on!!

After burners, - ON!

Mistress · #5 07-09-2007, 04:09 PM

we should have a rock concert for stem cell research...

peragro · #6 07-09-2007, 05:33 PM

I think there are some things that we can all do to help reduce our carbon footprint. Here are some things that I've adopted; and I urge you all to do the same:

1. I am increasing my use of ethanol derived from grape mass and various cereals and grains.

2. I now open all canned sodas (and cans of beer, which is seldom as I prefer bottles or draft) much slower so as to decrease the rate of CO2 emmisions.

3. I'm eating more and excercising less. This is a double CO2 whammy; less excercise means less exhalation thus less atmospheric CO2 pollution. Heavier people are composed of more carbon thus a greater sequestering of the nasty stuff (there's your reason for St. ALGORE's weight gain).

4. In keeping with point #3 I'm consuming moor farm animals (wild ones too), thus reducing their carbon emissions.

5. I'm lobbying Greens to put their money where their mouth is (ironic, isn't it)and halt their carbon emissions. Those who succesfully complete this process can then be turned into biofuels. We could call it "Soylent Crude" (it works on so many levels...)

6. I'm petitioning my Congressman and Senators to reduce the law of gravity so that less energy will be needed to move the same mass, thus saving energy and thus less evil carbon released.

7. Finally, I'm on track with my own carbon reduction plan. By the year 2150 I will equal my 1900 carbon usage.

Hatterasguy · #7 07-09-2007, 08:49 PM

Well if all these people are so concerned about the earth they should start:

Get rid of all the private jets, choppers, and boats.
Get rid of the 20k sf homes, only have one, 1ksf engery efficient, solar panals etc etc.
Get rid of the cars Ferrari's, Mercedes, horrible on mileage. Trade them in for scooters or fuel efficiant cars.
Get rid of all the clothing, tons of polution there.

When Al Gore does that is when hell freezes over.

raymr · #8 07-07-2007, 06:56 PM

I didn't see the show, but we DO consume too much of this and too much of that. Our per capita energy consumption is 2-3x higher than in Europe, and almost infinitely higher than the rest of the world. Whether that contributes significantly to global warming and erosion is another question. Our high consumption does make us easy and obvious culprits though.

I think China is doing much more damage to the world's ecosystems than we are, but then again they have taken over our heavy industries which are hard to make 'green'. They are also in money-making mode and they don't want to hear about environmental responsibility.

LaRondo · #9 07-08-2007, 01:00 AM

Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on?

Last updated at 15:42pm on 7th July 2007

Comments (7)
As Madonna bounds on to the huge Wembley stage to save the planet, how the assembled Greenies will cheer.

The superstar is today fronting the massive Live Earth event, with nine concerts played over 24 hours across seven continents before an audience of two billion.

The much-hyped bid to save the world is being masterminded by former U.S. vice president Al Gore - who helped focus attention on the environmental movement with his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth - and features artists including The Police, Red Hot Chili Peppers, UB40 and Metallica.

No doubt to rapturous applause, Madonna will call for mass global change to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle 'climate crisis'.

Watching the veteran star lap up the adoration, her entourage could, however, be forgiven for exchanging slightly jaded glances - having witnessed her jet in for the concert from New York.
For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.
Read more...

The greatest show on Live Earth kicks off

Scroll down for more ...

Hypocrisy: Madonna will strut on stage today preaching at her viewers to save the planet - yet she herself produces more than 100 times the average amount of waste produced by Britons in a year

Indeed, Madonna's carbon footprint is dwarfed only by her ego - she has vowed that she will 'speak to the planet' at Wembley. In fact, an apology might be in order - for the superstar's energy consumption is only the tip of the iceberg in this epic vanity-fest.

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".
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.

Moreover, the pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote - with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world.

Sepermodel Kate Moss, another profligate polluter through her use of private jets, is producing a T-shirt for the event. Yet, Gore is touting the concerts as 'carbon neutral'. So how can that be?

Let us start with some facts. Worldwide, an audience of around 1,268,500 is expected to attend the concerts - making it one of the largest global events in history.

Dr Andrea Collins, an expert in sustainability from Cardiff University, has researched the impact of such mass gatherings on the environment.

"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.

LaRondo · #10 07-08-2007, 01:05 AM

Scroll down for more ...

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. An extraordinary one million people are expected at the free concert at Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana beach, featuring Lenny Kravitz, Macy Gray and Pharrell Williams.
Other venues including the Coca-Cola Dome in Johannesburg - where Joss Stone is performing - will cater for audiences of tens of thousands.

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.

The veteran pop singer's Confessions tour last year produced 440 tonnes of carbon pollution in just four months, simply in flights between venues. This does not include the trucks required to transport equipment, the power needed to stage each show, or the transport for fans travelling to each concert.

Rock group Genesis re-formed last year and are in the middle of their European tour. The three-man band will fit their Live Earth performance into a tour of at least 47 locations across the world. Their carbon footprint last year totalled 195 tonnes.

James Blunt, another Wembley performer, completed his world tour of the U.S. last year, racking up a carbon footprint of 195 tonnes.

American band Red Hot Chili Peppers have, like Madonna, flown in to Wembley from the U.S.. They have produced 220 tonnes of carbon dioxide with their private jet alone over the last six months.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has learnt that Bon Jovi left the UK this week to travel back by private jet to the U.S. to perform at the New York stadium for the American leg of Live Earth.

Music impresario Andrew Lloyd Webber's ex-wife Sarah Brightman is being flown out to sing at the Shanghai concert in China. This is a distance of 5,679.95 miles, producing one tonne of carbon dioxide pollution.
Two other acts have already been criticised for being paid to promote fuel-guzzling cars. John Legend is featured in a Lexus advert, while Sheryl Crow's hit Everyday Is A Winding Road is used to sell Subaru 4WDs.

Plans for concert organiser Al Gore to appear at the event in both Britain and America on the same day were scuppered due to fears of the backlash it would cause

Such is the level of disquiet felt about Live Earth in New Zealand, that a pressure group called the Climaction Coalition, is urging people to protest against it on July 7. Radiohead, who are pioneers in eco-friendly performing, have refused to appear. Of course, Live Earth is doing its utmost to ensure the event is 'green' in appearance at least - stars will be ferried between the stage and dressing room by energy-efficient Smart Cars and biodiesel fuelled Mercedes.

A proposal for Gore to appear at concerts in Britain and America on the same day - something that Phil Collins, the Genesis drummer and singer, was able to do at the original Live Aid in 1985, courtesy of Concorde - has been dropped because of the anger that the 'gas-guzzling' flight would provoke.

Andrea Robinson, Live Earth's green manager, says her message to celebrities is: "Leave the Learjet at home - fly commercial."

Wembley Stadium will be lit using low energy fluorescent lightbulbs, while the backdrop is composed of recycled tyres and oil drums. The organisers tried to introduce re-usable cups for interval refreshments, but found that - like many green strategies - this was not practical on such a huge scale.

Some bio-produced plastic, made from corn, will be used, and artists' changing rooms will be fitted with energy-saving lightbulbs - all rather a drop in the ocean compared to the pollution generated by fans traveling across the UK to the concert or using the stadium's 2,618 toilets. Plans to ask the British public to turn off their electrical appliances during the Live Earth broadcast were scuppered when the National Grid pointed out that as everyone switched on again, a giant power surge could cripple the country.

Some stadiums are greener than others. The Aussie Stadium in Sydney will run the event on 100 per cent green energy supply. Each Australian Live Earth ticket comes with a free public transport voucher, while all the bathrooms will be waterless with waste being composted into fertiliser.

Conversely, in New York's Giants Stadium, trade unions have blocked Live Earth's attempts to recycle, and the 52,000-seater arena is not situated near public transport. The smallest - and least polluting - concert will be held at the British Antarctic Survey's base in Rothera.

Bizarrely, the concerts are also being 'independently audited' by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers over the next seven weeks, to assess the level of pollution they will have generated.

It is unclear what benefit this exercise will have, although the Live Earth organisers talk in terms of providing a 'legacy' for future events, showing how recycling and low-impact travel can be encouraged, and carbon-offsetting used. But the fact remains - massive rock concerts are hardly eco-friendly.

So just how does Gore claim that Live Earth will be carbon neutral? He does so by convenient use of 'carbon offsetting' - a trendy new method of absolving yourself of guilt.

Carbon offsetting involves 'neutralising' the emissions you are responsible for by buying 'credits'.
A spokesperson for Live Earth says: "This might involve buying environmentally sound lightbulbs for a Third World school, planting trees, or installing solar panels in a developing country."

A huge industry has sprung up to provide corporations with carbon credits.
However, critics say that the practice is simply a way for consumerist industries and nations to export their responsibility to developing countries. Others say it simply does not work.

Carbon-offsetting is, it turns out, how celebrities square green issues with their extravagant lifestyles and use of private jets.

Jon Bon Jovi has said: "We wrote a cheque, we took care of our footprint and raised awareness, blah blah blah."

When Gore - who himself spent eight years flying on Air Force Two - was asked if he had persuaded Madonna to stop using private jets, he said: 'Well, I appreciate and respect her as an artist and as a person, and there are many artists who are offsetting their role in contributing to the CO2 build-up, and I understand that.' A rather longwinded way of saying 'no'.

Madonna has, however, been given an instruction handbook on climate crisis by Live Earth.

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.

Rego explains: "All the events are carbon neutral. We have chosen a reforestation and reagricultural project in Mozambique. It is a credible certifiable carbon-diffused project. We are in the process of purchasing a carbon offset."

Dr Collins says: "Taking a flight and planting a tree does not add up. It does not make it all right. It is having your cake and eating it."

Dr John Barrett, from the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, says: "There is a huge irony in flying halfway across the globe in a private jet, eating up fossil fuel.

"The idea that you can offset the pollution you cause is just ridiculous. What these people at Live Earth have done is defined their boundaries to suit themselves, but there is no sense in which this concert is carbon neutral.

"Planting trees or investing in renewable energy does not reverse the damage of releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the environment.

"It is far better not to pollute in the first place. Carbon offsetting can be a removal of guilt, but it is not an effective one."

Live Earth is encouraging 'citizens of the world' to take small steps: share a car, plant a shrub, turn off a light or hang out washing rather than use a dryer.
But Dr Barrett says: "It would be far better for these celebrities to stay at home. Holding large concerts to highlight environmental concerns and cut carbon emissions just seems ridiculous. What planet do these people live on?"

Matt SD300 · #11 07-08-2007, 01:58 AM

Live Burp.............

peragro · #12 07-08-2007, 02:24 AM

hypocritical? Yes.

But I'm not any more worried about the carbon put out by the Live Earth concert than I am any carbon put out by anyone or anything. It's when they want to put a price tag on it (well, anymore of a price tag...) that bothers me.

I must say though, I think it's laudable that folks in the Green movement strive to achieve carbon neutrality. Here's to wishing them success in their endeavor to stop their own carbon emissions.

It will make life sooooo much easier for those of us who remain.

I, however, hope to be emitting carbon in various forms for many years to come; and I wish the same to the sensible among you as well.

PaulC · #13 07-08-2007, 10:26 PM

Someone should tell Al to lay off of the carbs.

Botnst · #14 07-08-2007, 11:31 PM

Let's improve life in the present, and the future
By focusing exclusively on future warming, Live Earth does a disservice to development and disease prevention in the here and now.

Printer-friendly version Email-a-friend Respond

The Live Earth concerts will hopefully be a lot of fun for those who get the chance to see them live or watch them on television. But I think the organisers are wrong when they say that climate change is the most pressing issue facing mankind.

If you ask the 15million people who are going to die from easily curable infectious diseases next year, the idea that climate change is our top priority seems to be massively overblown. What’s even more important is that you ask: ‘Where can we actually do some good?’ The answer is overwhelmingly: we can do very little good if we focus on climate change policies, whereas we can do immense amounts of good if we focus on some of the many other problems in the world.

For example: deadly diseases such as HIV-AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis; malnutrition, especially lack of micronutrients but also lack of calories; and lack of market access. Those are some of the most obvious places where we can put in place very cheap and advantageous policy measures and help huge swathes of humanity. And we’ll be helping them in such a way that their societies become stronger, so that their descendents will get much better off and thereby become much less vulnerable to whatever the future holds - including climate change.

Climate change is a problem, and it definitely is one that we need to tackle over this century. But to say that this is the first and foremost thing that we need to tackle, as Tim Flannery said in a Financial Times interview a week ago, that this is the one thing we need to focus on in the next 10 years - that is simply ridiculous. We would be doing something that will help people very little - and only in a hundred years from now - at a very high cost. Meanwhile, we would be neglecting the fact that we could do massive amounts of good for less money for a lot of the people living right now - and in the process helping their descendents much more.

We know how to solve many of these problems, just as we know how to deal with climate change. If you want to stop HIV-AIDS, it’s about information, about providing condoms. If you want to stop global warming, it’s about cutting carbon emissions. My point is that cutting carbon emissions costs a lot and it provides only a small benefit 100 years from now; handing out condoms and information, however, is very cheap and it works for people suffering from HIV-AIDS right now.

It’s the same with malaria. We need to get mosquito nets, proper treatment for those infected; we need to be spraying homes and public areas to keep mosquito numbers down, and we need to pursue other public eradication policies. If you look at malnutrition, there are, again, some very cheap treatments that can tackle things like the lack of iron, which causes deficits of up to 12 to 14 IQ points and affects more than two billion people on this planet. This could be very easily avoided by just giving people an iron pot in which they would cook their meals and thereby get iron. Why are we, as a civilisation, focused on trying to solve the most difficult problem - climate change - when there are these other problems which are so much more easily tackled?

The costs of current carbon emission reduction programmes are immense. The annual costs of Kyoto, had everyone participated and stuck to their obligations (which is the only way it could have even a modest effect), are estimated to be around $180billion. Just to give you a sense of proportion, we now spend in overseas development aid somewhere around $80billion - so we’re talking about more than twice the amount of current aid levels being spent on Kyoto, which does very little good. To put it another way: if you invest in Kyoto, you will probably avoid about a thousand malaria deaths per year across the rest of this century; however, for one-sixtieth of the cost of Kyoto we could avoid 850,000 malaria deaths. In other words, for every malaria death avoided through Kyoto, I could, with the same amount of money, avoid 20,000 malaria deaths by tackling the problem directly. I would say that, as a ‘generational mission’, as a moral obligation, it lies with us to save 20,000 people rather than saving one.

More at: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3568/

Larry Delor · #15 07-09-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...however, for one-sixtieth of the cost of Kyoto we could avoid 850,000 malaria deaths.

What the author doesn't want to understand is that the money isn't being spent on malaria treatment on purpose. Why? Because those treatments would result in 850,000 more carbon footprints that the earth could do without. Instead, they will be made into Soylent Crude, as peragro suggested.