How Green Will Live Earth Be?
by Bonnie Alter, London 
on 07. 4.07
The excitement is building in anticipation of this weekend's Live Earth concerts. Now there will be shows in Hamburg as well as Sydney, Tokyo, Rio, London, New York, Shanghai and Jo'burg. The star-studded list of celebs is growing, with lots of local acts being included in each city. Al Gore was in town, urging people to sign a seven-point pledge calling on governments to agree, within two years, to an international treaty that cuts global warming pollution by 90 per cent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide. Live Earth has an extensive Green Policy for the concerts. They have set up a team of “world class sustainability experts”, led by John Picard, a former member of Clinton’s Green White House task force, so that “waste streams will be designed out prior to its negative environmental impact” (what?). Sir Bob Geldof says it is a "waste of time" but some of the steps being planned include: electricity from renewable sources. Concessionaires will be encouraged to use biodegradable plastics and recycle. Production lighting will include LED lights, and signage will be recycled. Some tickets will be integrated with public transport. Of course they will offset their travel through carbon credits. Sceptics have also pointed to the amount of electricity used to power the speakers and lights, and the fuel spent on ferrying musicians and their equipment to the venues by plane and truck. However they are "trying to minimise the carbon as much as possible. Most artists are coming from nearby areas. Madonna, for example, lives in London and will be performing at Wembley." This treehugger will be there, with an 8:30 a.m. (EST) start for the London concert so stay tuned for an on the spot review. :: Live Earth
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Focus Earth: June 13, 2009: Everglades Nevermore and Snake Invaders
- 5 Ways Climate Change Will Affect Your Health, Plus How to Cope
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- Will London be the World's Greenest City?
- How to Cure Green Apathy in Friends and Family
- UFO Sighting in VA Makes Us Ask: Could We Just Move to Another Planet?
I commented on the Live Earth Pledge on my site that covers global warming, Is It Getting Warmer? (www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com). You can read my full comments there but, in short, I think it is slightly foolish to make a pledge that is nearly impossible to carry out. 90% reduction of carbon footprint on a national scale is almost ludicrous and would cause extreme hardship on any nation, probably causing millions of lives globally.
i took a look in the live earth forums and there is alot of sceptics bashing idea. either al gore and him secretly building for being president or the concert not being green and so on.
its pretty bad to see when regardless of impacts its about gaining awareness. i couldnt care if it was the most polluting concert on earth. if it is successful in bringing the public to understand and be aware, then it is surely allowed some carbon credits for future reductions.
im sad to see it is not being pushed to our free to air tv here in australia when there are such big names involved. australia really isnt going to even notice this event because of this failure.
i hope this isnt the last one they do, and it gains more support in the future.
Damo,
So called "skepticism" seems to be in fashion these days, but it isn't serious skepticism. Many people think that doubting that it is due to humans or the seriousness of the consequences is somehow more stylish or more becoming a free-thinker, even though most of these doubts have absolutely no intellectual basis.
I say that LiveEarth take back the name "skeptic", but make it clear that it is OK to agree with the prevalent view and be a skeptic at the same time. I often tell people that I am skeptic when it comes to global warming, but they become very confused (and even sometimes angry) when I say that I think that it's happening, it's serious, and it's caused by human activity.
John Picard and Al Gore and the rest of the Live Earth planners are doing some good, but they have their heads in the sand when it comes to the effects of meat-eating on the environment. A United Nations report makes it clear that switching to a vegan diet does more to prevent global warming than even switching to a hybrid car. But the Live Earth people continue to ignore this fact.
Check this out: http://www.ivu.org/vuna/globalwarming/index.html
Look, i'm all for green. I'm all for awareness. Education is the basis for change and understanding. However, when things, such as environmentalism become the trend, which it is undoubtedly the trend (i just saw a commercial for an insurance company that based its entire ad on the basis of its paperless account statements -- the one cartoon character saying to the other, at the end of the ad, "jump in the hybrid!"), we should be wary of the motives behind such pushes. we live in a tremendously commercial environment. when something has potential for growth in popularity, you'd better be prepared to question the motives. even if the motives are well intended, like Live Arts, for instance, are not the implications still what matters? If it is ok to subject the environment to large quantities of energy consumption to put on such an event, then we are seriously making a big mistake. Now, i'm a musician and i absolutely love live concerts. but the style in which the conventional concerts are performed is incredibly taxing on energy consumption. The point is, people who aren't already Earth conscious aren't going to attend these concerts. these concerts aren't the things that are changing the world, they are the results of a changing world, a world in which it is popular to be Green. But why don't we actually do something towards that Green, instead of just basking in how much we all like ourselves as Green conscious human beings. Being conscious of the problem is only the first step. I mean seriously. How can we sit here pretending to be green and then asserting that, well, a concert of this magnitude will just be offset by our carbon credits. After we constantly tell ourselves, we have to act NOW for the benefit of future generations, here we are buying carbon credits, so that we can consume in the hopes that the future generations will figure it out. i mean, it's like constantly using your credit card when you are unemployed. It's a big risk. you might get a job, but what if your credits don't match your debits? and why not have the concerts be acoustic and have 30 times the venues to compensate for the necessary smaller audience? why not put just as much energy into making the concert actually GREEN as the propitious forward-emphasis of carbon credits. and lets be serious, do you think every concert goer is going to proportionally offset their energy consumption from attending those concerts? let's be realistic. anyway, this whole thing seems to me like a farce. and mother nature is smaking her head and wondering why we're so retarded.