How can you say the world is going to end in 10 years because of carbon and then let a major manufacturer of carbon producing vehicles sponsor the event? Must not take it very seriously.
2007-07-05 02:43:43 · 21 answers · asked by wallyshields 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's pretty funny.
2007-07-05 02:46:24 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Why would this prove that anything is a sham? If a lack of carbon producing vehicles' pollution is a step in the right direction, working with those that are in the business of making these vehicles might be one of the best moves of all in terms of possibly promoting their moving towards newer technologies and away from gasoline-powered vehicles. If GM is going to sponsor this concert series, it's not going to really show anything about the validity of the movement. What if it were Coca-Cola or Microsoft or Exxon? None of the sponsors are going to change the message and the facts will remain the same whether Bill Gates picks up the tab or Bill Clinton foots the bill.
2016-05-18 22:15:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does your question prove that resistance to the idea of climate change is based largely upon dislike of Al Gore? Must not be a very seriously thought out argument then.
Personally I don't like Gore either, haven't seen his movie and don't ever intend to... however I have looked at the objective evidence and it's pretty clear, that's why almost all scientists involved in relevant disciplines of study tend to agree that it's happening. Gore doesn't offer any solutions nor understand the science all that well, personally I don't think he's worth the time considering... but all the same it's a real problem and needs considering. My suggestion is a switch to geothermal power which could easily and cheaply meet the world's energy needs without causing environmental problems and at the same time allowing us all to quit our dependence on oil (and coal).
2007-07-05 02:53:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't just the choice of sponsors that bothers some participants.
I'm sure you must have stumbled over the Yahoo article about the revolt by many bands who don't feel their voices matter in this debate.
But those voices will drown in the cries for relief with every major environmental disaster coming down the road.
If former vice president Gore wants a meaningful event, he has access to the the web (which we all know he didn't invent) and can stream the various performances along with a list of things people can do and organizations they can work with to affect meaningful changes.
Let them take GM's money. In the end, it may do more good than you believe.
2007-07-05 02:53:26 · answer #4 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. If Chevy wants to give money to sponsor Live Earth then they should. It would make it a sham if the message of the show was changed to support Chevy or gas guzzling vehicles. They are not going to support the message of gas guzzling no matter who the sponsor is. Live Earth needs sponsors and Chevy needs to advertise, not a big deal to me. The fact that Live Earth has attracted much needed attention to the subject of our environment is an accomplishment and we should focus on that.
2007-07-05 03:00:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is alot of things that prove Al Gore is a sham. I would say it would make Chevy look bad not Al Gore.
2007-07-05 04:29:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Chevy has done more than the other auto makers in terms of promoting fuel efficiency and improving the environment. They win great praise from environmental groups. Hopefully other car companies will follow suit.
And oh, by the way, their company performance has been better than the competition even with these improved standards.
2007-07-05 06:02:51 · answer #7 · answered by Jeff P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're supporting Gore for a reason. They have been given a time table (American Auto Makers), to come up with vehicles that get 35 miles per hour by 2020 (I could be wrong on the year). Already they're fighting this and yet, we have several imports that well exceed 35 mpg.
Will they EVER learn?
2007-07-05 02:50:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No the fact that it's "Al Gore's Live Earth Concerts" proves it's a sham.
2007-07-05 02:46:37 · answer #9 · answered by John L 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If Al Gore was serious out saving the planet he would advocate bring back the electric car (see documentry DVD "Who Killed the Electric Car?") rather than accept big auto money.
2007-07-05 03:05:15 · answer #10 · answered by Dave 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Chevy would rather use marketing to say they are environmental than actually do anything. GM has the worst record of any auto company. Al Gore has made 100 million dollars in last 7 years, and hypocrisy has always been his motto.
2007-07-05 02:46:00 · answer #11 · answered by Steve C 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋