Why Live Earth is stupid?

Question

Firstly, this is in no way a question of the merits of the argument for global warming.
However, is not Live Earth the dumbest concept ever? The perfomers and hundreds of thousands of attendees created 74,500 tons of co2 according to Carbon Footprint(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701201_pf.html). Also, wouldn't it have done a lot more good for the attendees to simply donate the $100 they paid for their ticket to an environmental organization of their choice? On that same path, I heard that over 2 billion people were expected to take part in Live Earth. Instead of creating 74,500 tons of co2 and wasting so many resources simply so they could have a feel good day, why didn't those 2 billion people each donate $10 to a conservation organization (imagine 20 BILLION dollars raised for global conservation on 1 day!)? This whole event was one big day for people to pat themselves on the back for while doing jack.

Answer 1

i suppose you could argue that even if a fraction of the 2 billion people that took part got the message and reduced their annual carbon footprint by just 1 tonne per year that 74,500 tonnes would easily be offset.

i think its a calculated risk that the organizers are taking because the 'you must do it' technique employed up to now just isnt working so they are trying a charm offensive kinda 'lets make Co2 reduction fun!!!' approach.

personally over the last year with a few minor lifestyle changes i have managed to bring my carbon footprint to around 1/3 of the recommended national average so you could say its only 74,480 tonnes left to clear LOL.

Answer 2

I think it was quite a smart idea. First off, they claim to have had 2 billion viewers. I'm skeptical of that number, but regardless a whole lot of people watched the concert and thus became more aware of the climate crisis. Secondly, Live Earth went to great lengths to minimize their carbon emissions, as you can see in their green policy linked below. The people who attended the concert in person would have done something else if they hadn't gone to the concert - it's not like they would have sat around in a cave if the concert weren't held. I'd be willing to bet that the amount of awareness the concert raised will far outweigh the minor carbon emissions it created.

Answer 3

The answer is simple. If these people had simply donated money to organizations of their choice, they would not have been able to sing, dance around, and workship the GODESS called "Mother Earth". After all, it will be the music and celebration that will erase the carbon prints and ultimately reverse global warming.

Answer 4

Not a "party person"- I see! Well, neither am I. But look at it THIS way; people respond to "noise". They don't "think" necessarily, -they just respond. Big Al Gore has figured this out. And he KNOWS- that if you want to get anyone's attention about ANYTHING- you gotta MAKE alot of "noise". Now he's a BELIEVER in this Global Warming stuff...-And he REALLY wants to try to DO something about it. Since no one wanted him to be President- and he's gotta do SOMETHING with his life, money & talents (& he's a pretty SMART guy). So, he's trying to make as MUCH "noise" as possible- to get people's ATTENTION- & thus get the ball rolling so that people will BEGIN to do something about the Global Warming thing. Are the concerts THEMSELVES a "waste" of resources? Of COURSE they are! But if the "noise" gets people's attention- and people start cutting back on their CO2 usage, -it could be WORTH today's "investment". So before you throw another bucket of water on Gore's little flame of "hope"- consider the "Alternative": If we do NOTHING, and he's right, many of the "Stupid" ones- will lie on a dead Earth.

Answer 5

Their idea is that more awareness will get more people to act. You really can't do anything without some impact on environment. I mean I can see the irony with excessively big events like big music concerts, but if this can get few million(or billion) people to take some actions it will be worth while investment.

Answer 6

Well put. It's the latest attempt to assuage liberal guilt.

What is more surreal or decadent than a jaded, stoned (appearing) rock star pontificating about the latest world plight?

Who, for example, could possibly be more morally suspect than that emaciated Angelina Jolie plucking and adopting orphaned babies from third world nightmares? There are American babies in disasterous need that could have just as easily benefited from her largesse. Blacks ones and Viet-Namese if that is important to her.

She hasn't lessened their collective agony-she has only given herself publicity. It's the same with these lame rock stars and Live Earth. It's a gig. It's publicity. And, to add insult to injury, it hasn't helped our late, great planet Earth.

Well done, for seeing that the swarmy hypocrisy and uselessness of this "event" belies the fact that it is another "missed opportunity" to help our beleaguered environment.

Answer 7

You already answered your own question when you said:

"This whole event was one big day for people to pat themselves on the back for while doing jack."

I've often wondered this myself. I guess by throwing a big party it attracts more people. People often feel the need to bask in the glory of their contributions.

Answer 8

what a marvelous idea, now why didn't Al Gore think of that.

Answer 9

welll, at least they're trying to do SOMETHING