Live Earth

Rusty Skull

Rusty Skull

Vault Senior Citizen
Orderite
Anyone noticed that yesterday was event that about 2 billion people watched?

Anyhow, what do you think of it? Hypocrisy or a real appeal to save this planet?

Personally, i support it 100% and i saw quite useful tips, beside those that i practice on regular basis. Also i loved that Bob & Harry clips.

Discuss.
 
Rusty Skull said:
Anyone noticed that yesterday was event that about 2 billion people watched?

Anyhow, what do you think of it? Hypocrisy or a real appeal to save this planet?
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy. Pure and simple.

Even it's a "real appeal to save this planet," it was wrapped in an events that people watched on their lazy Saturday because hey, free concerts.
 
"2 billion"... yeah, right. no one i know has attended one of the gigs, watched it on the tv or listened to it on the radio. either way, 2 billion seems a VERY gross overestimation.

as for saving ze earth? doubtful they'd even consider putting in some extra effort.

personally i make an effort (using public transportation as much as possible, recycling, buying local stuff whenever i can instead of imported stuff, dont use too much water, dont use too much electricity, dont use too much gas, etc), but i doubt the world as a whole has the drive to lower their footprint.
 
I read in the papers there was this hippie gala going on, but haven't thought much of it. I agree that two billion people watching doesn't sound reasonable. As for the environment - meh.
 
2 billion ... nah.

I really don't see how big difference one person can do.

Maybe if a person try and vote for someone who is interested in ending the gas dependence faster or something major like that. That would win a few years for earth and that would make up, many times, for what 6 billion people can accomplish by turning of their tv at night or whatever. ( just realised that not 6 billion people have a tv, but im sure there are more than 6 billion tvs out there anyhow ;) )
 
Being the pathetic no-lifer I am, and having nothing better to do, I pretty much half-looked at the whole thing during yesterday (saturday).

But what's even more interesting than how I spend my time is the 'straight back at you, environment'-morale; how did the artists get to their various locations? Heck, I bet some of them even got there by private jets. And don't get me started on the energy usage of the stages.

Probably everything (or most of it) is worked out to function in an environmental friendly way, but it still seems weird...
 
Ah-Teen said:
I still don't have a clue what anyone is talking about?
Click to expand...
that's because you live in a country where skinny blond slut millionairs that have to do jailtime are primetime news for like a month at a time.

Live Earth are a bunch of concerts allaround the world to promote awareness of the environmental issues (organised or backed by Al Gore). they started in Tokyo & Sydney and ended on Hawaii i think. 24 hours of live music.
 
SuAside said:
Ah-Teen said:
I still don't have a clue what anyone is talking about?
Click to expand...
that's because you live in a country where skinny blond slut millionairs that have to do jailtime are primetime news for like a month at a time.

Live Earth are a bunch of concerts allaround the world to promote awareness of the environmental issues (organised or backed by Al Gore). they started in Tokyo & Sydney and ended on Hawaii i think. 24 hours of live music.
Click to expand...

Damnit...
 
Zaron said:
But what's even more interesting than how I spend my time is the 'straight back at you, environment'-morale; how did the artists get to their various locations? Heck, I bet some of them even got there by private jets. And don't get me started on the energy usage of the stages.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Organizing worldwide concerts isn't exactly a very environment-friendly way of promoting environment-friendly behaviour.
Private jets, limousines, transport for the crew, transport for the equipment, transport for the concert goers. No to mention all the trash that all those concert goers produced, even if they threw it in the right bin.
It is not yet feasible to organize such big concerts with solar power or wind energy or whatever type of alternative energy source. Main reason why Radiohead didn't want to participate.
Hypocrisy? Yes. A sham? Yes.
Mister Al Gore's hologram was the biggest joke of them all. Who the fuck does this guy think he is? The president of the US?
It'll take more than some free concerts ('free' as in 'the tax-payers pay for it anyway') to change our course. A good initiative would be, say, triple taxes on the possession of a second car per household. That way you don't fuck up the mobility of poor people and only affect the rich "isn't-it-neat-to-pollute-so-much" pigs out there. I'm all for doubling the cost of an airplane ticket as well, and quadrupling it for first class. Also, people should not have to pay so much taxes on what they earn for an income, but more on what they buy and consume.
 
alec said:
I'm all for doubling the cost of an airplane ticket as well, and quadrupling it for first class.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't fewer seats per airplane mean a bigger need for more airplanes, in the air?

alec said:
Also, people should not have to pay so much taxes on what they earn for an income, but more on what they buy and consume.
Click to expand...
Amen brotha! but that is a problem for poor people, and the government in Sweden.. In Sweden it looks bad if you "brag" about your richness, which means people don't necessarily buy all that they could have bought. To fix the problem with people saving up too much money the government takes a huge slice of their income and gives it to the poor. Like me. Which is great. Keeps the economy flowing, and did I mention we don't pay "anything" to study in sweden except for living costs? Viva la socialism! well kind of :roll:
 
If the prices for tickets went up, they wouldn't need more planes. They'd be using less planes, which means less CO2 production. It's not like they'd take seats out of them. That would be retarded. Even for big oil and the aircraft industry.

Edit: Now I officially hate Smashing Pumpkins, after that garbage they played last night.
 
It was I think a good way of the artists doing their thing to save the planet. But alas, it is too late, the end cometh nigh.
 
Nology5890 said:
They'd be using less planes, which means less CO2 production.
Click to expand...
If they removed airplanes as a resource for travelling. Don't you think people would want alternative ways of travelling? Ships are great for the sea I hear... NO! Because seas get's filled to the brim with bad algy when the good ones dies and that kills the fish and from there it's pretty much downwards!

Nology5890 said:
It's not like they'd take seats out of them. That would be retarded.
Click to expand...
If they don't sell out, wouldn't that be the perfect alternative? Reduced weight = reduced output of CO2? Maybe even using smaller planes.

....

I know what you're saying. But why must everybody be so obsessed with saving the planet? I somehow feel I got born in the wrong century. What if humanity dies in 200 years? Fine, I can live with that. We are still doomed to come up with a cure to the cure we came up with today.
 
The way to preserve this planet is through the right application of technology. But for that, money grubbing corporations and governments must make fundamental changes. Which they probably won't.
And silly gimmick concerts won't change a thing.
 
sales taxes are usually regressive and hardest on the poor. A luxury tax on the rich and more reasonable income taxes on the wealth, greater distribution towards a more equal society might help.

You want to help save the planet- here's how.
Reduce population growth while providing incentives for environmentally friendly industries and limit waste.

A better sense and accurate supply and demand, greater efficiencies could reduce waste.

tax incentives for environmenally friendly industries could allow new technologies and new industries to develop.

sad fact is that environmental protection is a luxury that one fines usually in rich countries and not in poor. Poor countries need to develop. Asking a poor favella dweller in Rio to get a hybrid or use solar panels or be more organic, is silly. Poor folks usually can't afford environmentally friendly products or take environmentally friendly actions.

However, greater per capita living means that people have the capacity to spend money on environmenally friendly products and the means to ask for a better quality of life. Also people who are middle income or better usually have fewer children- reducing population growth- and growth of consumption.

Of course that might hurt industry, so they might as well take advantage of environmentally friendly products.

As for the concerts, yeah, I think it was a great idea. If was a bunch of free concerts to raise awareness or another saturday farting around and adding methane to the atmosphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top