Live Earth Hypocrites
The Live Earth series of concerts is a shocking example of environmental vandalism, from environmental hypocrites. The promoters are trying to combat greenhouse emissions by staging a worldwide series of concerts, using massive amounts of energy. Let’s look at the waste of energy.
At the concert, there is electricity for the audio/visual equipment, lighting, and diesel generators for backup power. (I can just imagine the smiling environmentalist firing up the diesel engine). Then there are the concert attendees travelling to the concert in oil guzzling cars and buses. Not only this, but a massive global audience watching on their energy sucking televisions, and surfing the Live Earth website on their computers.
Now the promoters state in the Live Earth – Green Event Guidlines that substantial measures have been undertaken to reduce emissions including:
- using electricity from renewable sources;
- using biodiesel generators;
- purchasing ‘carbon credits’.
All this apparently make the concert ‘carbon neutral’. But from environmentalists, I expect more. I want their activities to be ‘carbon positive’. Why waste this electricity on a concert series that does nothing to help the environment. If environmentalists are going to spend resources obtaining ‘environmentally friendly’ electricity and diesel fuel, why not offer it to someone else, to reduce their use of ‘environmentally unfriendly’ electricity and fuel?
The Live Earth website does contain tips on reducing emissions, but practicality does not seem to be the purpose of the event. Interestingly before the event, Crowded House member Neil Finn was quoted as saying,
This concert may not get many people to specifically change their way of living, but it’s just part of a big awareness shift, I think.
So in addition to the waste of energy, participants in the event are not even wanting the event to bring about a change in the behaviour of the audience!
In my view the concert series itself is not meant to assist the environment, but to mobilise political support for the authoritarian policies of the promoters. For this purpose, I imagine it has been quite successful. However for some, Live Earth is just an opportunity to feel good while catching some of their favourite musical acts.
© Danny Haynes
J, 8 July 2007, 20:06:
Danny, you might like to check your numbers a bit closer – a quick calculation done in one of my friend’s environmental science classes showed that the total environmental footprint of the concert (inc. estimated crowd transport) was comparable to a few days worth of operating footprint for the respective parliament houses of the country – perhaps to throw stones in such a position is a tad precarious?
j, 8 July 2007, 20:31:
oops, that comment above sounded a bit nastier than intended – i’ll blame the 6 hour car trip this arvo. I was just trying to point out that despite the energy outlay involved in raising awareness (musicians opinions aside) via the concert, the issue of greenhouse emissions needs to be considered seriously and soon, whatever the impact it may have on the economy
Danny Haynes, 9 July 2007, 09:00:
Joel, for the statements I am making, I do not need to check any numbers. I was not making any comparisons. I am judging the environmentalist promoters of the concert by their own standards. I am saying they are hypocrites because they condemn others for wasting energy, and yet they seek to promote their cause by … wasting energy. The ‘environmental footprint’ of any of the houses of parliament is irrelevant.
Pete, 9 July 2007, 09:40:
Hold on Danny!
‘Waste’ is a subjective statement. You of all people should know that the value of the, apparently limited, GHG emissions released by the concerts is worth less to the organisers and participants, than the awareness raised by the concerts.
Danny Haynes, 11 July 2007, 19:50:
Pete, you are right. ‘Waste’ is subjective, but not according to the environmental authoritarians who would enact legislation to force others to reduce their emissions. Once again, I am judging them by their own standards.
Pete, 12 July 2007, 13:08:
I think you’re judging ‘waste’ on a low level. You need to judge it at the meta-level.
They’re trying to convince the obstinate and rally the convinced that there’s a massive threat at hand and we have to do something about it. If it achieves that goal then it will have benefited the environment. Call it pre-evangelism: not causing people to change, but leading them towards the point when they do.
Companies do this all the time…
It’s called advertising.
Danny Haynes, 12 July 2007, 19:13:
Pete, you are thinking too much and missing my point. Their actions are contrary to their message. The Christian equivalent is not ‘pre-evangelism’, but something like enacting legislation to make people live the Christian life. It is a question of compulsory versus voluntary. Your reference to company advertising is completely wrong. Advertising is voluntary, not compulsory.
sandpiper, 18 September 2007, 05:40:
And how many kilowatt hours of electricty did they use while holding these rediclous concerts? i mean its no different than those idiotic SAVE THE RAINFORESTS concerts i mean its nothing but a big time rip-off and i wonder how much AL GORE made out of this?