chuckiebtoo
User
A Fertile Cocoon
| Posts: 5 |   |
|
Re:What's going on? - 2007/07/09 22:52
That whole LIVE EARTH fiasco is/was a .....fiasco.
Green Concert or Big Waste?
Al Gore strikes again! The concert to fight climate change generated more than 1,000 tons of garbage. Looks like the concert did more harm than good! One estimate says that it would take the planting of 100,000 trees to offset the carbon emissions released
during the 24 hour event!
No doubt to rapturous applause, Madonna will call for mass global change to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle 'climate crisis'.
Watching the veteran star lap up the adoration, her entourage could,however, be forgiven for exchanging slightly jaded glances - having witnessed her jet in for the concert from New York.
For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.
Indeed, Madonna's carbon footprint is dwarfed only by her ego - she has vowed that she will 'speak to the planet' at Wembley. In fact,an apology might be in order - for the superstar's energy consumption is only the tip of the iceberg in this epic vanity-fest.
The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".
For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.
Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.
A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.
The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.
The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint. com, who specialises in such calculations.
Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.
The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.
Moreover, the pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote -with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world.
Sepermodel Kate Moss, another profligate polluter through her use of private jets, is producing a T-shirt for the event. Yet, Gore is touting the concerts as 'carbon neutral'. So how can that be?
Let us start with some facts. Worldwide, an audience of around 1,268,500 is expected to attend the concerts - making it one of the largest global events in history.
Dr Andrea Collins, an expert in sustainability from Cardiff University, has researched the impact of such mass gatherings on the environment.
"An event of this size at Wembley - which holds 65,000 at a rock concert, will generate around 59 tonnes of waste," she says. "That is largely composed of the rubbish from food and drink consumption. "
She found that a Wembley-sized football match generated an 'ecological footprint' of 3,000 global hectares - an area the size of 4,166 football pitches. This is the amount of bioproductive
land required to absorb the C02 emissions produced by such an event.
Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.
A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.
Travel forms the vast majority of the 'carbon footprint' talked of by ecological campaigners - contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental 'cost'.
Collins says: "It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn't have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus
or car. This burns fossil fuel - precisely what we are trying to reduce.
"There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world - that is absolutely huge."
Indeed, an audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth, reveals that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets billow thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.
The Daily Mail has found that five of the top performing acts together have an annual output of almost 2,000 carbon tonnes. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes, according to John Buckley.
Bizarrely, the concerts are also eing 'independently audited' by consultants PricewaterhouseCoop ers over the next seven weeks, to assess the level of pollution they will have generated.
It is unclear what benefit this exercise will have, although the Live Earth organizers talk in terms specializesof providing a 'legacy' for future events, showing how recycling and low-impact
travel can be encouraged, and carbon-offsetting used. But the fact remains - massive rock concerts are hardly eco-friendly.
So just how does Gore claim that Live Earth will be carbon neutral? He does so by convenient use of 'carbon offsetting' - a trendy new method of absolving yourself of guilt.
Carbon offsetting involves 'neutralising' the emissions you are responsible for by buying 'credits'.
A spokesperson for Live Earth says: "This might involve buying environmentally sound lightbulbs for a Third World school, planting trees, or installing solar panels in a developing country."
A huge industry has sprung up to provide corporations with carbon credits.
However, critics say that the practice is simply a way for consumerist industries and nations to export their responsibility to developing countries. Others say it simply does not work.
Carbon-offsetting is, it turns out, how celebrities square green issues with their extravagant lifestyles and use of private jets.
When Gore - who himself spent eight years flying on Air Force Two -was asked if he had persuaded Madonna to stop using private jets, he said: 'Well, I appreciate and respect her as an artist and as a
person, and there are many artists who are offsetting their role in contributing to the CO2 build-up, and I understand that.' A rather longwinded way of saying 'no'.
Madonna has, however, been given an instruction handbook on climate crisis by Live Earth.
John Rego, the environmental director of Live Earth, says he expects to purchase at least 3,000 tonnes of carbon credits to off-set the event. It is believed the organizers wineutralizingll spend in excess of ?1million on carbon offsetting to counter criticism.
Regoorganizers explains: "All the events are carbon neutral. We have chosen a reforestation and reagricultural project in Mozambique. It is a credible certifiable carbon-diffused project. We are in the process of purchasing a carbon offset."
Dr Collins says: "Taking a flight and planting a tree does not add up. It does not make it all right. It is having your cake and eating it."
Dr John Barrett, from the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, says: "There is a huge irony in flying halfway across the globe in a private jet, eating up fossil fuel.
"The idea that you can offset the pollution you cause is just ridiculous. What these people at Live Earth have done is defined their boundaries to suit themselves, but there is no sense in which this concert is carbon neutral.
"Planting trees or investing in renewable energy does not reverse the damage of releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the environment.
"It is far better not to pollute in the first place. Carbon offsetting can be a removal of guilt, but it is not an effective one."
Live Earth is encouraging 'citizens of the world' to take small steps: share a car, plant a shrub, turn off a light or hang out washing rather than use a dryer.
But Dr Barrett says: "It would be far better for these celebrities to stay at home. Holding large concerts to highlight environmental concerns and cut carbon emissions just seems ridiculous. What planet
do these people live on?"
This is just the beginning for Gore. He is going to use this global warming non-issue his entry into the presidential race. It's just a matter of time! What an hypocrite!
http://video. aol.com/video/ live-earth- concert-backfire s/1937176
http://www.dailymai l.co.uk/pages/ live/femail/ article.html?
in_article_id= 466775&in_ page_id=1879
|
New Forum Topics 
