Live earth and live what ever else pisses me off

The following things are entirely possible:

- a majority of the artists performing do lead environmentally friendly lives
- the cumulative effect of the awareness raised by the concerts out-weighs the amount of pollution and trash created by the actual performances themselves.

I know you like to dump on 'activism' but I'm just sayin'...

I mean, it's possible, no one here really has any idea. armchair_warrior trashing them and assuming they all lead wasteful lives b/c they're rock stars is dumb.

There are better things to hate on rock stars for than performing at an environmentalism concert, whether they're doing it for self-serving reasons or not.

daver wrote: So what you have us get our hate on for?

Really? You really need me to find examples of lifestyle choices of Pop Stars that are worse than performing at Live Aid? Really?

Take all of your money give it up to charity.

damn those bleeding heart liberals!

Subject: Live Earth

They made a point of interviewing Ed Begley and Darryl Hannah, and a few of the rockers they talked to were proud of having turned to biodeisel for their tour buses... I don't know - the sort of hypocricy that many of the musicians and actors practice was less offensive to me than other sorts of hypocricy, for whatever reason. At least, in this instance I wasn't offended. At all.

More than that, I thought it was educational in a really fun way. I personally have already done some of the easy stuff to try to be greener, and I recognize when I don't. Like, I drink lots of water at work, in the half-liter bottles that my company puts in the 'fridge. I knew I was being wasteful and lazy, and I didn't feel that I was being preached to, but since watching the concert I've started re-using the bottles. I might be doing it just to make myself feel better but if everyone does little things for whatever reason, maybe it will make a difference?

Plus, a lot of people are probably like that woman from American Idol who performed (I can't remember her name - Underwood?); she said "I'm learning so much!" and sounded personally inspired. I got the impression that she agreed to do the concert for a good, high-profile gig, but that the experience honestly did show her new things, which she hadn't thought about before. There are probably a lot of people who don't think about how to be greener, or who don't think it makes a difference.

The tips thrown in here and there were not too pushy, most are totally do-able, not asking too much, (and they didn't ask for money)... If it starts more people thinking about the issue and our responsibility then I think that's a good thing. I also think people who care have to be more politically active, but that's not easy when apathy is so encouraged...

Anyway, I had a lot of fun watching the concert. I thought it was pretty groovy. Nanutuk (scientists at the south pole who are in a band) was really cool, and Roger Waters rocked, and I caught Yusef Islam and he looked so happy, and some of the bands I don't even recognize (from China, for example) were interesting. I really had fun with it.

http://liveearth.msn.com/

Edited to add - Clarkson, not Underwood.

doctorj wrote:

[quote=Violet]They made a point of interviewing Ed Begley and Darryl Hannah, and a few of the rockers they talked to were proud of having turned to biodeisel for their tour buses...

This is also totally bogus. I am not certain whether biodeisel in a bus is a drop into the ocean, or a drop out of the ocean, because I don't know whether it's better or worse for the planet than fossil oil. After all, if you have an acre of arable temperate land, aren't you better using it for carbon-sequestering lumber, food, and/or energy (wind and solar) which could be turned into liquid fuel somewhere else? Whichever way, I'm sure that any benefit from the biodeisel is negligible, compared with a genuine lifestyle change like cutting down on travel.

while i'm with you on the travel concerns, darryl hannah's bus uses oil that's already had one use as cooking oil (Waste Vegetable Oil, not Straight Vegetable Oil grown for fuel). so that acre of land was already being used to grow oil-producing crops. this type of biodiesel falls into the "reuse" part of "reduce, reuse, recycle". granted, "reduce" is the best r, but "reuse" is better than nothing.

http://www.sustainablestyle.org/sass/07/darylhannah.html

"That was Willie's retirement grease!"

Dave Matthews tour bus dumped hundreds of pounds of their human waste into a river (and on some tourists, too, I believe) a few years back. FWIW.

Let us pull out the square footage on their homes and energy bills, Al Gore style, and then we'll talk. Or how about we tally up the jet setting airplane rides. Or how about the fancy foods, that have to be brought in somehow from somewhere.

I'm not against them preaching green, but anyone who holds them up as examples ought to have their heads examined. Compare the amount of waste and pollution generated by the average person versus someone who spends significant portions of their lives traveling. And promoting. Etc.

Subject: Live Earth

DoctorJ, I don't think it's fair to say that the only profession that is less environmentally friendly than an artist is a soldier. I know plenty of artists who work gently in the environment - using found objects, or reclaimed ones. Some art is not environmentally friendly, but as a group I'd bet that artists are more sensitive than, say, corporate CEOs. You may be thinking of the very successful performing artists, but the vast majority of artists are not... Well, the vast majority are not Madonna.

But I totally agree with you about biodiesel. Not only may it be as polluting as fossil fuels, the energy it takes to create the biodiesel makes the whole thing pretty inefficient. (So is the energy it takes to raise a cow for meat.)

But what is exciting about biodeisel is the fact that we are starting to change, starting to think about innovation, to try to create new technologies that are not as wasteful or harmful as fossil fuels and, to a lesser extent, biodiesel. And just an awareness that there really is a problem is important, even if we flail around with solutions that solve nothing, at first. It's a turn - not a step but just a turn - in the right direction.

You might find this (about possibly turning slaughterhouse waste into oil) interesting: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil

Also, speaking of lifestyle change, I think this is pretty groovy:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/feb/energizer

In the meantime, I am doing my best, in part educated and inspired by people - even people who don't walk the walk as much as they talk the talk - like those who put on the Live Earth concerts. (Plus I thought it was fun to watch.)

Subject: Re: Live Earth

Violet wrote: DoctorJ, I don't think it's fair to say that the only profession that is less environmentally friendly than an artist is a soldier. I know plenty of artists who work gently in the environment - using found objects, or reclaimed ones. Some art is not environmentally friendly, but as a group I'd bet that artists are more sensitive than, say, corporate CEOs. You may be thinking of the very successful performing artists, but the vast majority of artists are not... Well, the vast majority are not Madonna.

The more successful the artist, the larger their income, the greater their consumption is likely to be, the more environmental damage they're likely to be doing. Even someone using only found or reclaimed objects, or an a capella singer, is still engaging in the same kind of consumption of resources as the rest of us, and probably more travel, while producing entertainment not other goods and services more important to human survival. By contrast, your corporate CEO is typically contributing their labor by spearheading an organisation meeting a human need. Nor does he or she have the public profile and social influence of an artist earning the same amount. More than most professions, for successful artists the responsibility is triple: the more successful the artist, the greater the onus to 1) take real steps to limit their own consumption, 2) make those real steps visible as an example to the impressionable masses, and 3) direct the content of their entertainment to more productive causes (such as raising awareness of the need to engage in 1, or any other cause that promotes human survival). I'd like to see successful artists, who have enormous media exposure, publish a yearly carbon audit, so people can see whether they're genuine or not, and learn by example.

sweet tea wrote: i fail to see how the CEO of, say, a toy company or novelty wallpaper interest or any of a hundred other consumer goods meets a more important human need than an artist does.

Well on the one hand, some consumer goods do serve some function in addition to all the ridiculous extras. Wallpaper could save paint, and a toy might be educational. And on the other hand, most of those companies are employing more people than an artist would and paying benefits.

Ok, I give in. Artists are not entirely evil. The fashion industry, on the other hand, has no redeeming features.

But seriously, what I actually believe is this: most people, no matter how enviornmentally conscious, artist or otherwise, will not willingly make the radical lifestyle changes required to shift their carbon emitting consumption more than a few percent at most. And the more they earn, the worse it gets on average, plus the world population of comparatively wealthy people keeps rising, so shaving a few percent is not going to cut it. The best we can hope for as a result of an awareness raising concert is increased political will to legislate the required changes in pricing that will force people to change their behavior and open the way for investment in alternatives.

doctorj wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]
Look, Madonna may be a hypocrite, but that hardly proves your "strong correlation between wealth and consumption."

How about this study from 1954:

"That consumption is closely correlated with disposable income there can be no doubt".

I'm sure economists are still discussing exactly how to model the correlation with respect to time, and the role of assets vs. income, but not disputing that these things are closely linked. For example, I don't believe that the people of Malawi have a small carbon footprint because they're more attuned to environmental issues than Americans.

This may be true on some broad, sociological level. But to use this 1954 study to indict 11 (or however many) performers is over-simplification for the sake of dumping on pop stars.

I really think dumping on an environmental concert is a poor use of our analytical skills.

Did anyone see the Daily Show bit on Live Earth? I can't embed since it's on a different site.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/65309/detail/