Live Earth
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
There is some pretty good bands playing, I might tune in when the Smashing Pumpkins and the Beastie Boys play.
There are a handful of bands that I may wish to see playing. They haven't released times yet. The Rio concert may yet be cancelled due to security concerns. I will be able to listen to it all on Sattellite Radio if I so choose.
Live Earth: deaf to reality
Björn Lomborg
July 3, 2007 3:00 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bjrn_lomborg/2007/07/live_earth_deaf_to_reality.html
The organisers of next Saturday's Live Earth concerts hope that the entire world will hear a crystal clear message: climate change is the most critical threat facing the planet. Planned by former US vice-president Al Gore, Live Earth will be the biggest, most mass-marketed show of celebrity activism in history.
But making global warming the world's top priority means that we shuffle other major challenges down our "to do" list. Some climate change activists actually acknowledge this: Australian author Tim Flannery recently told an interviewer that climate change is "the only issue we should worry about for the next decade."
Tell that to the four million people starving to death, to the three million victims of HIV/AIDS, or to the billions of people who lack access to clean drinking water.
Human-caused climate change deserves attention - and it has gotten it, thanks to Gore, Flannery, and others. Even before a single note has been played in the "awareness-raising" concerts, much of the developed world believes that global warming is the planet's biggest problem.
Yet, the world faces many other vast challenges. Whether we like it or not, we have limited money and a limited attention span for global causes. We should focus first on achieving the most good for the most people.
The Copenhagen Consensus project brought together top-class thinkers, including four Nobel Laureate economists, to examine what we could achieve with a $50 billion investment designed to "do good" for the planet.
They examined the best research available and concluded that projects requiring a relatively small investment - getting micro-nutrients to those suffering from malnutrition, providing more resources for HIV/AIDS prevention, making a proper effort to get drinking water to those who lack it - would do far more good than the billions of dollars we could spend reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change.
Carbon reduction activists argue that focusing exclusively on climate change will bring many benefits. They point out, for example, that malaria deaths will climb along with temperatures, because potentially killer mosquitoes thrive in warmer areas. And they would be right. But it's not as simple as the bumper sticker slogan "Fight climate change and ward off malaria."
If America and Australia are somehow inspired by the Live Earth concerts to sign the Kyoto Protocol, temperatures would rise by slightly less. The number of people at risk of malaria would be reduced by about 0.2% by 2085. Yet the cost of the Kyoto Protocol would be a staggering $180 billion a year. In other words, climate change campaigners believe we should spend $180 billion to save just 1,000 lives a year.
For much less money, we could save 850,000 lives each and every year. We know that dissemination of mosquito nets and malaria prevention programs could cut malaria incidence in half by 2015 for about $3 billion annually - less than 2% of the cost of Kyoto. The choice is stark.
Some will argue that the real problem is that the Kyoto Protocol isn't strong enough. But, as I point out in my forthcoming book, Cool It, even if we could stop global warming right now - which is impossible - we could reduce malaria infections by only 3.2% by 2085. Should we not worry more about those infected now, whom we can help much better, more cheaply, and with much greater effect?
When we look at the evidence, we discover again and again that the best solutions to the world's biggest challenges aren't the ones we hear about the most. We could save many more lives during extreme weather events, for example, by insisting on hurricane-resistant building standards than we would by committing to Live Earth's target of a 90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. This would be easier, much less costly, and ultimately do far more good. Indeed, the Copenhagen Consensus experts discovered that for every dollar invested in Kyoto-style battling climate change, we could do up to 120 times more good with in numerous other areas.
It's honorable that the Live Earth organisers are so concerned about the far-off future, but you have to wonder why there is so little concern about the much-worse present. I don't want to stop anyone from caring about climate change, only to encourage a sense of perspective. There is a massive amount of good that we can do through practical, affordable approaches like HIV/AIDS education, malaria prevention, and the provision of micro-nutrients or clean water.
This is the message I would like to ring out: we should focus on the best ideas first. This Saturday, unfortunately, that is not what we'll hear.
Björn Lomborg
July 3, 2007 3:00 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bjrn_lomborg/2007/07/live_earth_deaf_to_reality.html
The organisers of next Saturday's Live Earth concerts hope that the entire world will hear a crystal clear message: climate change is the most critical threat facing the planet. Planned by former US vice-president Al Gore, Live Earth will be the biggest, most mass-marketed show of celebrity activism in history.
But making global warming the world's top priority means that we shuffle other major challenges down our "to do" list. Some climate change activists actually acknowledge this: Australian author Tim Flannery recently told an interviewer that climate change is "the only issue we should worry about for the next decade."
Tell that to the four million people starving to death, to the three million victims of HIV/AIDS, or to the billions of people who lack access to clean drinking water.
Human-caused climate change deserves attention - and it has gotten it, thanks to Gore, Flannery, and others. Even before a single note has been played in the "awareness-raising" concerts, much of the developed world believes that global warming is the planet's biggest problem.
Yet, the world faces many other vast challenges. Whether we like it or not, we have limited money and a limited attention span for global causes. We should focus first on achieving the most good for the most people.
The Copenhagen Consensus project brought together top-class thinkers, including four Nobel Laureate economists, to examine what we could achieve with a $50 billion investment designed to "do good" for the planet.
They examined the best research available and concluded that projects requiring a relatively small investment - getting micro-nutrients to those suffering from malnutrition, providing more resources for HIV/AIDS prevention, making a proper effort to get drinking water to those who lack it - would do far more good than the billions of dollars we could spend reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change.
Carbon reduction activists argue that focusing exclusively on climate change will bring many benefits. They point out, for example, that malaria deaths will climb along with temperatures, because potentially killer mosquitoes thrive in warmer areas. And they would be right. But it's not as simple as the bumper sticker slogan "Fight climate change and ward off malaria."
If America and Australia are somehow inspired by the Live Earth concerts to sign the Kyoto Protocol, temperatures would rise by slightly less. The number of people at risk of malaria would be reduced by about 0.2% by 2085. Yet the cost of the Kyoto Protocol would be a staggering $180 billion a year. In other words, climate change campaigners believe we should spend $180 billion to save just 1,000 lives a year.
For much less money, we could save 850,000 lives each and every year. We know that dissemination of mosquito nets and malaria prevention programs could cut malaria incidence in half by 2015 for about $3 billion annually - less than 2% of the cost of Kyoto. The choice is stark.
Some will argue that the real problem is that the Kyoto Protocol isn't strong enough. But, as I point out in my forthcoming book, Cool It, even if we could stop global warming right now - which is impossible - we could reduce malaria infections by only 3.2% by 2085. Should we not worry more about those infected now, whom we can help much better, more cheaply, and with much greater effect?
When we look at the evidence, we discover again and again that the best solutions to the world's biggest challenges aren't the ones we hear about the most. We could save many more lives during extreme weather events, for example, by insisting on hurricane-resistant building standards than we would by committing to Live Earth's target of a 90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. This would be easier, much less costly, and ultimately do far more good. Indeed, the Copenhagen Consensus experts discovered that for every dollar invested in Kyoto-style battling climate change, we could do up to 120 times more good with in numerous other areas.
It's honorable that the Live Earth organisers are so concerned about the far-off future, but you have to wonder why there is so little concern about the much-worse present. I don't want to stop anyone from caring about climate change, only to encourage a sense of perspective. There is a massive amount of good that we can do through practical, affordable approaches like HIV/AIDS education, malaria prevention, and the provision of micro-nutrients or clean water.
This is the message I would like to ring out: we should focus on the best ideas first. This Saturday, unfortunately, that is not what we'll hear.
Its a concert to save the planet from global warming.
I'm sure it will be as effective as previous concerts. After Live 8, for example, we now have no poverty in Africa. :roll:
The concert is 2007/07/07 (local time) but starts at 9PM on 07/06. On XM coverage is on channels 40-46 (pre-empting current channels). A earth sounds channel will be on channel 39.
Sirius and WorldSpace sattellite radio are also covering the event.
Enjoy the concert, and recognize the positive side, and forget the politics, that doesn't matter.
Everyone's idea of why the concert is being held, is their own opinion, but, the concert is still a good
thing, irrespective of any motivation, either good or bad.
It's not suicide bombers, it's not jet plane bombs, it's not torture, (unless you hate the music),;-)
it's not starvation, it's not train explosions, it's not car bombs, it's not plane hyjacking, etc etc.
Everyone's idea of why the concert is being held, is their own opinion, but, the concert is still a good
thing, irrespective of any motivation, either good or bad.
It's not suicide bombers, it's not jet plane bombs, it's not torture, (unless you hate the music),;-)
it's not starvation, it's not train explosions, it's not car bombs, it's not plane hyjacking, etc etc.
As predicted.
Live Earth was a global TV flop
By staff writers
July 10, 2007 08:50am
Article from:
</IMG>Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
- Audiences reach low millions, not billions as hoped
- People more interested in Diana concert
- Foxtel says Australia defied trend
THE globe-spanning pop music extravaganza Live Earth fell flat for television viewers in the United States and Britain, drawing far smaller audiences than the Princess Diana tribute concert a week earlier.
But Australians flocked to watch the broadcast on Foxtel, with music channels Max and Channel V recording some of their highest daily ratings because of their coverage of the Sydney concert. Both channels exceeded their usual Saturday ratings by more than 30 per cent.
Fox 8's 22 hour broadcast of the global event was also watched by 1.34 million viewers
Least-watched program in US
The main three hour American TV broadcast on NBC averaged a meagre 2.7 million viewers, ranking as the least-watched US program on Saturday night and falling below NBC's summer prime-time Saturday average, Nielsen Media Research reported today.
Even rival network ABC's rerun telecast of the animated film Monsters Inc garnered a bigger audience - 3.3 million viewers. The most watched show of the evening was the CBS news magazine 48 Hours with 6.5 million viewers.
Diana eternally popular
By comparison, NBC averaged 8.8 million viewers with its hourlong broadcast of the memorial concert for the late Princess Diana the previous Sunday.
It was the same story in Britain, where BBC One coverage of the Live Earth climax at London's Wembley Stadium, leading up to Madonna's eagerly awaited finale, averaged 3.1 million viewers, compared with 11.4 million for the Diana tribute.
In Germany, the ProSieben network registered one million viewers for its Live Earth telecast, accounting for a relatively healthy 6.3 per cent market share.
The overall numbers amounted to a small fraction of the two billion people that Live Earth organisers had hoped to reach through TV, radio and internet coverage of the event, spearheaded by former US Vice President Al Gore to raise awareness of global warming.
Fans favour internet
It appeared the internet was the medium of choice for fans wishing to experience a worldwide music event from afar.
Microsoft Corp's web portal MSN said on Saturday that Live Earth concerts generated more than nine million internet streams, the most ever for an online entertainment event.
That number surpassed the previous record held by 2005's Live 8 concerts to fight global poverty, MSN said. ABC's Live 8 telecast, which also fell on a Saturday night in July, averaged 2.9 million viewers.
I wonder what the real number of people who watched or listened are.
Why Live Earth was a dead loss
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 10/07/2007
Not everything can be solved by global rock link-ups, says Neil McCormick
There was a moment at Live Earth when I knew for certain it was all going horribly wrong.
Cheering on Live Earth London: Organisers had hoped for a TV audience of two billion There were 70,000 people in Wembley Stadium. The organisers had hoped for a television audience of two billion, to highlight the imminent dangers of global warming. On stage, Tom Chaplin from Keane vainly tried to lead a singalong. Behind him, a big screen boasted "We Called - You Answered", while the numbers who had responded to Live Earth's text message pledge were rolled out. The first line was "3,389 UK responses".
Frankly, my local community signed up more people to protest against a phone mast, and our only celebrity was a voiceover actor for Bob the Builder.
It may be time to call a moratorium on global satellite-linked charity music events. In the past fortnight, we have witnessed two, which for all their good intentions were mediocre entertainment and had questionable results.
The Concert For Diana was essentially a super-sized Royal Variety show, a festival of easy listening in which Wembley Stadium was turned into a vast television studio. Although a flaccid, stop-start affair for the live audience, viewing figures suggest it was a success; but it might have worked just as well if broadcast from a theatre, without the over-inflated sense of self-importance.
I have no doubt that the Concert for Diana's anodyne character contributed to the underwhelming response to Live Earth. There are only so many times you want to see rock bands making speeches, and the unfortunate confluence of the two created the sense that the actual content of the shows didn't really matter. The medium drowned out the message.
Live Earth was at once overambitious (it had multiple objectives, both to educate and to recruit, and the result was often comically inappropriate, juxtaposing excessive rock acts such as Metallica with films about not over-filling your kettle) and not ambitious enough. The line-up was no better than an average festival. The stars were supposed to persuade the ordinary people of the urgency of the cause, but if no one could persuade the stars themselves, then it was over before it started.
It was "just an enormous pop concert for the umpteenth time" according to Bob Geldof, a vocal, and prescient, critic of the event. How it would have benefited from his passion and uncompromising directness, not to mention his contacts book.
Live Aid and Live 8 worked because they were urgent, emotive, single-issue events aimed at achieving immediate, tangible results. They had an uncomplicated spirit of universal charity that coincides with the entire ethos of popular music, and were run with a haphazard, devil-may-care approach that tapped into rock's favoured anti-establishment pose. There was a sense of manning the barricades, not preaching from a podium.
The organisers of the Concert for Diana and Live Earth may have improved on the technical organisation, but they did so at a cost to the character. Whatever their good intentions, the danger is that the result will be an increased sense of apathy. I fear Live Earth may have actually set the environmental movement back.
It is certainly going to make it harder to motivate the music community to give up its time and talent in the future. Because the truth of the legend on display at Wembley might have been "We Called - But You Weren't In".
Why Live Earth was a dead loss
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 10/07/2007
Not everything can be solved by global rock link-ups, says Neil McCormick
There was a moment at Live Earth when I knew for certain it was all going horribly wrong.
Frankly, my local community signed up more people to protest against a phone mast, and our only celebrity was a voiceover actor for Bob the Builder.
It may be time to call a moratorium on global satellite-linked charity music events. In the past fortnight, we have witnessed two, which for all their good intentions were mediocre entertainment and had questionable results.
The Concert For Diana was essentially a super-sized Royal Variety show, a festival of easy listening in which Wembley Stadium was turned into a vast television studio. Although a flaccid, stop-start affair for the live audience, viewing figures suggest it was a success; but it might have worked just as well if broadcast from a theatre, without the over-inflated sense of self-importance.
I have no doubt that the Concert for Diana's anodyne character contributed to the underwhelming response to Live Earth. There are only so many times you want to see rock bands making speeches, and the unfortunate confluence of the two created the sense that the actual content of the shows didn't really matter. The medium drowned out the message.
Live Earth was at once overambitious (it had multiple objectives, both to educate and to recruit, and the result was often comically inappropriate, juxtaposing excessive rock acts such as Metallica with films about not over-filling your kettle) and not ambitious enough. The line-up was no better than an average festival. The stars were supposed to persuade the ordinary people of the urgency of the cause, but if no one could persuade the stars themselves, then it was over before it started.
It was "just an enormous pop concert for the umpteenth time" according to Bob Geldof, a vocal, and prescient, critic of the event. How it would have benefited from his passion and uncompromising directness, not to mention his contacts book.
Live Aid and Live 8 worked because they were urgent, emotive, single-issue events aimed at achieving immediate, tangible results. They had an uncomplicated spirit of universal charity that coincides with the entire ethos of popular music, and were run with a haphazard, devil-may-care approach that tapped into rock's favoured anti-establishment pose. There was a sense of manning the barricades, not preaching from a podium.
The organisers of the Concert for Diana and Live Earth may have improved on the technical organisation, but they did so at a cost to the character. Whatever their good intentions, the danger is that the result will be an increased sense of apathy. I fear Live Earth may have actually set the environmental movement back.
It is certainly going to make it harder to motivate the music community to give up its time and talent in the future. Because the truth of the legend on display at Wembley might have been "We Called - But You Weren't In".
So how do you feel about concerts as a whole? Should the practice of entertainment be stopped altogether? As well, how about air travel for non-emergency services? Do you feel that should be stopped too?
Concerts, entertainment and travel are all good. Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are things I don't like.
Last edited:
Ok given the same circumstances, how would you go about achieving the same objective?
First, what is the objective? What do you actually want to happen?
Secondly, is it realistic? Can your objective be achieved?
Thirdly, will all the world participate or will we have special exemptions for India and China?
It's the same objective. A positive outcome.
Of course. I don't see why not.
It being a personal matter, I don't see what the countries of China and India have to do with it.
But that only avoids the question. Do you have an answer?
China is building a new coal power plant per week. Can we seriously cut down our CO2 to comphensate for that? Even if we can, that assumes that today's levels are OK which they are not. It makes no sense for us to endure hardship or loss of standard of living unless EVERYBODY is doing it equally. It makes no sense for me to worry about my carbon footprint when you look at the dealers lot and see it full for brand new SUVs waiting to take on the wicked commutes along the 401.
Banning non-emergency air travel is a good idea but not realistic in today's world. Who will fly you in the case of an emergency? Air Canada isn't going to be sitting there waiting for the occasional flight. Who defines what an emergency is? If my mom died in Saskatchewan, is that an emergency? What if she was just sick? And again, will that save enough for China to build 2 more coal power plants? That will last us 2 weeks.