Climate change concerts 'to dwarf Live Aid'

[Guard Dog]

Climate change concerts 'to dwarf Live Aid'

By Carlos Grande and Fiona Harvey

 

Published: February 8 2007 02:00 | Last updated: February 8 2007 02:00

 

A series of concerts "bigger than Live Aid" is being planned for July, in a bid to put the subject of climate change before an audience of a global audience of 2bn.

 

The event, scheduled for July 7, will feature co-ordinated film, music and television events in seven cities including London, Washington DC, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town and Kyoto, with major broadcasters and media owners aiming to extend the reach of public awareness of global warming.

 

It is understood that former US vice-president Al Gore, whose movie An Inconvenient Truth brought climate change to cinema audiences last year, will announce the event tomorrow in London.

 

The organisers hope to involve up to 2.5m people in events and link-ups at the cities involved, as well as other locations.

 

They are promising a line-up of artists to "dwarf" that of the Live8 and Live Aid concerts, thought to be branded under the name "SOS".

 

One person close to the event said yesterday: "The talent involved is just exponentially bigger because the issue itself is bigger.

 

"Live Aid was about asking people to stump up money, this is about effecting systemic change.

 

"The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take action."

 

These actions are likely to include personal pledges to reduce emissions, for instance by using energy efficient equipment or flying less.

 

Article

 

One wonders if the climate would better served if the event did not happen. All these bands, celebrities, promoters, roadies, staff, hairstylists, make up artists, cooks, secretaries, etc are going to need to fly to these cities. Most will go via private plane and burn millions of gallons of fuel. The concert goers will consume millions of gallons of gas and diesel to say nothing of the emissions of all of these planes trains and automobiles and buses. It will take thousands of megawatts of power to light their stadiums. So on and so on. It might be better for the environment if we all stayed home and cooked on the grill that night.

 

Also, Live Aid raked in $1.9 billion US for it's cause all told and the bands played for free. This article did not mention where the money for this event is going. Global warming is not like world hunger. You cannot buy it food with the money. So I'm betting it ends up in other people's pockets.

[LadyCrimson]

I don't see in that article any info about whether the performers are paid or not, nor whether the concerts will be about money - they in fact seem to try to differentiate it from the typical donation-fest.

 

Not that I don't believe some money won't be drummed up - if only to try and pay for the costs of the events, which I'm sure aren't cheap even if the performers aren't paid - but it doesn't seem to be the focus?

 

Still, the irony re: how much pollution might be generated in the cause of lessening pollution is valid. I don't know...perhaps they believe that in a greater-good cause that may help more in the long run, a little excess in the present to make that happen is a neccesary evil?

 

Then again...

[Tale]

The issue of global warming needs all the attention it can get, desperately. Ignorance and apathy towards it is too great. The amount of pollution this single event will generate is nothing compared to the pollution that has been released, is being released unrelated to the event, and is still going to be released unless people's attention is on the problem and people start seriously doing things about it.

[Guard Dog]

The issue of global warming needs all the attention it can get, desperately. Ignorance and apathy towards it is too great. The amount of pollution this single event will generate is nothing compared to the pollution that has been released, is being released unrelated to the event, and is still going to be released unless people's attention is on the problem and people start seriously doing things about it.

I'm doing something about it tonight! I'm turning off all of the lights in the house and going outside. I've got a case of Flying Dog on ice in the cooler, a fire going in the firepit in my back yard, and Jimmy Buffet CDs in my battery powered boombox. Good night all!

[Gorgon]

Global warming is a liberal conspiracy, everybody knows that.

[alanschu]

This guy MUST be an alt

[Dark_Raven]

If we are going to cause and keep causing global warming, lets stop beating around the bush about it. Lets just get it over with quicker with a nice global nuclear war.

[Dark_Raven]

This guy MUST be an alt

I recognize the avatar. It was used on another alt here on the forums. Some l33t I believe.

[alanschu]

If we are going to cause and keep causing global warming, lets stop beating around the bush about it. Lets just get it over with quicker with a nice global nuclear war.

 

 

Would a nuclear war cause global warming?

[Tale]

The issue of global warming needs all the attention it can get, desperately. Ignorance and apathy towards it is too great. The amount of pollution this single event will generate is nothing compared to the pollution that has been released, is being released unrelated to the event, and is still going to be released unless people's attention is on the problem and people start seriously doing things about it.

Yeah. I mean, there's no definitive proof to back that such a thing as "global warning" even exists, but if Al said it on TV, it must be true, right?

 

 

Global warming is a liberal conspiracy, everybody knows that.

Finally, someone that knows their stuff.

If by definitive proof, then you mean "a scientific experiment whereby global increases in temperature can be shown as being the direct result of carbon dioxide emissions" then, you're right. There is no definitive proof. That whole ethical dilemma of increasing global warming significantly enough that you can look directly at it and say it was because of your contribution of CO2 is preventing this experiment from occuring. Besides, where would we get the control? Do you have a spare Earth lying around?

 

However, there is a metric %^&ton of correlational data showing a positive relationship between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and increasing temperature.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Tale

[alanschu]

Here is an interesting article I read. I'm posting it since it's relatively new.

 

 

Think what you will.

[theslug]

Obviously fake. Carlos Grande? ROFl thats like mexican version of Whitey McWhiteperson

[Tale]

What do ethics have to do with it? It's about the scientific method, with which you are obviously not familiar. No proof, no doomsday. Simple as that.

Ethics play a large role in designing any experiment. Please, tell me how you can set up an experiment testing global warming without trying to intentionally cause it's increase.

 

 

"The thing is, we don't know enough about global climatology to prove that the planet is undergoing a warming process."

We don't know enough about anything to prove anything. Especially considering the scientific method is actually a method for disproving and that failure to disprove does not constitute proof.

 

"And even if that is the case, there's a fair bit of evidence that points to cyclical changes derived from variable solar activity."

 

And a fair bit of evidence that it's not significant enough to account for what is happening.

But that's probably just purposely misinterpreted, too.

 

Al Gore's not the only person in the world that believes we're causing drastic climate changes. Many scientific organizations share his belief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

I guess the American Association of Petroleum Geologists are the only ones who aren't corrupt or stupid. Oh, and these guys: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

Edited February 10, 2007 by Tale

[alanschu]

Please, tell me how you can set up an experiment testing global warming without trying to intentionally cause it's increase

 

Build a Biosphere!

 

 

As for the Solar Activity, there may be research done in 2001 that made it seem unlikely, but continued research done and published earlier this year are starting to state the same thing. I remember an interesting comment that Jan Veizer made a while ago. He said it was tough for him to come forward with his initial findings, because the scientific community had so widely accepted the idea the CO2 emissions were causing global warming that they were quite resistant to other ideas.

 

This wouldn't be the first time something like this happened. Einstein's Theory of Relativity flipped the world upside down, when the rest of the world had so accepted Newtonian Physics that they made his theories Law. Fortunately for Einstein, his theories were easily testable and easily verified. He didn't have to go through the same stigma that people like Galileo had to endure. Copernicus was hesitant to suggest that the solar system was heliocentric.

 

I wonder if similar stigmas exist when discussing Global Warming (which is a misnomer, it seems the idea is now "Climate Change.")

Edited February 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Walsingham]

Big concerts are for raising awareness. I rather think everyone with access to electronic or print media already knows climate change is an issue.

 

Do I think it will help? Excuse me while I laugh bitterly. These gigs are about making simple travelling minstrels feel like world statesmen, and apathetic dribbling masses feel as if they are doing something 'right on'. The only thing that is worse is a multi-billion dollar concert for food aid or world poverty.

 

*sour look*

[Diamond]

It's about the scientific method, with which you are obviously not familiar. No proof, no doomsday. Simple as that.

Scientific method can't prove, only disprove.

 

R00fles!

[alanschu]

Well, while things may not be "proven," they do become "really, really certain" when numerous, repeated, falsifiable tests occur. Gravity is just a theory, but as it stands we feel we have a high degree of certainty in using current understanding of gravity to make predictions. Of course this isn't concrete, as demonstrated by that wacko Einstein that told everyone that Newton was wrong, so we had to make some adjustments. (Well, Newton wasn't wrong, just incomplete).

[Guard Dog]

Big concerts are for raising awareness. I rather think everyone with access to electronic or print media already knows climate change is an issue.

 

Do I think it will help? Excuse me while I laugh bitterly. These gigs are about making simple travelling minstrels feel like world statesmen, and apathetic dribbling masses feel as if they are doing something 'right on'. The only thing that is worse is a multi-billion dollar concert for food aid or world poverty.

 

*sour look*

Well said!

[Surreptishus]

Big concerts are for raising awareness. I rather think everyone with access to electronic or print media already knows climate change is an issue.

 

Do I think it will help? Excuse me while I laugh bitterly. These gigs are about making simple travelling minstrels feel like world statesmen, and apathetic dribbling masses feel as if they are doing something 'right on'. The only thing that is worse is a multi-billion dollar concert for food aid or world poverty.

 

*sour look*

 

Nonsense, the "End Climate Change" wristbands will have a huge positive effect. All those poor Climatians will finally get some money to help.

[Gorgon]

Theres nothing wrong with these concerts if they help more than harm, raising money for food or development aid does more good than harm, Jamming about global warming is pretty pointless on the other hand.

[taks]

However, there is a metric %^&ton of correlational data showing a positive relationship between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and increasing temperature.

 

actually, no, there's not. the correlation is weak at best over the last 30 years, negative from 1930s to 1970s (take a look, temps dropped but CO2 was going up) and weak again prior to that. solar activity, however, correlates better, and prior to about 1800 (before temp records) we can see very good correlations between activity and guesstimated temperatures (look up the maunder minimum, for example).

 

taks

Edited February 10, 2007 by taks

[Walsingham]

I choose to be smug about the fact that if a new ice age occurred we could pull out all the stops and cook ourselevs to Tahiti!

[Lucius]

The fat man dancing is making me dizzy...

 

Anyway, I just saw An Inconvinient Truth the other day, and Al Gore does seem pretty convincing to me, I mean it's too serious an issue to just ignore what he says imo

[Walsingham]

I know we have to take this issue seriously in teh developed world, but teh developing world is what is really going to do the damage. India and China rising up the charts. And what can we do about them? Nothing. They need to surge their economies forward to keep down unrest. They won't stop because we ask nicely and they won't stop if we try to force them.

[Fionavar]

Thread Pruned: Could we please avoid advocating nuclear strikes ...