Live Earth

[Asylum Steve]

A band thrown back together at the last minute can not be expected to be all that good. They would need time together to get the rust off, especially the older members!..

Michael, yes and no. While The Police broke up in 1984 (playing only a handful of gigs together since then), they are currently in the midst of a full-blown world reunion tour.

So this wasn't exactly thrown together, and my disappointment had nothing to do with "rust". They sounded fine, just didn't perform the songs everyone was hoping to hear.

The cynic in me feels this was intentional: to get people to pay big bucks to see their "real" concerts...

[walterick]

Hey, this is my 4000th post

Well, I just tried linking to various songs from the show, but then I realized they're not gonna let me do that. So, here is a link to the entire show:

Live Earth Archive

If you scroll down a little, you can flip through all the shows. Click the city you want on the left, select the artist you want to see in the middle, and then their set list pops up on the right. My favorites from the NY show were:

Keith Urban and Alicia Keys covering the Stones' "Gimme Shelter"

Alicia Keys "If I Ain't Got You"

The Police "Message in a Bottle" (with Kanye West's awkward freestyle in the middle)

If you switch to the UK show, you can see James Hetfield and his Taliban beard asking if you "give a sh*t"in Enter Sandman. The Foo Fighters also did a very rockin set there, and Madonna put on a hell of a show too. You can also see both Genesis and Spinal Tap reunited.

It's gonna take me a long time to listen to all these artists

[another view]

Great Britain has: Madonna

They can have her! Apologies to UK members...

Didn't see it - I was having the time of my life rebuilding windows, painting, hanging a light fixture over a stairway and other assorted fun things. It'll come out on DVD, pretty sure of that!

[walterick]

Ooh, another new favorite. For a nice acoustic set, check out David Grey and Damien Rice performing together on the London stage.

[adina]

Say what you will about Madonna, but she puts on a damn good show. Thanks for the link Rick, going to look at these when I get home.

[Greg McCary]

Sirius Radio played a Crowded House song that was awesome, from their performance. Even though I didn't get to see any of the concerts I bet they were great.

[Medley]

I have to wonder just how much fossil fuel and how many carbon emissions it took to get all those artists to their destinations- ostensibly to "Save The Earth". Hypocritical you say? Well, maybe just a little.

- Joe U.

[walterick]

That's a common criticism.

If you subtract the fuel they would have burned that weekend anyway, driving to beaches, shopping malls, etc, minus the changes that have occurred since the concert - because of the concert, it may approach a neutral footprint. And if people push for the legislation the concerts were designed to inspire, the end results of the concerts will be a dramatically decreased level of Co2 worldwide.

[starriderrick]

Thanks for the link Rick ! http://liveearth.msn.com/concerts/US

[walterick]

Really, what is the whole Global Warming debate really about?

Conservatives and Liberals alike have acknowledged that the Earth is getting hotter. So "global warming" in the strict denotative sense is not being argued by anyone. The Earth is getting hotter.

The crux of the argument appears to be whether people are causing this rise in global temperatures. The conservative cry has been "NO; humans do not affect the climate." The liberal cry of course has been "YES; humans do affect the climate." How does one decide?

Science is one way to determine who is right, or to which extent both are right. Here's a little of what science has to say on the subject:

In February of this year, top scientists from around the globe issued a report on global warming. The report is considered the most authoritative report on global warming to date. A few exercepts from the news article: whole story here

"The scientists said global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."

""It is critical that we look at this report ... as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it," said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program."

For more scientific information on global warming and climate change, go to the Union of Concerned Scientists webpage on Global Warming here and you can read for days and days. Here is an excerpt:

"We do know, for example, that certain gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, play a crucial role in determining the Earth's climate by preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere. Researchers have also been able to document that the increased concentration of such gases in the atmosphere results from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and land degradation, cattle ranching, and rice farming."

There is much, much more science on the likelihood that humans contribute to global warming, but I am finding it time-consuming to track down all the charts and graphs and for copyright reasons I can't post them here anyway. Suffice it to say, there appears to be a global consensus among the people who are looking at the climate through objective eyes, and without political agendas. In fact, the only people holding out for a non-human explanation for global warming... seem to be the conservatives, either for reasons of miseducation, profit watching, or party loyalty...?

Since it appears to be the case that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas and contributes to increases in global land temperatures, let's go ahead and pretend for a minute that we decide to decrease our emissions of Co2. What always strikes me is how one choice can influence us positively in so many different ways. For instance, let's look at the choice of driving more fuel-efficient motor vehicles:

1) Driving more efficient vehicles cuts Co2 emissions, which decreases the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which allows the gases already there to begin dissipating, slowly.

2) Driving more efficient vehicles reduces the amount of pollutants in our air. You wouldn't wrap your lips around a tailpipe and breathe, yet we act as if spitting these gases out into our atmosphere and breathing them in slowly over time is okay. Breathing polluted air has taken a backseat as a social cause in recent years, for some reason unbeknownst to me, but I think it's important to keep the effects of pollution in the forefront of our minds in the subsequent years. Interesting, that the Earth's temperature has risen as carbon dioxide levels have risen. Interesting, too, that cancer rates in the US have risen steadily (about 1.5% a year) as Co2 levels have risen. Despite our incredible medical technology saving more lives every year, there are still more people getting cancer every year. Doesn't cancer seem more prevalent today? Could pollution be playing a role?

3) Driving more efficient vehicles decreases our dependence on foreign oil. Decreasing our dependence on foreign oil appears to be a universal goal held by all Americans in all political parties. It also negates arguments such as drilling in ANWR, and may help keep us out of military and political entanglements in the Middle East.

4) Driving a more fuel efficient vehicle puts more money in your pocket. Another goal which appears to be bi-partisan in this country.

Here we appear to have a win-win-win-win situation, by simply driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle. In one fell swoop, we are helping slow climate change, lowering pollution levels, decreasing our need for foreign oil, and saving ourselves some money. Sounds good? With help from forward-looking companies like Toyota, who have promised to make their hybrids cost the same as non-hybrids in 3 years, the choice to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles is becoming an easier one with less compromise needed in other areas of our lives.

I could make a similar argument as above for requiring coal-burning power plants to recapture Co2, replacing light bulbs with more efficient ones, and eating a vegetarian diet But I think the universality of the benefits of these behaviors is obvious enough.

Yet, has it occurred to anyone else that these measures, while true of heart and well-intended, are simply stop gaps?

It certainly speaks well to those who make dramatic changes in their lives in order to decrease their carbon footprint. But should people really have to change their lives in order to help the planet?

Is the problem really that we drive SUV's? Or is the problem that SUV's still run on fossil fuels?

Is the problem that people drive more that they need to? Or that driving still produces lots of greenhouse gases?

Is the problem that people use incandescent lightbulbs? Or leave their furnace set to 69 rather than 68? Or that they don't have the proper attic insulation? Or that their windows and doors have bad weatherstrip?

NO!!

The problem is that all of these activities still produce pollutants and greenhouse gases!

We should all be able to drive the car, truck, or SUV we want without fear of the effect we're having or the ridicule we'll receive. We all should be able to drive in circles in a parking lot if we want without it having an effect on global climate temperatures. We should all be able to leave the lights on, stand with the refrigerator doors open, and have our homes as hot or cool as we want.

The heart of the problem is not what we are doing (simply living) the problem is that in their current form, these behaviors all have negative effects on us in the long run... environmentally, politically, economically, and healthily. So what to do?

We need new sources of energy. We have new sources of energy. Do you know that we have had the capacity to live off solar energy for decades? Use whatever light bulb you want! Stand with the refrigerator door open! It doesn't matter, when your home is powered by the Sun. San Francisco is the foggiest city in America. It is also the city most run by solar electricity. What does that say about the energy priorities of America? What does it say about our dependence on oil - our psychological dependence? Why is my city, in the heart of the desert, not the one run most by solar energy? Because no one has made that choice yet.

You can drive your car as much as you want, as hard as you want, as long as you want, without fear of condemnation or destroying the environment... as long as that car runs on Solar Electric. We currently have a growing crop of gas-electric hybrid cars making waves in the US markets. I believe in the long run, hybrids will be a flash in the pan, as all-electric vehicles will be the next logical step in the evolution of the automobile. Electric cars that are recharged every day by ubiquitous, free, Solar Energy. Hybrids will serve their purpose as a transitional technology from gas to electric, and maybe have uses in situations where more power and longer drive times are needed. Imagine the day when the carbon footprint made by airplanes and 57 Chevys is insignificant because the rest of the world is running on logical, clean, solar electricity? The first 100 years of automobiles saw the evolution of the gasoline engine. Hybrids will help get us off unsustainable fossil fuels, and Solar-Electric cars will mark the next 100 years of automotive evolution, I believe.

The technology is coming, but why aren't we invested in it? Is it as obvious as the ties between our government and Big Oil? Could that be that simple? Are people so stuck in their ways that they see any change as "liberal" and therefore scarey, and bad? I think a Solar-Electric solution to our energy problems is an obvious, and... inevitable one. How could it end any other way? Our oil reserves won't last forever. Even hybrid technologies rely on the use of some fossil fuels. The only clear answer appears to be solar power.

And that is why I write this, not just to convince you to turn your thermostats up and buy a hybrid and change your lightbulbs, but to push for institutional change. The kind that lets you buy a Hummer and leave the refrigerator door open, because it's all sustainable, renewable energy. Tell your governmental officials that you want new energy - the kind we don't have to kill over. And in the meantime, until they do, go change that lightbulb.

[Medley]

I guess I'm just not as convinced as some. There's a big difference between raising awareness and effecting change. Few people today can argue the negative effects of smoking, yet there are still millions of smokers. OK, smoking's an addiction, I'll grant you. Seatbelts aren't. How many years did that change in attitude take?

Sure, it's better than doing nothing. You have to start somewhere. But realistically, there's no way that an event like this is going to wind up being carbon neutral. Even some of those involved admitted the contradiction. Yu Nakajima, who was in charge of greening the Tokyo show, was quoted as saying, "It's very obvious that any event like this is not environmentally friendly. It's probably better not to have an event at all."

The event raised awareness. It got people talking, and may (eventually) lead to people taking action. But don't insult people's intelligence by attempting to pass this event off as evironmentally neutral.

- Joe U.

[walterick]

If I've insulted your intelligence, I apologize. Certainly postulating that if 1,000,000,000 people (half of what was expected) watched the shows and made changes in their energy consumption - thus over time making the shows effectively carbon neutral - is not an insulting thought?

[Medley]

If I've insulted your intelligence, I apologize. Certainly postulating that if 1,000,000,000 people (half of what was expected) watched the shows and made changes in their energy consumption - thus over time making the shows effectively carbon neutral - is not an insulting thought?

Here's a few facts from Time magazine, and it's associate, CNN:

Madonna (just as an example), flew in from New York in a private jet to appear onstage at Wembly.

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.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.

Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine, who covered the Tokyo show reported:

Organizers had stressed that the massive festivals themselves would be as green as could be — the Tokyo show was to be powered by solar energy and biodiesel made from recycled cooking oil. So I wasn't surprised to see an array of solar panels at the center of the information hall, apparently hooked up to a big-screen TV playing the feed from the concert stage next door. Very green, except for the fact that we were indoors, and there was no sun.

and then further down the article:

The Tokyo show drew much of its electricity from an existing solar plant on the grid, but that meant that Tokyo homes and businesses normally supplied by solar would have needed to supplement their power from dirtier sources. That's a net loss for the environment.

I could continue, but you get the idea.

Now, the idea that because Madonna talked about conserving energy, and because the audience might conserve a bit more than they did before the concert, that makes the whole event "carbon neutral" is not only ludicrous, it's hypocritical.

I should point out that Bryan Walsh went on to say that the carbon footprint was not the story- that the story was that a whole bunch of people got together an made a concerted (no pun intended) effort to improve the environment. On that issue, I agree.

Again, it's not the message that I object to, or really even the fact that they produced a huge carbon footprint to do it. It's the fact that they produced a huge carbon footprint to do it, then raved about how green the shows were. It's the smoke-and-mirrors. It's hooking solar panels up indoors, and using power from a solar plant that you know is going to be replaced with more conventional methods. It's jetting halfway around the world in a Gulfstream to tell me I need to reduce my carbon emissions, and then calling what you do "carbon-neutral", or even "environmentally friendly".

And you say the grand idea for this came from a politician? Imagine my surprise.

- Joe U.

[walterick]

Now, the idea that because Madonna talked about conserving energy, and because the audience might conserve a bit more than they did before the concert, that makes the whole event "carbon neutral" is not only ludicrous, it's hypocritical.

You're using a lot of strong language here, which is fine. But judging the notion of the shows being carbon neutral as being "ludicrous" isn't helping your argument, it's only raising emotion. You're also using assumptive language in saying that "because the audience might conserve a bit more than they did before the concert..." You have no idea how much change people are making in their lives to help benefit their environment. You use the language "a bit" to describe the changes people "might" make. Surely you see the assumption involved in your argument? If people make lasting, significant changes - including legislation - and then pass those behavior modifications down to their children then YES, the total effect of the concerts will be carbon neutral, and eventually carbon "negative." But, it rests squarely on the shoulders of the people to make those changes. Including you, and I.

It's the fact that they produced a huge carbon footprint to do it, then raved about how green the shows were.

I never heard that the shows were being described as "green." So I really can't comment on this claim. Of course, there are going to be compromises made in order to make a point. And yes, I'm sure the organizers knew they were stepping into a theorhetical "trap" in order to produce these shows. But to stay home and keep quiet because someone is going to call you a hypocrite is not going to get the job done. You have to accept that in order to change the system, you have to be a part of the system. In order to communicate the importance of conserving energy, you're going to have to use some energy. It's one of the ironies of our world. I'm sure Al Gore lost some sleep over the inevitable labeling of his movement to effect climate change. But, there is no other way to do it. And keeping quiet so as not to get labeled a hypocrite isn't going to help the world.

[mwfanelli]

Michael, your main statement through all of these threads seems to be "there should be no laws."

I have never said this. That's what an anarchist believes. Laws should be rational and well thought out, limited in application. Murder should be illegal, smoking grass should not be. I am against "nanny laws" not all laws.

What's the difference between forcing someone to wear a seatbelt (which translates just to punishing them after the fact if they don't) and forcing someone to accept responsibility?

This may sound cruel but here it goes. If people make bad choices and suffer the consequences we are pretty much cleaning out the gene pool. Seat bets have saved my life twice. But it was MY choice to use them. If I didn't like seatbelts, I would not have worn them regardless of the law.

When did it become my responsibility, your responsibility, some fat-butt politician's responsibility to protect me from my own stupidity? Perhaps the public should be liable for massive damages in those rare cases when a seat belt actually causes injury?

I didn't say "put fat people in jail." I said "eating trans fat kills people so let's make it illegal."

Why stop at trans fat? Why not all bad-for-you foods? Why not a government eating plan that makes you healthily (for your own good, of course). We have labels for fats, carbs, protein on foods so people can make a choice. Just add trans-fat to the label and let people decide how to run their own lives.

Should using asbestos in homes be made legal again? How about lead in paint.

Uh oh, bad choice. There are two types of asbestos, one is dangerous, one is not. Yet in the wild rush to "fix" a problem, rational thought went out the window and everything was banned. That's part of the problem. Tell me, how many people have gotten ill from asbestos gloves?

Lead paint is only a problem when ingested. So yeah, lead-based paints on dinner plates should be banned unless loudly proclaimed labels adorn them. Lead paint can be dangerous for kids who eat paint. Fine, don't use lead paint if you have kids. I haven't eaten lead paint in quite a while. Again, I am not against laws, I am for the using them in a very targeted way rather than wild and hysterical "one-size-fits-all" law.

I suppose the Libertarian cry would be YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO PAINT WITH LEAD-BASED PAINT but come on, use some common sense here. We're not taking away your right to life & liberty, we're protecting the well-being of the whole by insuring it can't be ruined by the few.

It starts with the little things and expands. Did anyone foresee that trans fat would be banned when lead paint was taken off the market? You are in a nanny cycle: if you ban one thing for being "bad" other bad things start popping into your consciousness like dandelions in a field!

"Religion has killed more people than any other factor in human history." Religion doesn't kill people. Religion is a set of beliefs, it can't pull a trigger or build a bomb. To say that religion kills people is a little... irresponsible, to use your word? Holding people accountable for their actions, regardless of their beliefs, is what our laws attempt to accomplish. Making their beliefs the bad guy here removes the responsibility from the people themselves.

So, the beliefs of White Supremacists are just that, beliefs, maybe beliefs you and I don't agree with. But hey, no problem, prosecute them after they murder someone. OK, I'll agree with you here as long as ALL beliefs are covered.

"Smoking directly effects you, it gets into your lungs. Fine, control it." Now you're walking the thin line where you've accepted that something that affects you directly in a negative way should be controlled. Following this logic, all I should have to do is prove that something negative affects you directly and it will be made illegal.

When you smoke, everyone around you is forced to smoke as well, there is no choice. If I eat tarns-fat loaded french fries, no one is forcing them down your throat at the same time. I have no problem with people smoking when no one else is around or when with consenting adults.

And seatbelts? You said "the fact that someone freely chooses not to wear a seat belt and dies or is severely injured is his/her fault, not yours." Actually, no, this is not right. If I inadvertently kill someone in an automobile accident, I can be held responsible.

True, because of the very nanny laws you advocate! Approach liability laws with a rational approach and this nonsense disappears.

By "requiring" them to wear a seatbelt, I am saving myself from the headache of their stupid action. Yes, their civil rights get ALL TRAMPED ON but in this case my right to the pursuit of happiness supersedes their right to die stupidly in a car accident.

A common mistake. Seat belts do prevent some injuries. But driving is still the biggest hazard you face every day. Do you propose even more laws to protect yourself from the hundreds of other causes, many even more important than seat belts, of injury and death on the road?

We will never agree as this discussion has been replayed a few times in the past. There is a fundamental difference between the liberal who truly believes that nanny laws make the world better and libertarians who believe that freedom of choice makes the world better. These two sides will never come together!

P.S. FWIW, I'm not a Libertarian as I disagree with some of their viewpoints! But I agree with a lot of their ideas.

[walterick]

Michael, I am going to try to cut to your main points here, in an effort to save arguing all the fun about seatbelts and transfat. I think your main point is:

"Laws should be rational and well thought out, limited in application... I am against "nanny laws" not all laws."

So help me out here, because I have puzzled over your "nanny law" argument for a long time and I'm rather anxious to understand this. First of all, what is the definition of a "nanny law?" What is an example of a law that is not a "nanny law?" In your definition, what is the intent, or reason, behind passing a law?

You also said:

"If people make bad choices and suffer the consequences we are pretty much cleaning out the gene pool."

How so? Are you assuming that all people who make bad choices will die, go to prison, or somehow not be able to genetically reproduce? Is this an example of natural selection?

Thanks, I hope this will help me understand your view of the world.

And, buckle up

[mwfanelli]

Michael, I am going to try to cut to your main points here, in an effort to save arguing all the fun about seatbelts and transfat. I think your main point is:

"Laws should be rational and well thought out, limited in application... I am against "nanny laws" not all laws."

So help me out here, because I have puzzled over your "nanny law" argument for a long time and I'm rather anxious to understand this. First of all, what is the definition of a "nanny law?" What is an example of a law that is not a "nanny law?" In your definition, what is the intent, or reason, behind passing a law?

You also said:

"If people make bad choices and suffer the consequences we are pretty much cleaning out the gene pool."

How so? Are you assuming that all people who make bad choices will die, go to prison, or somehow not be able to genetically reproduce? Is this an example of natural selection?

Thanks, I hope this will help me understand your view of the world.

And, buckle up

A "nanny law" is a law designed to protect me from myself. Why? Because someone else decides they know what is best for me. Sort of a nanny controlling a child. The trans-fat and seatbelt laws are nanny laws. I can't stand that! Let me know what is what and let me decide, choose, what to do with my life. Don't pass a law that tells me not to do something stupid to myself.

Cleaning out the gene pool is just what it sounds like! No, people who make stupid choices don't always die. But they surely are more likely to! When my truck slid on ice and flipped over the bridge years ago, the seatbelt saved my life. If I had chosen the stupid path, no seatbelt, I'd be dead. My life, my choice.

I rode a fast motorcycle for about 10 years when I was younger. I always wore a helmet. My life, my choice. But please, no helmet laws telling me its for "my own good." Some people would, by the way, ban motorcycles altogether because they are "too dangerous." My choice to start, my choice to stop. No one else's.

As an advisor here at the college always says: "People have a right to fail," That applies to life as well. Don't attach training wheels to me!

[Medley]

You have no idea how much change people are making in their lives to help benefit their environment. You use the language "a bit" to describe the changes people "might" make. Surely you see the assumption involved in your argument? If people make lasting, significant changes - including legislation - and then pass those behavior modifications down to their children then YES, the total effect of the concerts will be carbon neutral, and eventually carbon "negative." But, it rests squarely on the shoulders of the people to make those changes. Including you, and I.

I absolutely see the assumption involved in my argument. I also see the assumption involved in yours, which was my point.

People may or may not conserve more in the following days.

Any conservation gained may or may not be a direct result of the Live Earth events.

How, then, can we possibly take any gain other than those which the sponsors specifically undertook to reduce the event at the time of broadcast and apply them back to the event so that we can say "Look, See there? It's a carbon-neutral event."

The purchasing of carbon offsets is dicey enough. Planting a tree in Zimbabwe does nothing to negate the carbon-emitting effects of my Toyata Corolla (which, by the way, was purchased for it's fuel-efficiency), and likely won't offset the emiisions for several years. But because the life expectancy of the tree is several decades, I can claim that my Toyota is carbon-negative???

In my opinion, that kind of thinking is more indicative of the problem than the solution, and it absolutely requires strong language.

In fact, the language can't be strong enough.

- Joe U.

[walterick]

There is no assumption in my argument, only fact:

IF people, as a direct result of watching these concerts, effect enough change in their world, THEN the effect of the concerts will eventually be positive. That's a fact. I never said "the concerts were carbon neutral." I said "they can be." IF the concerts directly effect behavior change, THEN eventually the massive expenditure of energy to produce the concerts would be balanced by the results - provided there are no other variables in the equation. That's a fact. No assumptions. The only question is whether people will make those changes.

You are arguing that the concerts are not carbon-neutral. I am arguing that they can be. We are both correct. But I don't care, really, about whether we can count the effects of the concerts as retroactively balancing the carbon footprint of the shows. It doesn't matter to me. Even if we do not agree in this thread, but both of us have the singular goal of effecting climate change, I think that is the point. It sounds like you're a responsible guy and making conscious efforts to do your part. I know you don't need a pat on the back, but thanks. I will even let you win this argument if it means saving your attitude toward environmental responsiblity Will enough people act to make the concert pollutions worth while? I don't know, that's up to you and me. If this whole lovely argument about the concerts helps effect the change, then all the better to me!

[walterick]

p.s. I should also give you that I agree that Madonna's, et al decision to fly in a private jet to the concerts is an irresponsible one, at best, especially given the nature of the events. Certainly, the artists preaching climate change could be setting a better example!

[photophorous]

p.s. I should also give you that I agree that Madonna's, et al decision to fly in a private jet to the concerts is an irresponsible one, at best, especially given the nature of the events. Certainly, the artists preaching climate change could be setting a better example!

I agree with this, but I still think some people are going too far in calling these concerts hypocritical. Trash Madonna if you want, but not the whole concert.

As far as I'm concerned, the argument about the hypocrisy of this concert is just another way to avoid seriously considering/discussing the legitimacy of the message. What's the alternative to the concerts? Shut people up and don't change anything? The people who say the concerts are hypocritical seem to be the same people who don't believe in the message. So which is it? If you agree with their message, then surely you can see the importance of getting the word out? And if you don't agree with the message, then you shouldn't believe that the carbon footprint of the concert even matters.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the scale of change that we COULD be making. It's not just about driving efficient cars. Last I heard automobiles only account for 30-something percent of CO2 emissions. The rest comes from power plants and factories that will not change with out government regulation. Someone has to get the word out, and if that results in a serious political discussion, regulatory changes, and subsidies for research, the result of this concert (and all the others that are sure to come) could be very carbon negative in a very short time. The more people become aware of this issue, and talk about it, the more likely a serious political discussion becomes. That's the goal, and success could be tremendous. If they fail, it's a drop in the bucket. I don't see hypocrisy in that, but I do see hypocrisy in private jet flights.

Paul

[schrackman]

Hey, I have an idea...why don't we send Live Earth to China, and leave them there?