Live Earth

[schrackman]

This is a tough argument, because your link says that while volcanic gasses are depleting the ozone layer, they are also cooling the Earth's surface, not warming it:

"Globally, large explosive eruptions that inject a tremendous volume of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere can lead to lower surface temperatures and promote depletion of the Earth's ozone layer."

Volcanic eruptions are kind of a double-edged sword.

On one hand an increase in volcanic activity does tend to have a cooling effect, but that is because of the vast amount of smoke and debris that is strewn into our atmosphere and tends to get trapped up there by stratospheric inversion. As this eventually dissipates, the earth warms up. But the ozone depleting gasses emitted continue to contribute to the warming effect. That's why the ozone hole is in the southern hemisphere, because that is where the vast majority of volcanic activity occurs.

They knew all this stuff back in the 50's, as evidenced by my 1950 something geology book. So what we are seeing in terms of "global warming" is simply nature being cyclical.

Now that's not to say I don't believe that there won't be global environmental catastrophe(s) in the future. But this belongs to my religious beliefs, and since I don't wish to go off topic I'll keep it to myself unless asked.

[schrackman]

On a related note, don't be surprised if one day you're told you can't eat steak anymore....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/nbeef119.xml

[walterick]

People have already been telling you to moderate your red meat intake for years

Think of it as a choice, with each choice bearing different consequences. Kind of like the Christian perspective that one can choose heaven through Christ or damnation through sin.

[schrackman]

People have already been telling you to moderate your red meat intake for years

Think of it as a choice, with each choice bearing different consequences. Kind of like the Christian perspective that one can choose heaven through Christ or damnation through sin.

True, but I think you would agree it's one thing to choose to moderate one's red meat intake and quite another to legislate moderation or prohibit mass production altogether. Just as it is quite different to choose Christ and salvation or be forced by legislation to a particular church.

Now I know the article said nothing of legislation, but my point was given the extreme agendas of some environmentalists and animal activists, it's not hard to imagine that that is the kind of world they would like to see where you and I are not permitted to the freedom to choose what's best for ourselves.

[photophorous]

I've heard a lot of criticism of Al Gore and the jet flights he takes to give his presentation. I can see how the same logic would be applied to Live Earth. These people are burning lots of fossil fuels on their quest to convince people to stop burning fossil fuels, and that does seem hypocritical.

But, I don't see it that way. I see it as further evidence that we have a problem. We rely so much on fossil fuels that there's no way to do this kind thing with out adding to the problem. Everything we do adds to the problem. Typing these letters right now results in CO2 being released into the environment a few miles from here at the Decker Lake Power Plant.

This topic is being discussed much more now that it was just a few years ago. Every day that goes by I hear more conversations and find more threads like this, and it is directly related to An Inconvenient Truth, Live Earth, and similar events. It's not ideal, but it's working.

Paul

[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.

[mwfanelli]

True, but I think you would agree it's one thing to choose to moderate one's red meat intake and quite another to legislate moderation or prohibit mass production altogether. Just as it is quite different to choose Christ and salvation or be forced by legislation to a particular church.

Now I know the article said nothing of legislation, but my point was given the extreme agendas of some environmentalists and animal activists, it's not hard to imagine that that is the kind of world they would like to see where you and I are not permitted to the freedom to choose what's best for ourselves.

It may seem weird, but I agree with you! I absoulely hate government interference with trans-fat, smoking, seatbelts, gay marriage, abortion, drug use, stem cell resaerch, etc. Too much government!

Gasoline, heating oil, etc. prices should be allowed to rise to their natural levels without any government subsidies (i.e., taxpayer money) whatsoever. When gas is $6/gallon or more and filling up the tank of that self-chosen gas guzzler costs well over $100-$200, the consequences of bad choices will become extremely evident.

Too many people want their rights (a good thing) but never want to suffer the pain of the results that come from poorly exercising those rights (a bad thing).

Hey, I'm old and have no kids. I'll be dead long before the real s**t hits the fan. OK youngsters, all together now: "Thanks a lot mom and dad!"

[schrackman]

It may seem weird, but I agree with you!

Uh oh, Michael, that's twice in one year we agreed on something!

[walterick]

It may seem weird, but I agree with you!

Uh-oh, I guess this makes me the odd man out

If some one else's exercising of their right to eat trans fat, smoke, not wear their seat belts, use drugs, or pollute the air didn't affect ME, then I would agree with you. But, all of those choices affect MY life. And since MY right to life and pursuit of happiness cannot be interfered with by anyone else, it's then the job of the government to protect ME from other people's actions. If someone ELSE eats trans fats, I suffer from their drag on the health care industry. If someone ELSE smokes, I can pay the price, perhaps in the health effects of second hand smoke or at least in the fact that smoke irritates my eyes. If someone ELSE decides not to wear their seatbelt, and dies unnecesarily in a car accident, I may be looking at involuntary manlaughter charges rather than failure to yield right-of-way. And if someone ELSE decides to break into my house for money to buy drugs, *I* pay a price. I agree with you in that people should self-regulate and be left to the results of their own choices. In this, I am for assisted suicide in cases where depression is not present, for instance. But when someone else's stupid, self-defeating behavior affects ME, that is where I draw the line, and that is where I feel the government needs to step up and keep these crackheads in line. So that MY right to life and happiness aren't compromised. And, just for the record, I don't see that I suffer if gays get married or women have abortions.

[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?

[mwfanelli]

The problem with the "it affects me" argument is that almost anything anyone does has an effect on your life. You say you don't mind gays getting married. But married couples get benefits, it costs more to supply those benefits, companies either charge you more or lay you off because of the extra expenses.

So many things could be controlled in your world. Forget about driving a vehicle, bad drivers cause many more deaths than trans-fat does. These bad drivers can hit you with no warning ending your life.

Overweight people should be jailed in fat farms because of the drain on health care. People who climb mountains, jump out of airplanes, go to war or shoot a gun...

Oh, oh... photographers must be banned! After all, they may take a picture of me that shows me doing something that will get me in trouble at home, at the job...

Let's also have government control of religion. Religion has killed more people than any other factor in human history. It might get around to killing you and me. Direct effect! LOL: FWIW, I was threatened once by a southern Baptist.

Life is all about change and risk. Eliminate all risk and you no longer have a life worth losing. Smoking directly effects you, it gets into your lungs. Fine, control it. But trans-fat? Seat belts? Really now!

The key to rights is personal responsibility. For example, the fact that someone freely chooses not to wear a seat belt and dies or is severely injured is his/her fault, not yours. As I said above, people want rights which is a very good thing. They must be forced to accept that with rights come responsibility.

Wow, rambling again but I'm in a hurry. You get the idea!

[walterick]

They must be forced to accept that with rights come responsibility.

Wow, I get to pick on that statement alone

Michael, your main statement through all of these threads seems to be "there should be no 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? How do you justify forcing people to do one thing while claiming that they should not be forced to do another?

Some of your argments are funny Let's see here...

I didn't say "put fat people in jail." I said "eating trans fat kills people so let's make it illegal." I know you're sensitive to laws being passed to regulate the ways you can hurt yourself if you want, but hopefully you see the plain way in which the passing of these laws makes things better even for you? Should using asbestos in homes be made legal again? How about lead in paint. 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.

Photographers? Now you're being silly. Taking pictures hasn't been proven in a laboratory to be a cause of death. Where are you coming from here?

"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 responsibilty from the people themselves.

"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.

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. 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 supercedes their right to die stupidly in a car accident.

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[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!

[schrackman]

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