Live Earth

[walterick]

70707

Live Earth is a 24-hour, world-wide concert occurring on 7 continents involving 150 artists and purportedly 2 billion people. The goal is to raise awareness and create political action to help decrease global warming. The 2 main concerts are occurring in NYC and London. Some of the stars performing are:

US:
Ludacris

KT Tunstall

Keith Urban

Fall Out Boy

Akon

John Mayer

Kelly Clarkson

Dave Mathews

Alicia Keys

Kanye

Bon Jovi

The Pumpkins

Great Britain has:

Black eyed Peas

Chili Peppers

Metallica

Beastie Boys

Pussycat Dolls

Madonna

Foo Fighters

The concert began tonight and currently I am watching the Sydney show. You can watch streaming here: Live Earth streaming

The NYC show starts Saturday at 2:30 EST.

And, in other earth-friendly news, Toyota has pledged to make it's entire fleet of vehicles hybrid by 2020, and has pledged to make hybrid vehicles cost the same as traditional cars by 2010. I say, things they are a changin'

Have fun watching!

[walterick]

HAHAHAHA

So, so far all of the artists have taken a moment out of their shows to stop and say a word or two about global warming, climate change, fossil fuels, etc. All James Hetfield of Metallica had to say was "Make some noise if you give a sh*t!" during the intro to Enter Sandman heheheh

I hope someone else is watching this!

The NYC show just started, I'm watching KT Kunstall right now. You can switch between shows and watch London, Aus, Japan, China, or South Africa. I really enjoyed the Aus show, there were some artists there I am going to look up. And watching the South African show and hearing their music has been an education.

Ok back to the show!

Live Earth streaming

[walterick]

My gawd Alicia Keys has to be the most beautiful and soulful woman in the world!

Dave Matthews Band on now in NYC.

[almo]

Well, Live Earth went over like a ton of bricks. can't say that it upsets me, as I do not buy into the idea of man made golbal warming, and it was hypocritical event anyway.

I wonder what Al will do to try and top this blunder.

[mjs1973]

Didn't watch any of it. And yes, Alicia Keys is stunning!!!

[adina]

Missed it, we went to a wedding.

[mwfanelli]

Well, Live Earth went over like a ton of bricks. can't say that it upsets me, as I do not buy into the idea of man made golbal warming, and it was hypocritical event anyway.

I wonder what Al will do to try and top this blunder.

Actually, it went over fairly well though not spectacularly. Concerts to save the latest cause are a dime a dozen these days.

Like it or not, global warming is real and the CO2 content is much larger and rising faster than anything ever seen in history. Unless you have another source for all the extra green house gasses, man-made is the most likely source.

[mn shutterbug]

Like it or not, global warming is real and the CO2 content is much larger and rising faster than anything ever seen in history. Unless you have another source for all the extra green house gasses, man-made is the most likely source.

Sad but true. There now is an abundance of proof out there that anyone who doesn't believe it had better start reading.

[mjs1973]

Before this turns into a global warming debate, did anyone see that James Hetfield (Metallic) was detained and interigated at a UK airport. He was detained because of his "Taliban-like beard".

[Asylum Steve]

Rick, you left out the headliners for the entire shebang, The Police. Which, btw, I'd have to say were thoroughly disappointing.

Very odd choice of songs to perform, needlessly extended versions of them, and only one or two big hits.

Big yawn. Good thing I wasn't waiting the whole day to see them...

OTOH, Pink Floyd's braintrust, Roger Waters, was a delight and a complete surprise. The engimatic Waters, writer of most of Floyd's material over the years, very rarely peforms in public.

His set was fun and enegetic, especially Another Brick in The Wall, which included a local New Jersey youth chorus.

[mwfanelli]

Rick, you left out the headliners for the entire shebang, The Police. Which, btw, I'd have to say were thoroughly disappointing.

Very odd choice of songs to perform, needlessly extended versions of them, and only one or two big hits.

Big yawn. Good thing I wasn't waiting the whole day to see them...

I'm not a fan of The Police but haven't they been disbanded for a long time? 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!

[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]

Yeah, on a normal day I would probably get into a debate on global warming but eh, I kinda don't feel like it.

Global temperature increases occuring alongside global carbon dioxide increases are just a coincidence, gays are bad, spying and torture are good, evolution didn't happen, Iraq had WMD's, yadda yadda yadda.

I didn't hear about Hetfield, that's kinda bad that they didn't recognize him and detained him for the length of his beard...

[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.

[schrackman]

Like it or not, global warming is real and the CO2 content is much larger and rising faster than anything ever seen in history. Unless you have another source for all the extra green house gasses, man-made is the most likely source.

Volcanic gasses: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html

[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.

[walterick]

Volcanic gasses

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."

[starriderrick]

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

[mwfanelli]

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."

There was a Nova epsisode on Global Cooling. In fact, the garbage we throw up (nature, also) is reducing the solar constant by a signifigant amount. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to slowing down the net temperature gain. But without it, we would be substantially hotter.

FWIW, I don't think that these particles actually deplete the Ozone Layer. In fact, after the worldwide ban on ozone-depleteing propellants and CFCs, the ozone layer has been recovering, albeit slowly.

Global Cooling is a good show, we have it on DVD as part of the two weather classes.

[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.