Moderator: S2k Moderators
superg77 wrote:Toadstool wrote:It's been GREAT all day. Now NBC is broadcasting highlights (for you non-cable subscribers), though missing a lot of the other acts, but still amazing. I liked Nunatak!
Nunatak rules!
Chacor wrote:Hypocritical. I heard the BBC World Service's coverage of it on radio last night, but it's all hypocritical. How much energy is expended PLAYING these concerts and JETTING from all over the world to do so!?
Regit wrote:Chacor wrote:Hypocritical. I heard the BBC World Service's coverage of it on radio last night, but it's all hypocritical. How much energy is expended PLAYING these concerts and JETTING from all over the world to do so!?
Green power was used wherever it could be. The reason they had so many stages around the world was so that performers played where they live. Regardless of that, throughout the concert people were given tips for reducing their carbon footprint and any other things they could do to help the environment. So, even if the concert had been a huge energy hog, it's usage would almost certainly be offset.
Why can't anything just be appreciated instead of criticized in today's world?
And here is one of their music videos.HarlequinBoy wrote:I think Live Earth is great and people are being really harsh and I don't get it.
Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.
A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.
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.
The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.
Regit wrote:Chacor wrote:Hypocritical. I heard the BBC World Service's coverage of it on radio last night, but it's all hypocritical. How much energy is expended PLAYING these concerts and JETTING from all over the world to do so!?
Green power was used wherever it could be. The reason they had so many stages around the world was so that performers played where they live. Regardless of that, throughout the concert people were given tips for reducing their carbon footprint and any other things they could do to help the environment. So, even if the concert had been a huge energy hog, it's usage would almost certainly be offset.
Why can't anything just be appreciated instead of criticized in today's world?
lurker_from_nc wrote:HarlequinBoy wrote:I think Live Earth is great and people are being really harsh and I don't get it.
I think this part of this articlethat sums up why people were harsh about it:Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.
A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.
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.
The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.
It is a case of "do what I say, not what I do" and it ticks me off.
Otherwise the concert was good, as long as I skip the environmental lectures .
Miss Mary wrote:southerngale wrote:I appreciated Bon Jovi.
And I thought of you the entire time he was first interviewed and then during his performance! They showed fans in the audience and I did look for you Kelly!!! LOL
Extremeweatherguy wrote:I was in Alaska on the 7th and missed the entire thing. One thing is for sure though; Global warming was certainly not the first thing on my mind up there. Highs in the 50s with snow-capped mountains and glaciers everywhere during mid summer felt more like an ice age to me! lol.
southerngale wrote:The Live Earth concert, Al Gore's sprawling worldwide effort to raise environmental awareness, wasn't a big television draw. NBC's Saturday-night highlights show was seen by 2.75 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research, or fewer people than watched the soccer match between Argentina and Peru that night on Univision.
Link
C'mon Southerngale let's go listen to them all Or for you just your Bon Jovi favorites.superg77 wrote:southerngale wrote:The Live Earth concert, Al Gore's sprawling worldwide effort to raise environmental awareness, wasn't a big television draw. NBC's Saturday-night highlights show was seen by 2.75 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research, or fewer people than watched the soccer match between Argentina and Peru that night on Univision.
Link
Wow! Must have been a popular soccer game. But that was just one NBC channel. The total for all of NBC's channels was 19 million and that's just U.S. tv coverage. But who even needs tv anymore now that we have YouTube. Type Live Earth in at YouTube and you get 26,000 awesome Live Earth video clips! Hmm... that seems like way too many.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
