Live Earth Concert...what's the point?

[newcrasher]

@Leaper

But he did have the power to influence Administration policies, and even with a Republican Congress (which was actually a DEMOCRATIC Congress for a few years), I didn’t see much evidence that the Clinton Administration cared any more about the environment than any other before or since.

Even if they tried, half of politics is being seen by the public, and my ignorance of any effort on their part says something (I mean, says something about more than my ignorance :)).

Gore was the main reason the Clinton administration ratified the Kyoto Accords.

Oh. Nevermind.

[BrainGlutton]

@newcrasher

Gore was the main reason the Clinton administration ratified the Kyoto Accords.

Oh. Nevermind.

Well, as to that . . .

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. The United States was, as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.[58] China was projected to take over at the top of the table by late 2007,[59]however one study now concludes this has already occurred.[60].

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[61][62] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[63] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the “Clean Development Mechanism” — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office[citation needed] and the Department of Energy[citation needed], Energy Information Administration (EIA)[citation needed], and others[citation needed], demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide[64]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which are present in the climate change issue.[citation needed] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:

This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People’s Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America’s unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."[65]

In keeping with its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken no specific actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the “Climate Action Report 2002”. Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”. According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012.[66] The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures.[citation needed]

In September 2006 the journal Nature reported that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had blocked an internal report which concluded that global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions may be contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.[67]

The Administration’s position is not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions.[68] The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies.[69] Critics point to the administration’s close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvement” in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.[70]

In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol’s object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.[71]

Things are seldom simple, and this is clearly not one which is.

[Siam_Sam]

@newcrasher

Gore was the main reason the Clinton administration ratified the Kyoto Accords.

Oh. Nevermind.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Clinton and voted for him both times and for Gore in 2000, but I’ve never thought much of Kyoto. There’s an interesting article arguing against the treaty itself here, and it’s certainly not some right-wing rant.

As for the concerts, I’m very cynical about them. I believe what one analyst was quoted as fearing is true, that many if not most of the people attending will jump up and down and hand some money to someone, then go home and tell everyone they’ve done their bit to stem global warming.

[Sitnam]

@Siam Sam

There’s an interesting article arguing against the treaty itself here, and it’s certainly not some right-wing rant.

Ah *The Jakarta Post *, undisputed pillar of the scientific journal community. At least they didn’t have references for any of their assertions, I couldn’t have bothered to waste my time reading THOSE.

[Tuckerfan]

@elucidator

If not us, who? If not now, when?

Quoting Reagan? I’m shocked!

@elucidator

Oh, they’re aware all right!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/sto...1605146,00.html

Satellite data reveals Beijing as air pollution capital of world

Don’t be too certain of that.

About 460,000 Chinese die prematurely each year from breathing polluted air and drinking dirty water, according to a World Bank study.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the Chinese government, the bank’s partner in the research project, had asked the lender not to publish the estimates for fear they could trigger social unrest.

(emphasis mine)

@elucidator

Somewhere there is, very likely, a genius with a crackpot idea that needs only funding.

Well, I dunno about the genius part, but I’ve got the ‘crackpot’ theory part. . .

[newcrasher]

Well in all fairness it does seem cooler out this morning…

[DoctorJ]

1. What is the point? Raising awareness about GW? Do you think anyone with the capacity to view the concert on television is unaware about climate change?

Maybe, but are they stirred up about it? What do they do about it? Just because people are aware of it doesn’t mean they couldn’t stand to have their attention focused.

2. Why should I care a whit about what James Blunt, Akon, Ludacris, or Fallout Boy support? Just because you can rhyme “walk away”, “die today” and “AK” doesn’t make you the standard bearer for facing down the greatest crisis in the history of mankind.

They interviewed Rosario Dawson backstage, and I liked the way she put it–if you heard one of your favorite artists on the LE broadcast, maybe the next time you hear them on the radio it will get you thinking about the environment, and remind you to pick up those CF lightbulbs or separate your recycling or whatever.

3. The hypocrisy of jet-set rockers willing to produce more CO2 on one tour than I will in a lifetime makes me doscount the GW message. And if this is so damn important, cut your CO2 emmissions AND buy your carbon offsets…your trying to save the planet, remember?

Al Gore’s message has always been about what you can do within your own life to reduce your carbon footprint. He could say that we all need to reduce our carbon emissions to zero by moving into solar-powered shacks and growing our own food, but then he’d be dismissed as a crackpot. Instead, he assumes that people are going to live on the grid, drive cars, attend concerts, etc., and encourages people to make those activities as efficient as possible.

Are those small changes enough to save the world? No, probably not. But once people are used to reducing emissions as part of their daily lives, the bigger changes are easier to make.

My understanding is that they have gone a long way to reduce the event’s environmental impact–using green energy when possible, limiting travel, etc. One of their goals was to set a standard within the music industry for how events of this magnitude could be made as environmentally-friendly as possible.

Anyone who buys carbon offsets without doing everything possible first to reduce their emissions is missing the point, and any outfit that sells offsets will tell them so.

[Siam_Sam]

@Sitnam

Ah *The Jakarta Post *, undisputed pillar of the scientific journal community. At least they didn’t have references for any of their assertions, I couldn’t have bothered to waste my time reading THOSE.

Yes, it did appear first in *The Jakarta Post * but is being run on YaleGlobal if you’re familiar with that and was not a local piece.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@gonzomax

Extra credit. The only answer is suicide. Living in an industrialized country ,you will create a extra amount of pollutants. Whining about concerts and gatherings in ridiculous. Do the crashers live a pollution free life.
Perhaps senate and congress should operate by email from home. Think of how they would represent a smaller footprint if they did. Bush should bicycle around Washington to cut gas usage.

Well, we should all be operating by email and phone from home, at least some of the time. Millions of barrels of petroleum would be saved and we would reduce our carbon footprint tremendously, but most American employers are still regard telecommuting as something only to be grudgingly permitted when the employee is physically hurt and unable to drive, or need to wait for a delivery or repair at home.

Still, regarding the OP, the travel expenditures of a touring band are necessarily huge, what with all the equipment they need to drag around with them. They do generate a lot of jobs with the work they do. And, you’re in a much better position to speak and have people listen to you if you’re say, Bono, than if you’re just an average Joe. What’s wrong with them using that power constructively?

[newcrasher]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

Well, we should all be operating by email and phone from home, at least some of the time. Millions of barrels of petroleum would be saved and we would reduce our carbon footprint tremendously, but most American employers are still regard telecommuting as something only to be grudgingly permitted when the employee is physically hurt and unable to drive, or need to wait for a delivery or repair at home.

Still, regarding the OP, the travel expenditures of a touring band are necessarily huge, what with all the equipment they need to drag around with them. They do generate a lot of jobs with the work they do. And, you’re in a much better position to speak and have people listen to you if you’re say, Bono, than if you’re just an average Joe. What’s wrong with them using that power constructively?

Because for there is Bono and then there is Akon.

[Sitnam]

@Siam Sam

Yes, it did appear first in *The Jakarta Post * but is being run on YaleGlobal if you’re familiar with that and was not a local piece.

Ok, I would still like listed sources for their wild claims.

[Siam_Sam]

Wild claims? I found the article to be very reasonable, which is why I linked to it. Oh well.

[Sitnam]

The worlds most polluting nation spends $150 billion dollars over 100 years and they at best they can make a 6 year dent in global warming sound reasonable? Again, how were these figures arrived at?

[BrainGlutton]

James Howard Kunstler’s take:

I’m not convinced that these big public service rock shows do much harm – other than perhaps inflating our expectations and using too much electricity – but this particular one galled me a little.
For one thing, even though global warming is by definition a global problem, the notion of a global community as a permanent fixture of human history is, I think, a mirage. If there is any salient macro implication to the problems I term the long emergency, it is that the world will soon become a bigger place again; the great nations will soon retreat to their own corners of the world as they powerdown by necessity; and all the trade relations, cultural exchanges, and geopolitical conceits that have lately made the Earth seem like a big international hotel give way to much more local issues of sheer survival.
There was so much about the Live Earth show that actually expressed what is worst about the current state of American culture: the obscene posturing of zillionaire celebrities, awarding themselves brownie points for the largeness of their concern – even while, like Mr. Sting of the band called the Police, they buy-and-sell $20 million Manhattan condos, and burn god-knows-how many tons of Wyoming coal amplifying the bass runs to “Roxanne.” And the flip-side of these celebrity pretensions, of course, is the disturbing fealty paid to them by the fans, as members of the public caught up in celebrity-worship are called. Obviously, the whole thing is a kind of self-reinforcing feedback loop spiraling up to ever worse grandiosity on the part of the celebs and ever more pathetic groveling worship of these fake gods by the fans – until it becomes little more than an object lesson in the tragic limitations of the human condition.
Looming behind the spectacle like some Macy’s Thanksgiving Day balloon, is the puffy figure of Al Gore, who has managed to turn his journalistic accomplishment into something uncomfortably like a Nuremberg rally. I say this perhaps incautiously, not because I believe that Al Gore is a bad person, but because it could get to the point here in America, not far down the line, when a desperate public will beg some political leader to push them around, to tell them what to do, to direct their behavior in some purposeful way to save their asses. And these prancing, preening rock and roll celebrities may be paving the way, so to speak, for some corn pone American fascist to strut his stuff for an American audience worried about the growing darkness, and the falling needle on their car’s gas gauge.