username:

password:
Bureaucrash Demands Debate at New York Concert

Al Gore’s “Live Earth” international jamboree was a truly global endeavor with a truly global carbon footprint. The organizers emphasized emissions would be offset through a Mozambique tree-planting project. I wonder how many trees this would take, though. To transport the horde of star musicians, powerful Lear and Gulfstream jets flew approximately 223,623 miles - about nine times the Earth’s circumference. And a one-hour flight in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving your family car for a year. The concert at Wembley stadium in London alone produced 59 tons of trash. The parking-lot of New Jersey’s Giants Stadium resembled a venue for college tailgate, full of youngsters who cheered for the environment with beer bottles and hot dogs.

It took a 4-hour bus-ride, a train and another shuttle bus for the Bureaucrash team to get from D.C. to New York and hear Ludacris yell, “I wanna lick you from your head to your toes,” in between prattling by Leonardo Di Caprio and Rachel Weisz about how the time to act is now. There might have been the occasional flower-dressed hippie in the audience, but the majority seemed to care about the performers much more than about the environmental propaganda. Gore’s solemn calls resonated poorly with a guy close to my seat, who was nonchalantly throwing around peanut shells and never brought the packaging to the recycle bins. In addition to global warming, Melissa Etheridge haphazardly commented on politics (“I remember when we had a president who was a criminal”) and expressed disappointment as to why flying cars had not spread by the year 2000. Who would not take her seriously? Forget about science. Disregard the fact that researchers have not come up with a consensus on whether glboal warming is a serious problem and to what extent it is driven by anthropogenic activities. Musicians know best: Red Hot Chili Peppers’ bassist Flea prophesied that “The climate change situation is the No. 1 problem facing humanity,” and Chester Bennington of the rock-rap band Linkin Park has argued that following Gore’s agenda is costless. A high school kid would have had the same credibility to address the topic. It is one thing to have celebrities directing attention to the factual evidence about the situation in Africa (the Live 8 in 2005), and it is entirely different to use them as mouthpieces to promote Al Gore’s scare-them-green agenda.

Sheryl Crowe, whose music was a backgrounder for a 4×4 Outback SUV commercial, and Madonna, whose annual carbon foot print is estimated to be 100 times that of the average Briton, demanded awareness of global warming. This is not surprising - if green is the new black, it is in the self-interest of musicians to demand selflessness from the audience, hoping to get some positive publicity out of the latest fad. To think otherwise would be naïve. Rather than dig deeply into the supposed impact of “Live Earth”, the global media devoted equal if not more coverage to enumerating the singers and attending celebrities, commenting on who said the f-word when, and revealing that Madonna’s charity fund owns shares in Alcoa and the Ford Motor Company. Surprise, surprise. Political activist Bob Geldof, who was the mastermind behind Live 8, labeled the event accurately: It was just an enormous pop concert for the umpteenth time.

An enormous pop concert with less impact than expected, that is. The broadcast on BBC1 attracted less than a third of the fans who tuned in for the Diana concert on June 2. More people watched the Formula 1 Grand Prix and the Wimbledon men’s singles final on Sunday. These statistics are actually encouraging: maybe people are already so concerned about global warming that they chose 1) not to pollute the environment by attending the event, or 2) switch off their TV sets to save energy, rather than deal with all the posturing and the claptrap.
HQ's picture

by HQ on 07/09/07

Submitted by avram42 on Mon, 2007/07/09 - 18:31.
avram42's picture
Interesting stuff. Am I late to thinking that "DraftGore.com" could easily be construed as anti-Gore despite their actual intents?

Submitted by Jason on Sun, 2007/08/12 - 00:21.
Jason's picture
I don't know. We have nothing to do with "DraftGore.com." Never been there.

Submitted by avram42 on Sun, 2007/08/12 - 12:27.
avram42's picture
Right, I know draftgore.com had a plane in the video as the "other side" from demanddebate.com. I was just pointing out the fact that draft has a negative connotation (coercion) but the site is essentially a Gore support site--seems they chose a poor name.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.