Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what will this achieve?
people travelling to gigs that wouldn't normally be on, the huge amount of extra energy being produced to put them on, bands flying all over the world when they wouldn't normally have done, and buckets upon buckets of cheap burgers.
Ok, now I really believe in the climate change cause, because RHCP told me it was bad. MAAAAAN.
I'm going to ram my carbon fucking footprint up someone's money-grabbing carbon backside. Cunts.
what a load of old bollocks
A lot of the headlines on Radio 2 this morning were about how everything's going to be ok because certain people in high places are making the right noises about climate change. So we don't have to worry any more!
Al Gore has helped sort it all out!
Or we're all fucked unless everyone does something.
It will raise awareness massively, putting climate change at the top of the international agenda.
Change the record you cynical fuckwits.
people travelling to each gig will go by bicycle as well.
And don't call me a fuckwit. Thanks.
It was for all those offering their predictably cynical generalising bullshit.
I'd guess you know very little about the intricacies of climate change and the benefits or otherwise of any of the fashionable measures being discussed to fight it. This is no slight on your intelligence, it just higlights the potential benefit such a massive event like this could have. Obviously i'm conducting myself with a certain level of optimism and trust in this instance, but let's assume that these events utilise the current wealth of scientific evidence concerning the causes, effects and dynamics of climate change to educate the billions of viewers/attendees as to the real issues. The bands clearly aren't the issue, they're just the bait to get more poeple to watch/attend. I don't know the projected audience for this but there's potentially a lot of consumer habit to be changed increased pressure on the powers that be to implement policy changes that the newly educated voters will want to see. As i said, this is an optimistic view point, but how anyone can take any other stance is totally counter-productive and beyond me. I appreciate what you're saying regarding people travelling to these events and you're right to flag it up - surely opening it discussion would have been more constructive as opposed to shotting it down - i hope this issue will be addressed, but in any case this will be insignificant if accurate messages are delivered and acted upon.
As for other posters I don't even know if the comments are serious so i'm not gonna skive from work any longer by responding...
when you're doing anything about it, then you can bitch if you must.
this idea is pure evil and rather reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa tries to teach Mr Burns about recycling and he ends up recycling the sea creatures into l'il Lisa's patented fish slurry
"British performers will include Keane, Snow Patrol, Duran Duran, Bloc Party and Paolo Nutini."
because they really care
goons, the lot of them
if they can break the ice that's left...
Reading that and then looking at the list of performers is thoroughly depressing. We truly are living in dark times.....
and I see that a lot of people here are going for the easy option.
All any event like this can do is to try raise awareness and make folk think. They use bands and artists who have sold a shed load of records, because the message will get across to more people.
I appreciate that the artists involved are likely to sell some more records on the back of this, but frankly, so what?
raise awareness of climate change by wasting more energy than you could use in an entire year?
It's not really a cracking use of resources, let's be honest.
And will it work? What did Live8 achieve, really?
It only works if the trees are planted around the equatorial belt, and not just dotted around the Northern hemisphere.
Its just something to appease guilt, a mental hurdle and counter-argument used by politicians and businessmen to make it look like they're doing something to help. Just like several huge shitty concerts about 'An Important Issue'.
Really, having kids is probably one of the cruelest & hardest decisions to make, as its only going to be worse for them.
Live8 was a cynical exercise and seemed to serve no purpose other than to feed the egos of those involved. But the original Live Aid had much purer motives, at least in the beginning.
I also agree that carbon offsetting is an at best feeble response.
But these concerts are just the latest manifestation of what is becoming a sea change in public opinion/conciousness. There is a gradual swell growing that climate change and damage to the environment are issues that have to be addressed, and that any world leader who wants to be elected or trade across the globe has to have a position on this.
Its still early days - Governments are just about realising that they can no longer deny climate change and that they have to been seen to be doing something. At the moment, what they are doing is very little and still fairly cynical. But this public desire for something to be done is not going away, and over the next fifty or so years will become an ever larger factor in business and political decisions.
A classic example of this is that when the British Conservative Party thinks that it can be elected by pretending to be green, you know that they are reacting to a public opinion that cannot be ignored.
The worlds peatlands store more carbon than the worlds forests.
but it is still a myth that it will stop climate change. Its like saving your boat from sinking by drinking the water.
it's vital. No one thing will stop climate change - the aim isn't to STOP climate change - it's to stop it continuing at its current (perceived) rate. Carbon sequestration, by whatever means needs to happen but in combination with many other things including relatively greater use of renewable energy and reduction in energy use as a whole.
i agree with the point of carbon sequestration, definitely!
what i have a problem with is people saying they can justify their polluting lifestyles because they have paid to have a few trees planted. The whole science behind which, is completely flawed.
That's an issue of bandwagon jumping and media/general public ignorance.
Carbon offsetting has to be treated as a multi-faceted process with some aspects more worthy/effective than others. By righting it off as a waste of time only adds to the general ignorance surrounding it. It definitely needs more eductaed debate, ideally to take place in the public domian so that people really know what's going on. This would reduce the term as a buzz word(s) and make it a more valuable commodity to the likes of our government etc...
This debate right here right now is in the wrong forum.
and more specifically from those countries who do not sign up to international treaties aimed at combatting the negative affects of our post-industrial malaise
It's a fight on many fronts indeed.
this is absolutely rubbish. it will do nothing to help, in fact will add more to climate change than anything.
and yes yes, raising awareness is all very good. but awareness hasn't resolved African debt or famine. There is also the issue that a lot of people are already aware of climate change but aren't doing anything about it. They don't want to change their rather comfortable lives...putting on concerts like these will just appease these people like all thos live aid people.
help the fans of these bands to think about environmental issues that they may not have considered of their own volition - that would be good.
of course, I can see how flawed this whole thing is... suely it's not all bad though (or am I just an optimist?)
if you look at it from a climate change perspective = bad. more damage will be done to the environment setting up these concerts and people travelling to them than if everyone stayed at home and read TheEcologist.
For public awareness, yes it may do some good. But not much. I think most people now know about climate change and reporting on the human lives at risk/animals facing extinction is far more powerfull than a few lame bands singing songs.
I can see your point and think it's incisive and you're totally right...
I guess it just makes me sad that when people try to do something "good", they get lambasted for it - like I felt sad that people slagged off Bob Gedof over theh whole Live Aid/8 stuff, becasue I thought, well at least here's someone trying to do SOMETHING - however, it's probably me being gullible and the true motivation behind this event isn't really to make a positive change but to make money and do a bit of political spin.
I think I need to get a bit more cynicism (or maybe just realism!!).
i understand what you're saying. I'm sure a lot of the people involved will be motivated by the right reasons. I guess the problem is a lack of education and understanding. If it was pointed out to everyone the impacts and effects of what they were doing they might reconsider.
Like a few months back I went on the climate change march in London, and i was reading an interview with jonny borrell in the paper (razorshite were playing in trafalgar sq in conjunction with the march) and the only knowledge he had on the matter was what what an organisers had told him 10 mins prior to the interview.
People need to become educated about the topic and know what they're talking about if the climate change movement is get anywhere. Unfortunately employing musicians in putting the word about is probably one of the worst ways of doing this (i feel).
there is great risk of involving musicians and people not related to the politics/science. On many occassions (see live aid, etc) they become the default spokespersons on such issues. They can command a large audience and people, for some reason, often believe more what a famous singer says than scientists or politicians. There's a danger in that.
is lazy and counter-productive
it will not solve anything
all it will do is further the myth that modern consumer society can carry on as normal and offer token gestures - however grand and well-intentioned they might be - to appease our collective guilt and distract us from the real nuts-and-bolts of the problem
This. Obviously governments are never going to massively slash air travel allowances, restrict business for the sake of the environment, ban cars, curb industrial pollution, whatever else to prevent further damage to the planet (we're already way past the carbon tipping point). Getting stars & governments to look like they care for a couple of high profile gigs is a much more viable solution.
I'm actually fascinated in a sick way (I wish I wasn't) to see just whats going to take place environmentally over the next 50 years, are these going to be "the good old days?"
Basically, this is ridiculous. The amount of energy the sound systems, lighting and other stuff will use are completely against the message. People seem to think that if you put a charity concert on it sorts the problem out. In fact it makes it worse, because the punters just say theyve 'done their bit'. While it may raise awarness, if this sort of thing did work, then there wouldnt be poverty in Africa, or Aids, or homelessness. These things just turn important issues into passing fads for people to be concerned about one week and then forget about the next. Ive not met anyone who was at the live 8 gigs who actually went up to scotland to protest. Wasnt that the point? How many people are actually going to stop driving or cut down their electricity usage because of this?
Also, have you seen inconvenient truth? Gore spends a lot of time boasting about all the places hes given lectures, showing us just how many short and long haul flights he's taken.
I'm curious to see what Thom Yorkes reaction will be to this.
please read the article.
great, what a community.
but it doesnt say in the bbc article the concerts will be powered by renewable sources.
and I'm sure that everyone travelling there won't be cycling/walking or the trucks carrying the gear being powered by gas (as has been said)
This is indeed more bullshit and I only have one more thing to say (and if you read between the lines, it gives my entire stance on climate change)......
exactly. They didnt say 'renewable' but 'carbon neutral'- stuff like planting trees to combat the effects (like coldplay do, and claim its 'carbon neutral'). Which has been proven not to work in the long run. That and Nuclear power- hardly 'renewable'.
These musicians could do a lot more by using recyclable cardboard for cd cases rather that the emissions-producing plastic crap they currently come in.
by 'Manbearpig' i mean that its another thing that celebrities have latched onto to get attention, rather than a false threat.
it doesn't...although it did earlier - don't know why it's been removed. I have read it elsewhere as well...
are the biggest load of tosh EVER. It doesnt remove the carbon you put out full stop.
...and if done properly, is effective enough.
if we all used ventilators which give out a "carbon neutral" exhaust?
would that be effective?
whuh? as in filters? Its not just carbon dioxide thats the issue, methane (lots) and carbon monoxide (though not so much) also contribute to global warming. Aslo If you look at one busy stretch of road and see how many cars go up and down it in 5 minutes, you begin to get the idea that if everyone stopped driving it would be a much better idea.
you would rather the economy fall flat on its arse then? and do you drive?
Also will you kill all the farting cows?
Another one of my solutions to all wearing ventilators with carbon dioxide filters would be to take all the waste that we make and BURN IT ALL!!!
then collect the methane and condense/compress it and convert all cars in the UK to run on natural gas. Suddenly the scutters of the world would become the rich entrepreneurs.
If people were really serious about this issue, they would commit to radical movements such as this, rather than paying lip-service to petty little changes which will do little or nothing in the grand scheme of things.
But that would upset the establishment so it'll never happen
"you would rather the economy fall flat on its arse then?"
I'm sure the post-apocalyptic glacial meltdown economy will be just peachy eh?
yes, frankly. because i'm not a blinkered capitalist fool who thinks that the only way to do things is just carry on as normal until we're all fucked.
1)most people who live in london and work in the city- ie the hub of the economy use public transport. Better public transport means less cars generally. no i dont drive. I live fine.
2) Vegetarianism- not by law, but accepted as a general rule of life- i'm just as bad at this, i eat too much meat.
3) ventilators cost too much and it doesnt solve the problem of living space when the icecaps melt. Hilarious idea though. Lets all wear waterwings as well.
4)totally with you on the lip service issue. Total radical overhaul of your way of living is better than these stupid fucking concerts.
not sure about that. If more people switched to vegetarianism then more land would need to be cultivated, disturbing the ecosystem. Also with the trend for organic produce you would need even more land. I'm not advocating anything, i'm just trying to say that these issues are often very complex.
less land needed
crops go straight to the human instead of passing through the cow/chicken/pig/dog/etc first
i would imagine there would still be animals. Afterall people will still want wool, milk, eggs, butter, etc.
i don't really know. just trying to comment that solutions aren't always as simple as they seem
but the cows and methane problem is simply solved. Veganism would go one step further. You dont need wool because of cotton, you dont need butter because of margarine (its essentially a luxury item for picky eaters) i dont eat eggs in general, I'm sure if it was thought through it would work quite well.
35million chickens are killed and eaten EVERY DAY in the UNITED STATES alone
35million intensively farmed chickens that is (under 24hour lighting and conveyor belt feeding)
OK - I'm somewhat of a hypocrite here as I'm a meat eater but the fact is that mass vegetarianism would definitely reduce man's global footprint
but would it ever happen? It would take a massive shift in society and cultural values. A shift that, if it did occur, would be on a large time scale.
or a mutating viral outbreak that infects all livestock
all the same land is being used to grow chicken feed. Could be put to crop use. Organic produce is dodgy for different reasons- because if you actually look at ehere a lot of it comes from, its brought a long way by air freight, eg avocadoes.
mostly from landfill sites at the moment and car emissions whould become less of a problem if we embrace the less polluting models (see California for an example of this...).
Air traffic emissions are far greater a problem...
but if you look at how long adopting new forms of car would take- its too long, and the pressure from the oil lobbies is too bloody massive for it to ever get off the ground.
I hate the current governments attitude of 'learning to live with global warming' instead of changing our lifestyles. This isnt something thats going to go away unless we deal with it, if we dont it wont stop and will get worse.
Fewer short haul flights in general are better. You really shouldnt fly within your own continental shelf. Factories too, are a problem, but they can be changed to be more eco-friendly generally. Oh and no-one use 'the China argument' cause thats just balls and you all know it.
Ive been meaning to read it for ages.
if you've read any of his previous stuff, you'll kind of know what to expect. he outlines different aspects of society and proposes how to cut emissions. i think a few parts of it are rather wishful thinking (or take a leap of the imagination), especially in the time frame we have.
makes it all too easily dismissed by the cynics.
Back to the point - this concert.
This debate here is a cse in point - Alex_b says we don't need "these stupid fucking concerts"...what do you think the pint of this one is exactly? It's not being adevrtised as a concert which will perform a miracle and reverse climate change just because the Chillis are playing. It is designed primarily to get the whole world (sic) to think about climate change and their role in it. On top of this it's hopefully about education - speakers between bands, evocative short films etc.. Even now, the day these concerts were announced, we're debating climate change issues - a good thing, no? Who knows, maybe someone will read this thread, sift through the shallow cynacism (not directed at those currently posting necassarily) and pick up some useful thoughts/info. Only when people appreciate their role as consumer will things stand a chance of changing.
amongst a fair few here. As you rightly say, climate change is a contentious issue, but there's no doubt it's happening and at a greater rate than is sustainable. The attitude by some in this particular thread highlights the need for a) some educated debate b) increased awareness amongst the masses as to the factors influencing climate change and how people can make a difference. I guess there's also the feeling that, as opposed to live8 which was a lobby more on the world leaders, the messages from live earth can be acted upon by individual consumers. Obviously strategic changes need to occur but changes at individual level are a good place to start.
Arguments against environmentalists are all very well and should be encouraged in most cases, but in THIS case it smacks a bit of wanting to stay slightly alternative for the sake of it if you see what I mean...(i'm tired....)
Sure, live 8 didnt work, but that was aimed at politicians.
Id imagine the aim of this is to get people to change their lifestyle slightly, like recycle stuff, give a shit about climate change, and to be honest, people listen to celebrities.
If everybody was to change just a bit, then it would make a huge difference.
That this is enough. I also think that its very dangrous. Basically its a little difficult to explain in writing, but theres really worrying pschology going on here. A pattern has quite clerly emerged with Live aid and live 8 where people think that because they have attended and donated money or pledged to do a fun run, or laughed at comic releif that somehow thats it. Thats all they need to do.
Only a few years after Live Aid a genocide took place in Rwanda that the western media and governments largely ignored. Continued human rights abuses occur on that continent and are mostly ignore. Figures like Geldof organize events like Live Aid every once in a while and get held up as examples to follow. People seem to think that two-minute silences end terrorism and children in need prevents domestic abuse. The Concerts will only encourage a mentality of apathy and a feeling that somehow the problem is solved, and we can all drive home in our SUVs and pick up a McDonalds along the way, when it is not and our actions still matter, even more so. I'm not doubting the good intentions of the bands, and i do think that they should raise awarness of the issue, but they should do it in their own tours, instead of in one offf events, that encourage apathy in the general populace.
What should be occuring is a consideration towards ethical purchasing that is made on a consumer level. Its the one definitive representative tool we have in capitalist systems- the power to buy. You can vote for one party or another, but in the end they are influenced by company lobbyists at the governmental level.
I dont doubt that environmentalism should be questioned- as should all political and social beliefs. However, surely less harm can come from taking an environmentalist lifestyle that can come from continuing down the current road? Rather than letting people off the hook by holding once in a while events, bands should work constantly to make their audience aware of asuch issues if they genuinely care about them.
Will Schaff did a book based on a combination of 'in ther aeroplane over the sea' and the diary of Anne Frank. It contains this plate which is very good at summing up the whole issue of all such commemorative and charity events.
but the thing that really irks me is that events such as this would actually work to raise awareness of things that people AREN*T aware of so much
like this maybe
note the only country to oppose
I was aware of these, being in the peace movement at uni. It totally agree- you try and explain them to the average Joe and no-one listens. I had difficulty putting up flyers for the peace conference this weekend because people were objecting to being politicised. It doesnt surprise me that the arms trade has never been adressed by larger acts because they are on Major labels, who have a large amount of money invested in that field- think sony and targeting systems.