Former Vice President Al Gore is going to generate tons of greenhouse gasses today, 7 July, just to remind the planet that people like him are filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses. The goal of the concerts is to convince us to cut back so that they don't have to.
This insanity has been going on for a while and these concerts have to be the low point in fighting global warming. There are going to be over a hundred carbon-wasting bands/musicians and over a million 'environmentally concerned' people spewing excess greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere all to sell a message to those who already 'get it'.
However, for smart people, they just don't get it. You don't hold a party like this. The damage has already been done. Basically, the party has already been held last century. Now it is time to pay.
Holding a Global Warming Concert is like having a barbecue while your house burns down
Really, how many tons of carbon are going to be emitted by all the people traveling to attend these concerts? Just think, concerts ‘designed’ to bring attention to Global Warming are going to contribute to Global Warming.
The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".
For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.
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. -
Daily Mail UK (Go read the whole story)
Purchase of Carbon Credits is not going to cancel the global warming damage done by these concerts. Worse, purchase of credits undoes whatever good is being done by those who are creating the carbon Credits in the first place as there is a good chance that the carbon credits would remain unused, which would result in a reduction in Greenhouse Gasses. Selling the credit undoes the reduction. (One way to get around this would be for the cost of the credit to include the cost of replacing the credit purchased. That is how you use carbon trading to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.)
One thing to keep in mind is that everyone can't offset. Someone actually has to cut carbon emissions. Those best able to made a difference are the huge emitters like Al Gore, not the average user who emits a twentieth what the ex-VP does.
Then there are things that you can't offset, such as the extra garbage created, energy wasted and fuel burned. You can run the concerts on 'green' energy, but as long as that is a limited resource, others will have to continue to use regular energy. If Al Gore's house runs on green energy but uses 20 times the average amount used by a normal family, that's 20 households that don't get the opportunity to use green energy. As for biodiesel, that emits CO2 just like regular diesel and it takes more to make biodiesel than it does to refine crude.
The main issue here is that we are never going to seriously tackle this problem (if it even is a problem at all!) as long as this sort of half-assed activism is not confronted.
But the insanity is popping up everywhere.
I most recently ran across it at my local grocery store where I received this coupon for a free pint of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream as thanks for using reusable shopping bags.
(Thank you for using your reusable shopping bag)What the hell? I'm being rewarded for using a canvas bag instead of taking an earth-damaging plastic (or paper) bag. I have no problem with that and we are already compensated three cents for each bag we bring with us. My problem is additional reward. Do you have any idea how damaging Ice cream is to the environment, not to mention your waistline?
...the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-oz. T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."
Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks. -
Washington Post
They are also trucking their ice cream all over the country. Whatever good our using reusable bags has done for the environment is being undone by giving us a reward. Even giving money is no good as it allows us to consume more.
Go to the concert if you want to listen to the music. But if you want to fight Global Warming, then the biggest contribution you can make to the event, is to not go at all.
As for the reason why we are using reusable bags, it is simply because it is easier to carry our groceries up three flights of stairs using them instead of plastic bags.
So stop bribing those who are trying to go good, either by intention or by accident, because your making their job harder. The best way to get people to conserve is to make it in their best direct interest to do so.
This post incorporates information from the following previous post:
