This is not an either or situation. It's not as if this was the only concert burning up jet fuel and huge amount of energy for lighting and loudspeakers. So why pick on THIS event for these sins? I too would have felt much better had the promoters conducted the Live Earth show in a more environment friendly manner (less energy burning, access by public transit, better venue for the show, no plastic cups etc etc) but having said that surely one should be less critical in view of the fact that they are trying to publicize the right message and many from the audience may change as a result of having been affected by the concert. Surely other concerts - by the Rolling Stones or Madonna are equally damaging to the environment but how many times do we speak out against that? Other than exceptions like The Adbusters magazine, most pay lip service to the Needs of our Planet and continue to docilely accept a system that is at the root of our environment problems.

Sujit Patwardhan, Pune, India

www.parisar.org

@Sujit:

"So why pick on THIS event for these sins?"

Because what they are doing is in direct contrast to what they are trying to accomplish.

Regardless, I personally waged my own 1 man boycott of anything Live Earth related today b/c of the reasons you named above Tim. No reading about it, no watching it on TV, etc. Of course I'll catch up later this weekend...I mean there were indeed some kickass bands playing ;-).

We humans are not ver good at "do as I say, not as I do" so a not very env friendly concert is not the best way to get the underlying message out.

It would have been interesting if they had dug into and discussed the amouts of energy that it takes to put on the concerts.

How many months could they run all the street lights in England for?

I have to agree with everyone. The thing that really got to my wife and I was where artist were lined up to play, it could have been done in a more eco-friendly manner. I mean the US concert should have artist from the US, the UK should have UK artist and so on. This would have reduced the footprint of these shows considerably. I was getting pretty tired of being told to switch my light bulbs (been there done that...) on how we should all do our part. While I'm watching Metallica play in the UK, KT Tungstil play the US and Joss Stone play in S. Africa?!?!?! How much fuel did they burn to get there?!?!?

The best was Stings wife talking about the plight of the Ecuadorian rainforest and the oil drillers. Where does she think the fuel for their private jet comes from?!?!?

Heck out of the entire line up I think artist with the lowest carbon footprint was Bon Jovi, they actually played in the same state they live in!

I agree that the Live Earth event was a drop in the bucket compared to the total ignorance this planet has about how our behavior affects the environment. However, calling this first try in raising that awareness hypocrisy is a bit too much.

There were efforts made to mitigate the environmental damage the concerts had. For instance, all plates and cups were made from environmentally-friendly material. All the lights were CF. State material was made from recycled tires. Many performers used carbon exchange programs.

Yes, Earth Live was only a minor beginning. Like the many AID music extravaganzas, organizers will learn from their mistakes. The importance is raising awareness.

Pingback from  Jesse’s Space » Live Earth

It's impossible to evaluate the benefits from Live Earth right now. Many of you are just looking for stuff to get bent out of shape about, so good times.

I certainly think they could have done a better job of at least holding themselves accountable for that portion, and justifying it, or at least making smart decisions.

Still, who knows the NET value? That needs to take into account the change in behavior based on Live Earth. Revolutions use violence to stop violence, persecution, or repression.

Some people, obviously, believe that the ends justify the means. If Live Earth becomes a tipping point, or primes th e pump for a tipping point with respect to environmental consumption, it might be viewed in retrospect as an important catalyst in the process.

Just because they made mistakes in their tactics, doesn't make 'em wrong.