Live Earth

[Mr. Tea]

isn't their a whole argument that volcanoes give off more CO2 Gas then us anyway and that this is a natural peak we are in at the moment of earths temperature change? Or is that bollocks?

Um, more or less - there is still some dissent as to whether global climate change is mostly man-made, but not very much. There's a whole thread about this in the Nature forum.

I would of thoguht sustainable fuels and minimizing pollution/waste stites is more important then CO2 but that seems to get overlooked..

Well, the 'waste site' for burned fossil fuels is simply the atmosphere, isn't it? I can't really think of any environmental issues more important than that, since it's the one thing garuanteed to affect the whole planet.

 

[Mr. Tea]

they are but it seems a bit rich when the west has happily been fucking the environment over for years and suddenly when some asian countries are looking like competition, theyre told to think about cutting production down, reducing carbon emissions, etc etc. the west has more clout and money to be able to experiment with new energy sources, etc etc than their 'challengers' yet they have to be the ones to act (not saying they shouldnt be forced to think responsibly though - they should) and get most of the blame.

That's a very important moral point, but in practical terms, the industrial West can't undo its past and it's China and India that have the world's biggest populations, by a very long way, and the fastest rates of development. The population of the world has increased by an order of magnitude since the industrial revolution began in northern England a couple of hundred years ago.

At the risk of slipping into cliche, this is the biggest problem facing the world and it's only by countries working together that anything is going to get done about it - not least because governments are going to be unwilling to make the necessary emmissions cutbacks if they think other countries are simply going to ignore targets and carry on polluting anyway.

 

[elgato]

I will welcome the crisis

I would, were it not for the horrors that will accompany it. I find it hard to take a dispassionate position on it when I feel confident that so many will suffer (and so many of the powerless and impoverished)

 

[elgato]

But anyway- to return to these concerts- does anyone get the feeling they failed to make much impression? I mean they were just one event amongst many this weekend in the UK certainly (what with the tennis, motor racing, cycling etc etc)... there was no sense of event- which is surely the point of such spectacles? How did it play elsewhere? Is the idea itself tired (of course in my view such events can never work when dealing with problems caused by the same mechanisms as the ones which regulate rock/pop- ie capitalism)... is it actually going to create any breakthroughs in "awareness" in the US? Also was there a single act who was actually any good on?

The main impact seems to have been the further dirtying of the environmentalist name as self-righteous and hypocritical. But then i roll in mostly middle-class circles so i cant really speak outside of a very limited and cynical demographic

Why the fuck do people emphasise hypocrisy so much?! All it does is detract from the message, give the unwilling some last illogical handhold to cling onto. "Well Madonna doesnt turn off her light so why should I?"

The bits of the concerts i saw were pathetic. Some squat american woman wailing about how 'we've got to get together' and shouting general political non-statements over dilute blues-rock. The crowd seemed quite moved though so I dunno

 

[STN]

It really irks me when pop stars swear on stuff like this (cf Madonna) to show that it really is jolly important.

 

[mos dan]

Why the fuck do people emphasise hypocrisy so much?! All it does is detract from the message, give the unwilling some last illogical handhold to cling onto. "Well Madonna doesnt turn off her light so why should I?"

this line of thought drives me crazy. so does climate change denial, so does climate change defeatism.

i really think people could stand to be a little less cynical about live earth's goals. despite what geldof said, not *everyone* knows that global warming (a) exists, (b) is already effecting us, and (c) is caused by human activity. and as much as i agree that state/supra-governmental regulations on businesses are needed, there ARE things that we can all do in our every day lives, and they DO make a difference.

 

[baboon2004]

this line of thought drives me crazy. so does climate change denial, so does climate change defeatism.

i really think people could stand to be a little less cynical about live earth's goals. despite what geldof said, not *everyone* knows that global warming (a) exists, (b) is already effecting us, and (c) is caused by human activity. and as much as i agree that state/supra-governmental regulations on businesses are needed, there ARE things that we can all do in our every day lives, and they DO make a difference.

But the format seems tired and more likely to turn people off than to engage them. Or perhaps the majority do enjoy being patronised within an inch of their lives by the super-rich?

 

[swears]

Or perhaps the majority do enjoy being patronised within an inch of their lives by the super-rich?

Haha..I think the UK does actually.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Seriously, though, Madonna can get to fuck. She'll do ANYTHING if she thinks it'll make her look good. Or perhaps she doesn't care/isn't aware of what most people (I hope) think about this stupid Kabbollocks rubbish she's into. Not to mention her pet African, sorry, adopted son.
Wasn't she at this Live 8 thing, and then later did a stage show that involved her being hung up on this huge cross covered with 8 million quids' worth of diamonds? Quite apart from the sheer tastelessness of flaunting that much wealth while trying to "make poverty history", there's the fact that the diamond industry is one of the biggest causes of violence, corruption, gangsterism and general misery in Africa...

 

[vimothy]

I will welcome the crisis. We need it. Although my hopes for what might emerge are probably laughably naive, and a return to feudal capitalism is likely.

What is feudal capitalism?

 

[Mr. Tea]

What is feudal capitalism?

Czarist Russia?

 

[vimothy]

That's a very important moral point, but in practical terms, the industrial West can't undo its past and it's China and India that have the world's biggest populations, by a very long way, and the fastest rates of development. The population of the world has increased by an order of magnitude since the industrial revolution began in northern England a couple of hundred years ago.

And we're still not dead!

At the risk of slipping into cliche, this is the biggest problem facing the world and it's only by countries working together that anything is going to get done about it - not least because governments are going to be unwilling to make the necessary emmissions cutbacks if they think other countries are simply going to ignore targets and carry on polluting anyway.

Development is the key (not retarding development in the name of barely understood externalities and undisclosed "special interests"), as ever.

 

[vimothy]

Czarist Russia?

So we're just appending the word "capitalism" to any system that we don't like, are we?

 

[vimothy]

I actually thought that this thread was going to be about Earth playing live. Oh well.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Development is the key (not retarding development in the name of barely understood externalities and undisclosed "special interests"), as ever.

What do you mean by this? Global climate change isn't 'external' to anyone, it's everywhere, and I'd hardly call it a 'special interest', either.

 

[vimothy]

I will welcome the crisis

I would, were it not for the horrors that will accompany it. I find it hard to take a dispassionate position on it when I feel confident that so many will suffer (and so many of the powerless and impoverished)

I don't believe that there will be any crisis, but why would anyone welcome mass death and immiseration?

 

[Mr. Tea]

So we're just appending the word "capitalism" to any system that we don't like, are we?

Don't ask me, I only suggested it because pre-revolution Russia is often called Europe's last feudalism. It was the 'feudal' bit of gek's post I was getting at.
Edit: I'm not against capitalism per se, I'm very ambivalent about it. I'm against abuses of capitalism, which unarguably happen all the time, but until a system that is demonstrably better is thought up (or, more likely, evolves) I think it's the best set-up we have to work with, as long as governments make an effort to protect populations from its most voracious and unscrupulous proponents.

 

[vimothy]

What do you mean by this? Global climate change isn't 'external' to anyone, it's everywhere, and I'd hardly call it a 'special interest', either.

It's an externality nonetheless (probably the textbook definition of one): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

"Special interests" refers to those people (or companies, or industries, or countries, etc) who benefit (or who will benefit) from imposing their own environmental standards on developing economies.

 

[vimothy]

Don't ask me, I only suggested it because pre-revolution Russia is often called Europe's last feudalism. It was the 'feudal' bit of gek's post I was getting at.

Sorry, that wasn't really directed at you.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's an externality nonetheless (probably the textbook definition of one): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

"Special interests" refers to those people (or companies, or industries, or countries, etc) who benefit (or who will benefit) from imposing their own environmental standards on developing economies.

Ah, I see. Yes, I remember people talking about externalities (in the technical economic sense) a few weeks ago.
And I agree totally about the unacceptability of people interefering with developing countries for their own gain: all countries should be trying to limit emmissions, for everyone's sake (maaan).