SpoonmanJul 6th, 2007 - 20:23:03

So let me see if I have this right. About 9 - 10 different venues, all of them using electricity, all of them requiring bands to travel (I assume by way of some internal combustion type of power), and all of those port-o-potties with rolls and rolls of T.P. Hmmmm, sounds like quite a waste of resourses to me. Especially since the proceeds will do absolutely NOTHING to help change what NATURE is doing to the planet.
I wonder if Algore will be selling his 'carbon credits' next to the T-Shirt and CD vendors.

Report this comment

BlackriderJul 6th, 2007 - 20:35:21

At least they are trying to spread the word about global warming (which is real, and not some scientific fabrication). If only a fraction of those attending the concert will think about our effect on planet Earth and spread the word, it will be a success. It is our duty and moral obligation to preserve our home. Our blue Earth. We need to act now!

Report this comment

hahJul 6th, 2007 - 21:15:50

So it was too much work to have more than one city in a time zone, except for when it wasn't? Nice snub to the rest of us. Washington is so green, after all; this was obviously based on merit.

And monkeys might ... yada

Report this comment

bunnieJul 6th, 2007 - 22:27:21

So, who gets to perform in Antarctica?

Report this comment

JohnJul 6th, 2007 - 22:59:18

bunnie asked: 'So, who gets to perform in Antarctica?'

Answer: Nunatak, a five-person band consisting of researchers from the British Antarctic Survey. NPR.com has an article about them. (I'd post the URL here, but the Talkback software blocked it.)

Report this comment

JohnJul 6th, 2007 - 23:11:41

Spoonman, the point of Live Earth isn't to raise money... it's to raise awareness. The actual environmental impact of the event itself will be negligible compared to the positive effects of increased awareness. If just a tiny fraction of the audience changes their habits even slightly, the net impact on climate change will be overwhelmingly favorable.

I'm surprised you're worried about this at all, if -- as you claim (without offering any proof, I might point out) -- 'nature' is entirely responsible for the climate change we're seeing.

Report this comment