With 100 acts in eight cities projected to reach an estimated 2 billion people via television, radio and the Internet, it's easily the planet's biggest show to date and history's most ambitious benefit event, eclipsing 1985's Live Aid and 2005's Live 8.
Again, the lures are superstars, from Madonna, Kanye West, John Mayer and Keith Urban to the newly reunited Genesis, The Police, Smashing Pumpkins, Crowded House and Spinal Tap. As a live-music smorgasbord and couch-potato distraction, the event is shaping up as gonzo entertainment.
But will it all really help make the environment better? That's tough to say. Even Live Earth's goal of boosting environmental activism could be difficult to measure. After four decades in which music benefits have multiplied, diversified and become global showcases for rising and established stars, there is some skepticism in the entertainment industry about such things — notably from Live Aid impresario Bob Geldof, who has dismissed Live Earth as a hollow spectacle.
Other mega-benefits had clearer missions and barometers: Live Aid raised $245 million to feed starving Africans; a 1992 tribute to Queen singer Freddie Mercury drew $40 million for AIDS research; the 2001 Concert for New York City took in $35 million for 9/11 victims' families.
But like Live 8, a musical blowout that helped persuade world leaders to forgive Third World debts, Live Earth's agenda is unwieldy. And it won't be clear by Sunday morning whether Live Earth will represent the birth of a more inspired ecological movement, as organizers hope.
The old definition of green — money — isn't the critical yardstick for success this time around, organizers and skeptics agree. Net proceeds for Live Earth will go to the Gore-founded Alliance for Climate Protection, a coalition of non-profits that aims to educate the public and petition lawmakers and corporations for eco-friendly changes.
"We spent 150 years creating a problem, and one concert won't solve it," says executive producer Kevin Wall, who envisions Live Earth as "an accelerator" to mobilize those who are perhaps aware of global warming but unsure how to act. "This is a launch. It's about the simple things we all can do and about people saying to the government, 'No more excuses.' "
Wall, who was inspired to put on Live Earth after seeing Gore's Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, predicts viewers will feel empowered by the event's communal vibe and suggestions for living a "green" life that encourages recycling, saving energy and limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, which has been linked to global warming.
"This is music with a lot of scientists," Wall says. "You're going to be asked to join us, to go online, where you'll see carbon calculators, pledges you can make and seemingly small changes that take you from awareness to action. People will start to talk green, buy green and vote green."
Why muddle the message with music?
Says Gore: "Music is a universal language that can reach people in ways that no other medium can." ...
Live Aid stood as the breed'sbiggest until Live 8's free shows, staged to pressure G-8 Summit leaders to cancel the debts of poor nations. Now Live Earth looms as the new giant.
It's only fitting, Wall says. "Those were about the haves and the have-nots. Live Earth touches all of us. We all breathe the same air."
Like Geldof, some in the music industry haven't been that charitable toward Live Earth.
The green giant has become an easy target for entertainers such as Roger Daltrey of The Who, who told London's The Sun last month: "We have problems with global warming, but I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help."
On the music news website NME.com, Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys confessed to feeling "uneasy" about Live Earth and "the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don't. It looks arrogant."
Singer James Blunt, who is scheduled to play Live Earth's London stage, sees no such role for himself: "I'm in the exact same position as the rest of us, really: learning to change the way we behave and go about our consumption of resources. That's what I'm most excited about, that we'll just be able to learn a little bit, all of us."
Madonna, who headlines the London show and donated the event's theme song, Hey You, has come under fire for leaving a huge carbon footprint with her last tour, which ferried a crew of 100 around the globe in private planes, commercial jets and gas-guzzling vehicles.
But artists, who are performing free, were not selected according to their environmental report cards, Wall says.
"We want them to change going forward," he says. "We have some who are long-term environmentalists, like Jack Johnson, The Police and Dave Matthews. And some are thinking about their carbon footprint for the first time. We're happy to have them all."
As for the event's thick showbiz gloss, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't mind being used as bait to draw fans to Giants Stadium.
"If we, the artistic community, can draw enough media attention to the events, the experts will have their platform to speak," he says.
Singer KT Tunstall, also on the New Jersey roster, has seen little defeatism in music's ranks regarding Live Earth's aims. "The fact that Live Earth is purely awareness-raising removes a lot of the cynicism from such a huge event," she says.
The Red Hot Chili Peppers, who adjusted their summer schedule after Gore personally extended a Live Earth invitation at the Grammys in February, say they found the cause emotionally compelling.
"Have you ever seen a mother polar bear drowning while trying to feed her cubs?" says singer Anthony Kiedis, referring to melting ice in the bears' habitat. "Too sad to ignore."
And though bassist Flea has modest expectations ("If we make one more person conscious to take steps to preserve our planet, then we have done something important"), others are aiming beyond individual lifestyle changes.
Dave Matthews hopes to rally masses to pressure governments worldwide.
"The real power is in the hands of those that decide what is criminal and what is not," he says.
He's optimistic that Saturday's party can lead to change, but "obviously, a single concert is not going to directly affect anything, other than to raise the voice of urgency. People have been fighting for this same cause for decades. It's just that the army is growing."
Live Earth's chorus of support doesn't include benefit concert patriarch Geldof, who calls the event pointless.
Wall points to a seven-point Live Earth pledge unveiled last week, urging signers to plant trees, reduce carbon dioxide output and pressure nations to adopt eco-friendly treaties. Live Earth plans to lead by example.
"The concerts themselves are designed to be green, and some real groundbreaking innovations are being employed," says Gore, such as using biodiesel fuel and minimizing waste. "As awareness increases, I think you're going to see people in all walks of life adopt these practices."
Geldof will eat his words, predicts writer/producer Martin Lewis, who co-created the Secret Policeman Ball and helped conceive the Human Rights Now! Tour.
He begged Geldof to play an early Policeman gig, and "Bob spent half an hour arguing that there's no reason to do charity concerts," Lewis recalls.
"After he saw what could be done, he changed his tune," Lewis says. "Beneath that nonchalant punk beats this huge hippie heart."
Detractors don't surprise Lewis.
"It's exceptionally easy to be cynical," he says. But "I hate this phrase 'benefit fatigue.' Do we stop having charity shows because it's been done before? When performers use their wealth and fame for a good cause, it's to be applauded.""...
by Elysa Gardner, "Big Show, big impact? Live Earth hopes so"
During 2010, the logo will appear on the side of Airbus's latest airliner, the A380, on scheduled services with the world's airlines. The largest passenger aircraft is specially designed for those long-haul flights across oceans and from Europe to the far east, where a single flight
from Guardian UK, "Airbus gets a crafty upgrade by flying the flag for biodiversity," 3/18/10 by Fred Pearce, photo ap from Guardian
~~I suggest boycotting any company that aligns with the United Nations. Since the United States has no one to protect its citizens, citizens must do it themselves. ed. ******
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it,
"The CRU is the IPCC. Their work has cost the world an enormous amount of grief, conflict and money. It is time to total the massive amounts of money given to narrowly directed research; the cost of the impact on energy policy and economies; the lost jobs and opportunities from industries forced out of business; the unnecessary subsidies to research and businesses chasing unworkable alternate energies; the taxes and legislative restrictions on businesses and other activities. ...Their deception
has set world progress back at massive cost and it is time they are all held accountable. "..."IPCC and CRU are the same corrupt organization," by Dr. Tim Ball, 2/8/10
First, who appointed this review body?
There is nothing like being judge in your own cause – it secures a less damaging verdict. Ban Ki-moon is the clown who, on a visit to the Arctic last September, despairingly proclaimed that “100 billion tons” of polar ice were melting each year, when the sea-ice around him had just extended itself by half a million square kilometres more than at the same time the previous year. Pachauri, among many other solecisms, is also the buffoon who denounced criticism of the IPCC’s absurd claims about melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”.
Then there is the review’s terms of reference. It has four remits: to analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN agencies; to review use of non-peer reviewed sources and data quality control; to assess how procedures handle “the full range of scientific views; and to review IPCC communications with the public and the media.
Nowhere are there proposals for it to revisit, in depth, the IPCC’s 3,000-page 2007 report and repudiate the vast range of inaccuracies and downright fabrications it contains.
As for the personnel, the review will be conducted by the Inter-Academy Council and headed by its co-chairman Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, who recently broadcast on Dutch radio a complacent statement about the “consensus” on climate science. The Inter-Academy Council is a representative body for a number of national academies of science, most of which are committed to the climate change cause.
So, a very obvious whitewash and presumably very satisfactory to the IPCC camp.
would have told them that, as things stand in 2010, they had one last chance – and only one chance – to salvage their bogus crusade.
That was to allow a genuinely independent investigation, including highly qualified sceptics, to analyse the 2007 report and expose all its fallacies – which are already in the public domain in any case. They could then have apologised, sacked Pachauri (which they will probably do anyway) and prepared an equally mendacious but more sophisticated report, jettisoning the more extravagant scare-mongering for the time being, and so clawed back wavering support among the public.
Instead, they have opted for a very obvious whitewash, discredited from the day of its launch, that will provoke hilarity and increased scepticism when it reports. After that, there will be no road back. We should be grateful that the arrogance and over-confidence engendered by their longstanding immunity from challenge (but not any more) prompted the AGW fraudsters to create so inadequate a smokescreen.
This investigation is very good news for sceptics – not because it will denounce any significant flaws in the AGW imposture, but because it will not. AGW credulity is already a minority faith; but there is a further constituency of waverers, ready to break off like a melting iceberg from the main floe, whose final defection will mean the AGW movement is deprived of critical mass.
TERI-NA is funded by a galaxy of official and corporate sponsors, including
and two world leaders in the international ‘carbon market’, between them managing more than $1 trillion (£620 billion) worth of assets."...
