i've been meaning to blog about "Live Earth: concerts for the climate in crisis", but had no idea what to write. ok, that's not true (though it is true), i guess i was indifference to this event (i was more into the fact that technology has allowed me to view concerts live in more than 3 cities..yihaaa!). so, i decided to look what other people was saying about this event, and here is a nice one from the New York Times, it starts with the title "Sounding the global warming alarm without upsetting the fans":So much star power assembled in so many places to assure fans that all they need do to save the planet is change a light bulb, choose paper over plastic or, as Cameron Diaz recommended, turn off the shower while shaving their legs.
Carbon-offsetting, the newly fashionable practice of compensating for one’s own carbon emissions by paying into a fund to reduce them elsewhere, may be better than nothing, but to some it sounds too much like rich men paying others to take their place in the draft during the Civil War.
Even the Live Earth anthem, “Hey You,” written by Madonna, who sang it in London alongside a group of schoolchildren who looked like the Hogwarts Choir, had a modest message. (“Don’t you give up/it’s not so bad/there’s still a chance for us.”)
the review was closed with "All in all the irritations were minor, but then again, so were the expectations.". though sad..i must agree those lines are true. the event was a little ant bit to our expectation to clean up the earth in time.
PS: this reminds me of a debate i had with a friend on the success of the Kyoto Protocol. though back then i considered KP a success of its own, now i understand how great his expectation was when he considered it a failure...
RSS Feed (xml)
5 comments:
its not a failure. its a starting point. if we aim for 60% at the beginning, no country will join. even for 5%, US walked away.
back to live earth, indeed its such a small step for you and other environmentalist, but try to see it as a starting point for the never-have-enough consumers. peace yo :D
but ol, imagine if what you call starting point did include US, wouldn't that be a better starting point? (this is just one example) wouldn't that be more of a success?
then, as he (my friend) sees it as a failure, he might just have more faith than i did on future change ... and he might just be right if we want to clean up the earth on time...
with due respect for KP and Live Earth, i'm just saying (maybe just maybe) we should start acknowledging that the change is going to hurt and tedious policy won't cut-it anymore..
off course it would be a better starting point. and sometimes it doesnt hurt (see what happen to california when they have ambitious target, more money pouring in for green business). my point is when we face circumstances where things doesnt go as we like, for example your govt is controlled by the villains, you'd rather go slowly than stagnant, right?
personally: no.
if you are talking about corruption, that might be so. but for climate, there's an urgency of time that's our contraint. if we're dying anyway, why not consume (mmmm..a bit extreme but you get my point).
it's just a question of are we satisfy with this little change or do we have more faith in mankind...(i would like to think of myself some what of an optimist, but i think desaster would be the drive to change not the understanding)
Kalian oooh sooo nerdy.... :p:p:p
Kirain blogging itu for fun
Oh oh ternyata...
Post a Comment