Dumb. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

debaser · 07-07-2007, 03:50 AM

Well, the Live Earth concerts are here. In fact it is all CNN is talking about this morning. I think it's a pretty cool idea, despite not having any concrete impact. So boy was I suprised when I saw this:

For those who can't see well, her shirt reads, "SAY NO TO NUCLEAR ENERGY". What a brilliant fucking idea, let's have a concert to support green energy and shit on the most abundant zero-emission technology on the planet.

Ignorance will destroy this planet far sooner than greenhouse gasses.

The_Dunedan · 07-07-2007, 05:25 AM

It's been my experiance that the environmental movement has, at best, a hefty dose of fairly distressing neo-Luddism in the batter under the best of circumstances. I also don't understand the aversion to nuke power; modern technology has resulted in Europe and China having the ability to construct "pebble-bed" and "spherical mass" reactors which are physically incapable of melting down. The US, however, struggles and stumbles along on 1960s-level technoogy, stuck in a nuclear time-lock by idiotic laws enacted a generation ago. Fuel reprocessing and reconstitution, which would cut the nuclear waste problem considerably, are also not permitted. Meanwhile, France gets a whopping 70% of their energy from nuke plants and Russia is making a killing reprocessing spent fuel and then re-selling it.

Unfortunately that Luddite streak I mentioned is quite influential in the American and European environmental movements, though it seems to be much stronger in the US. In some quarters, this kind of sentiment emerges as a perverse wish to undo every technological and scientific innovation of the last, say, 400 years...because supposedly the Industrial Revolution and the associated improvements in quality and length of life which were the outcomes thereof were/are bad for the planet. Mention of things like Tuberculosis, Gangrene, and Polio is usually countered with snarky advice to "eat right*" or other such silliness. This kind of lunacy is in many ways not so much pro-environment as it is anti-human.**

Worse still is an utter inability to admit error. My favorite example of this is Elephants in Kenya. For decades, environmentalists bleated that the only way to stop elephant poaching and restore their numbers was to totally ban all hunting and trading in elephants and their component parts. Well, twenty years later, the areas of Africa which continued to permit hunting have a serious problem with elephant over-population. Kenya, meanwhile, which was the environmentalist's poster-child because of their total ban...is having to purchase elephants from the over-crowded nations which still permit hunting. Kenya's absolute ban on elephant hunting has resulted in the near extenction of Kenya's elephant population, while hunter-friendly areas further south have more elephants than they know what to do with. The environmentalist's response? Urge the rest of Africa to adopt the Kenyan model.***

*Vegitarian, naturally. I'm all about a healthy diet, but I want my dead things...and to suggest that proper diet is a workable replacement for antibiotics is just insane. Yes, I did get this suggestion.
**Which, if you're an environmentalist, is a somewhat understandable reaction; after all, we've fucked up the planet pretty good. However, I move that since environmental damage can be mitigated, reversed, or arrested much more easily and effectively than the impact of the kind of forced, collectivist primitivism one frequently sees espoused by some segments of the environmental movement.
***Of course, this could just be due to the fact that the anti-overhunting wing of the environmental movement has a large and noisy animal-rights contingent which wishes to see -all- hunting banned.

Cynthetiq · 07-07-2007, 06:33 AM

I find it interesting that media coverage for this has been light. Promotion has been almost nonexistant.

MTV has chosen to run back to back episodes of America's Next Top Model rather than participate with coverage. VH1 has no coverage as well, in fact the only Viacom product that is broadcasting it is Sundance Channel.

I was watching the Shanghai footage and wow, just wow, the director was just like a drowning person flailing about with cuts that made no sense, shots that were not framed, and many newbie director mistakes. Horrific for a live broadcast.

The interstitial that I saw, had something about Coal people and how it is unsustainable from cut down trees, and it is used to make pig iron which is shipped to America and is in every product that contains steel from cars to bathtubs. It's a horrible unsustainable cycle promoting global warming and child slave labor. I was like WTF? You didn't mention child labor at all and then toss it in as an emotional button? WTF is that. I tuned out from there.

I'm going to get me some Dim Sum where they use steel carts heated with propane gas in an airconditioned gigantic restaurant here in Chinatown.

warrrreagl · 07-07-2007, 08:51 AM

1967, Monterrey - let's put a whole bunch of tuned-in, turned-on people together in one place to share ideals and talk about our causes, and maybe the idea will spread. And oh yeah, we'll get some musicians to play at the same time, because that would be cool.

2007, Everywhere - let's put a whole bunch of clueless (mostly) musicians together to play music and hopefully hypnotize a few tuned-in, turned-on people to march in step to what we tell them to.

Just a little bit lost in translation over the past 40 years.

NOTE to current generation: the cause should be more important than the music, and the musicians should be truly dedicated to the cause and not just acting stylish.

longbough · 07-07-2007, 09:38 AM

I wonder if someone is calculating the impact the concerts themselves have on "the environment" - I mean, with all the emissions from entertainers' private jets, power used from amplifiers, lights etc, not to mention all the trash generated from the patrons.

Which reminds me here's an idea: I have an SUV - I'll just purchase "offsets" from my 6 year old niece and 4 year old nephew since they don't drive. Also my grandparents don't drive much anymore so I can purchase "offsets" from them, too. See how easy it is to live a zero-emissions lifestyle?

Cynthetiq · 07-07-2007, 10:01 AM

touche longbough....

Quote:

Global warming concerts: A lot of hot air?
The Live Earth show might leave a big environmental footprint but supporters say it could push people to action.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
July 6 2007: 12:42 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- We've all seen them. The "No Blood for Oil" bumper stickers on the Grand Cherokees, "Save the Whales" pasted on the back of an old, smoke-belching '77 Volvo.

So when anti-global warming activists throw eight concerts on six continents this Saturday - the biggest charity concert ever, with 150 big-name acts and an expected audience of 2 billion - is there reason to think the hundreds of thousands of fans driving to stadiums and chugging bottled water by the caseload may actually do more environmental harm than good?

"There is definitely going to be some local impact with having an event like this," said Jim Motavalli, editor of E/The Environmental Magazine and author of the book "Green Living."

Organizer Kevin Wall has tapped former Vice President Al Gore and a host of rock stars for an event that is by any measure huge.

Billed as Live Earth, the U.S. concert will be held at New Jersey's 80,000-seat Giants Stadium. Talent includes The Police, Bon Jovi, Roger Waters, Kanye West, Alicia Keys and Kelly Clarkson, among others.

Overseas? London, Johannesburg, Rio (in doubt because of security concerns), Shanghai, Tokyo, Sydney and Hamburg are the sites, with performers such as Madonna, the Black Eyed Peas, Linkin Park, Lenny Kravitz, Snoop Dogg, Red Hot Chili Peppers and a variety of popular foreign bands.

But an event of this scale is bound to draw fire, and it should come as no surprise to an environmental community long-familiar with accusations of hypocrisy.

Remember Gore's "inconvenient" electric bill from his Tennessee mansion? Or the flack Queen Elizabeth got last spring for flying across the Atlantic then speaking of the dangers posed by global warming?

So far, all things being equal, Live Earth has gotten off pretty easy. That could have something to do with the care concert promoters have put into the event.

Directions for mass transit to the events are posted online. For the New Jersey show, shuttle buses have been arranged from rail stations to Giants Stadium.

Plans call for nearly all the waste at the show to be recycled or composted and for energy used to get offset with carbon credits.

But environmentalists say the shows should not be judged by the one-day footprint of concert goers.

"It's impossible not to have some environmental impact with any event," said Motavalli, who isn't involved in the Live Earth concerts. He noted that concerts happen year-round and that in the long run the concerts should be good for the environment.

Rather, supporters say, the show should be judged by its ability to motivate those people to push for broader changes in society.

"The path to a solution lies with policymakers in this country taking action, not you and I changing our light bulbs," said Chris Miller, director of global warming for Greenpeace.

Specifically, Miller said he hoped to hear artists and speakers at the event calling for laws requiring big, mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, the purchase of renewable energy by utilities, and conservation measures like higher fuel efficiency standards.

U.S. lawmakers have begun to address these issues.

Last month the Senate passed an energy bill that calls for fuel efficiency of 35 miles a gallon by 2020 from the current 27.5, plus a 4 percent increase every year thereafter.

The bill passed despite heavy lobbying by Detroit automakers and objections from Democrats and Republicans from auto-producing states. The auto industry claimed the measure is too costly and will cause the loss of American jobs.

But a provision introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) requiring utilities nationwide to buy 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020 failed after heavy lobbying from southeastern utilities and senators, who say they don't have access to as much renewable power as other regions.

Carbon-reduction legislation is still in committee, as are a host of energy-related bills in the House. But floor debate on a carbon bill and a broader House energy bill is expected soon, and environmentalists are hoping events like the Live Earth show will increase support for tougher regulations.

"The momentum for action is really at a point that no one has ever seen before," said Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for Environmental Defense. "The need to act on it is real."

longbough · 07-07-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

But environmentalists say the shows should not be judged by the one-day footprint of concert goers.

"It's impossible not to have some environmental impact with any event," said Motavalli, who isn't involved in the Live Earth concerts. He noted that concerts happen year-round and that in the long run the concerts should be good for the environment.

Rather, supporters say, the show should be judged by its ability to motivate those people to push for broader changes in society.

This reminds me of another case of activist hypocrisy.
PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin for her diabetes:
"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."

Willravel · 07-07-2007, 10:15 AM

I happen to think it's an option worth exploration, but that doesn't mean it's perfect.
1) Global Uranium reserves are declining. It is not renewable.
2) Nuclear energy is not feasible transportation energy.
3) It would take about 10,000 large nuclear plants to replace the oil we burn today.
4) A nuclear power plant costs $3-5 billion to make, which doesn't include the cost of the eventual decommissioning.
5) No one is quite sure what to do with the waste.

I'm not sure why everyone has to be pissed about this. There are plenty of reasons not to like nuclear energy.

Edit: In case I wasn't clear: 10,000 x $3-5b = $30,000,000,000,000-$50,000,000,000,000 or $30-50 quadrillion
That amount of money probably doesn't exist in the world and won't exist until large scale mining off world, so it's only a reasonable replacement i the cost to build drops dramatically, or if the whole planet drops consumption dramatically.

roachboy · 07-07-2007, 10:26 AM

harumph harumph those pesky greens...

folks, i am confused.
if this production reaches people and inclines them to get actual information about sustainability--say---then so much the better.
any debate about environmental (a strange category, aint it? it's like background) would only benefit if more folk who played had more and better information, dontcha think? and if that's what this giant claymation beast of a concert does, then the downside starts where exactly?

well, there is a downside, really, and the downside involves the mindbending lameness of the line-ups. i couldn't imagine sitting through any of it. but i could see why the idea would make folk snippy---if i were worried about being roped into your laz-ee-boy by a gang of roving green thugs and forced to watch network coverage of a long series of lame-ass bands follow one another between important messages brought to you by our sponsors, i would be in a snit as well.

o no, wait: i bet you imagine there are folk who would confuse the on-stage patter of the performers with substantive information about stuff. because you think anyone who imagines that environmental consequences to capitalist activity is perhaps maybe something to take into account is a fucking idiot. obviously.

seretogis · 07-07-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

anyone who imagines that environmental consequences to capitalist activity is perhaps maybe something to take into account is a fucking idiot.

I agree!

I'm willing to bed that many of those who are opposed to the "environmentalist movement" are simply opposed to the collectivist mantra espoused by those who fashion themselves as environmentalists.

longbough · 07-07-2007, 11:46 AM

Nobody is slamming the basic principles of "environmental conservation."
But people are quick to assume that every self-proclaimed environmental activist is a prime representative of those ideals.
In the same vein it seems anybody who criticizes those individuals is quickly labeled as "anti-environment." How conveniently reactionary.

The whole point of the OP criticism is against the knee-jerk activism of the entertainment industry.
It's not against the idea of "environmental conservation" - only the dumb things that are done in its name. Get that straight.

World's King · 07-07-2007, 11:52 AM

"Save the Planet. Give me $7 for a bottle of water."

roachboy · 07-07-2007, 12:39 PM

and this thread is different in kind from what it was started to complain about how exactly?

therealcat · 07-07-2007, 02:37 PM

Probably a satiric T shirt.

Nimetic · 07-07-2007, 02:48 PM

For all that some may disagree with it, it still seems to me a valid position - to promote reduction of greenhouse gases as well as 'no nuclear'.

So it's a bit of an assumption in my view - to call her dumb. And to start a thread on that basis.

Mind you... I don't really like the way she's polluted one cause with support for another. To me this is like somebody raising a banner for Y in a protest march for X. It dilutes the external support, and has little respect for the those present. If she wants to push the anti-nuke position, this should (IMHO) be in a seperate venue/forum.

longbough · 07-09-2007, 04:15 PM

here's a follow up article:

Quote:

Live Earth London's Glacial Pacing
Mixing Music and a Serious Message Gives Concert a Clunky Rhythm

By Glenda Cooper
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, July 8, 2007; D04

LONDON, July 7 -- "If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!" Thus Madonna revealed her plan to combat global warming. Clad in a black satin leotard, she gyrated with dancers and simulated sex with an amplifier and a guitar. Along with the Foo Fighters, the 48-year-old Queen of Pop transformed a Live Earth concert that at times had seemed earnest and slow.

Security was tight Saturday at the Wembley Stadium event, which fell on the second anniversary of the deadly terrorist attacks on London's mass transit system and only a week after a plot to set off car bombs in the capital failed. The weather -- which in recent weeks has driven thousands from their homes because of flooding -- stayed fair for the afternoon.

The interspersing of musical numbers with lectures on climate change gave much of the show a staccato feel. The Black Eyed Peas were the first band to really get the crowd dancing; other early big draws were Metallica, Keane, Duran Duran and the Red Hot Chili Peppers, as the crowd awaited the appearance of the headliner, Madonna.

It's an inconvenient truth, but mixing rock with recycling is awkward. In a TV interview earlier this week, Matt Bellamy of the band Muse mocked the event as "private jets for climate change."

John Buckley of Carbon Footprint, an organization that helps companies reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, said Saturday that Live Earth will produce about 74,500 tons of the gas.

"We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said, speaking by telephone. But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness, that's pretty fantastic."

Certainly, on the way into the show, some of the 65,000 people who'd spent $110 on a ticket appeared unaware of the seven-point pledge that Al Gore, the event's chief impresario, had asked all spectators to make. Asked about it, they offered blank looks and said they were there for Madonna (whose annual carbon footprint, according to Buckley, is 1,018 tons -- about 92 times the 11 tons an average person uses per year).

"I'm not even sure who Gore is," said Georgie Simpson, 35, from Ipswich, in eastern England. "I saw Gore on TV," added Sue Bourner, 38, a health service manager from Hampshire. "But frankly, I think it's cheeky of Americans to come over here and lecture us. They are the worst polluters."

The organizers were determined that the crowd not go away ignorant, however. Big banners asking people to "answer the call" surrounded the stage. And a series of public information films featuring celebrities such as Penelope Cruz urged people to turn thermostats down and carpool while, in between, montages of happy animals were contrasted with pollution-belching power stations.

Occasionally there was a surreal experience of, for example, listening to the reunited, veteran rock group Genesis sing "Turn It On Again" while the video images appeared to suggest it was time to Turn It Off. And singer-songwriters Damien Rice and David Gray promised everyone to make a difference -- before singing that anthem to predestination, "Que Sera Sera."

Will the event make a difference after the last burger in biodegradable packaging is eaten and the stage made of recycled oil drums is packed away? Steve Howard, CEO of the Climate Group, a partner in Live Earth, said that it would.

"I think that this will be very inspiring and show people that you can put on concerts and tours in a much greener way," he said. "I understand concerns about Madonna's carbon footprint. But nobody's perfect, and at least we are now having an interesting debate about it, which will change behavior."

Lining up at the stalls selling $40 organic cotton T-shirts proclaiming "Green Is the New Black," Andrea Covic, 26, was also optimistic. "I've come because I'm sympathetic to the message," she said. "Of course I want to see the Beastie Boys. But I do think this is a good way of getting people and the media to take climate change seriously."

But Andrew Turner, 29, who had come to see his favorite band, the Foo Fighters, was not convinced. "I already recycle and wash my clothes at 30 degrees [centigrade, about 86 degrees Fahrenheit] and turn off lights and computers," he said. "So I have a suspicion that those who are coming today are those already interested in the message. I don't know how many more it will convince."

here's another, more comprehensive article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1879

blahblah454 · 07-09-2007, 04:29 PM

If you want an organic tee just go to any outdoors store and you can pick them up for $15-25 Canadian.

I bet almost all of the performing artists had no idea what the show was even about, it was probably just another gig for them.

Slims · 07-09-2007, 05:08 PM

It is true that uranium reserves are technically being consumed, but we are using so little in relation to the quantity available that it can be considered a non-depletable energy source.

Also, by allowing nuclear reprocessing again in the united states we can drastically reduce the nuclear waste problem...fuel rods/pellets/etc. are pulled when only a small amount of the fissile material has been expended. If we were allowed to once again extract that material and put it back in the reactors, far less net waste would be produced, and what was left over would be less radioactive.

Nuclear power is far safer than coal, produces less radioactive waste than coal (carbon holds a lot of isotopes which are released into the air via smoke or into rivers via coal slag), and is cheaper. How many coal miners do you think die every year? Ever hear about a uranium mine accident? Didn't think so.

The costs of building and decomissioning nuclear plants is very high, but they are, I believe, cheaper to operate per megawatt, than coal plants.

There has essentially been a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in the United States for many years now. This is due to ignorance and fear on behalf of our wonderfull lawmakers and *gasp* the masses as well.

I remember when they shut down the research reactor at Brookhaven because word got out that there was a *gasp* radiation leak.

What actually leaked was a small amount of tritium, which is just hydrogen with an extra neutron and is not particularly harmfull to people...Unlike uranium or plutonium, which are heavy metals, tritium is not concentrated in any one part of the body and is quickly flushed out of the body via urine. It also has a short half life and so becomes less of a problem very quickly.

An investigation concluded that a very small amount of tritium had in fact leaked. It also concluded that the leak was not harmful in any way to anything or anyone, and that the pool that leaked could be repaired to prevent leaks in the future.

But, do to mass protests and idiocy, congress did not allow the plant to open for at least three years, and keeping the plant on standby was hugely expensive so eventually the luddites won and the plant was closed permanently.

This reactor was hugely important for medical research and treatments and it was saving lives every day. But due to unfounded hysteria about a non-threat, it was closed.

I know progress energy is beginning to look at building another nuke plant, and perhaps it is a sign that people are realizing that nuclear power is really the only viable alternative energy right now...overall it is cheap, it is zero emission, and it is very safe.

dksuddeth · 07-09-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

Ignorance will destroy this planet far sooner than greenhouse gasses.

probably the most accurate, dead on, absolute piece of truth spoken or written I've seen in a long time.

snowy · 07-09-2007, 08:43 PM

I live in the same town as a nuclear reactor used for scientific research.

Do I have an issue with nuclear energy? No, not really. I think it's the best alternative we have at the moment to fossil fuels. It's unfortunate that it's still our best alternative. The fact is, if we want to reduce carbon emissions, we have to take coal plants offline, take gas-burning cars off the road, and enforce carbon limits.

Generating power without fossil fuels means nuclear energy right now--and willravel, as for nukes not powering cars--well, directly they can't. But indirectly, via electric cars and the other alternative cars out there (such as the TOTALLY AWESOME Air Car: http://www.theaircar.com/), we CAN use nuclear energy to power our automobiles. Hydrogen cars also require large amounts of electricity to release hydrogen via electrolysis in order to create the hydrogen fuel cells needed for the cars. Most alternatively powered cars are just storing energy somehow, after all.

As for getting fossil-fuel cars off the road now...really, eating meat is nearly as environmentally damaging. And well, I'm not gonna stop eating steak or driving my Volvo--but I am going to do what I can to mitigate the choices I make, which means recycling, driving less, using public transport when possible, cutting back on electricity usage, switching to a laptop from a desktop computer, turning down the water heater, and just generally living a lifestyle with less impact. Seriously, all any of us can hope to do is that--try and live a lifestyle with less impact. No impact is impossible--compromises have to be made.

shakran · 07-09-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

Well, the Live Earth concerts are here. In fact it is all CNN is talking about this morning. I think it's a pretty cool idea, despite not having any concrete impact. So boy was I suprised when I saw this:

For those who can't see well, her shirt reads, "SAY NO TO NUCLEAR ENERGY". What a brilliant fucking idea, let's have a concert to support green energy and shit on the most abundant zero-emission technology on the planet.

Ignorance will destroy this planet far sooner than greenhouse gasses.

0 emission eh?

And even beyond the radioactive fallout from the inevitable accidents, there is still the nuclear waste to contend with. That's an emission, even if it does have to be stored in a mountain for over 100,000 years before it's safe, instead of getting belched into the atmosphere.

Slims · 07-10-2007, 01:21 PM

Shakran...Reference my above post.

First off: Modern power plants can't have the kind of accidents we saw with chernobyl. Chernobyl was also a worst case situation, and even then the UN Scientific Committee for the Effects of Atomic Radiation estimates the ACTUAL death toll to be 34 or less.

During the 1990's the US averaged 45 coal mining deaths per year. Even if we suffered a chernobyl every year, according to the UN's casualty assesment, it would be less deadly than regular coal mining operations in the united states.

Also, by reprocessing, you can take the radioactive nuclear waste and remove the radioactive parts and stick them back into the reactor for a while longer (short version), thus creating far less radioactive waste, and what would be produced would be less hazardous since it would be largely inert.

The only reason reprocessing isn't allowed is because under the guise of 'preventing terrorism' carter outlawed it in the 1970's via executive order (IIRC) which just happenned to cripple the nuclear industry enough to keep it from outpacing fossil plants. It was never a scientifically sound decision as it required the formation of large waste pools which are a real hazard...a successfull terrorist attack on a waste pool would cause far more damage than upon a reactor.

Also, coal contains radioactive isotopes and coal plants gleefully release them into the atmosphere and out with the coal slag into rivers...They have argued, successfully, that limiting these emissions would be too costly.

As a result, coal plants release several times the TOTAL radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants into the atmosphere (note: Nuke plants don't put it into the atmosphere, which is the worst place to put it) and also into unprotected slag piles near rivers. See this address for an article providing an in depth explanation as well as references: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Oh, and I am pretty sure that picture you posted is of Three Mile Island, which, I have to point out, resulted in ZERO deaths. Modern Nuclear plants are called Post-TMI plants and refer to the changes that were made to make sure such an accident wouldn't happen again.

Attempts to argue that nuclear power is unsafe are simply idiotic...the evidence is in, the data have been collected, and nuclear power has been shown to safely and efficiently provide emission free non-depletable energy.

Even more ridiculous than the worry about disasters is the environmentalist argument, which is mostly just anti-tech and absolutely not good for the environment....I.e. get rid of the clean, safe energy source in favor of the old, dangerous energy source that puts thousands of tons of green house gasses into the atmosphere every year and pollutes our waterways, and depletes our fossil reserves.

percy · 07-10-2007, 03:17 PM

Global Warming = Social Conditioning

That's good or bad depending on your take of the (mis)information to date.

The bad part for me(outside of the(mis)information) is that I don't like people telling or dictating how I should live my life. When India and China are blowing the lid on greenhouse gases to the Nth degree, don't boo hoo me cuz I drive an SUV. The amount of environmentally friendly stuff I have been doing since I was teeny bopper blows away the so-called rock stars and their agendas,..and long before the enviro-bandwagon came a nockin.'

The good part though if people are interested are new products that promote the lifespan of the earth and in years to come, are the next GM'S and IBM's, speaking investment wise. And will save the planet as you get rich and greedy, and fatter and fatter.

Oh yeah,...social conditioning. Any sociologists out there? Haven't seen a push like this in a while. Maybe that's another thread.

07-07-2007, 03:50 AM	#1 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Dumb. Well, the Live Earth concerts are here. In fact it is all CNN is talking about this morning. I think it's a pretty cool idea, despite not having any concrete impact. So boy was I suprised when I saw this: For those who can't see well, her shirt reads, "SAY NO TO NUCLEAR ENERGY". What a brilliant fucking idea, let's have a concert to support green energy and shit on the most abundant zero-emission technology on the planet. Ignorance will destroy this planet far sooner than greenhouse gasses. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

07-07-2007, 06:33 AM	#3 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I find it interesting that media coverage for this has been light. Promotion has been almost nonexistant. MTV has chosen to run back to back episodes of America's Next Top Model rather than participate with coverage. VH1 has no coverage as well, in fact the only Viacom product that is broadcasting it is Sundance Channel. I was watching the Shanghai footage and wow, just wow, the director was just like a drowning person flailing about with cuts that made no sense, shots that were not framed, and many newbie director mistakes. Horrific for a live broadcast. The interstitial that I saw, had something about Coal people and how it is unsustainable from cut down trees, and it is used to make pig iron which is shipped to America and is in every product that contains steel from cars to bathtubs. It's a horrible unsustainable cycle promoting global warming and child slave labor. I was like WTF? You didn't mention child labor at all and then toss it in as an emotional button? WTF is that. I tuned out from there. I'm going to get me some Dim Sum where they use steel carts heated with propane gas in an airconditioned gigantic restaurant here in Chinatown. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

07-07-2007, 08:51 AM	#4 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	1967, Monterrey - let's put a whole bunch of tuned-in, turned-on people together in one place to share ideals and talk about our causes, and maybe the idea will spread. And oh yeah, we'll get some musicians to play at the same time, because that would be cool. 2007, Everywhere - let's put a whole bunch of clueless (mostly) musicians together to play music and hopefully hypnotize a few tuned-in, turned-on people to march in step to what we tell them to. Just a little bit lost in translation over the past 40 years. NOTE to current generation: the cause should be more important than the music, and the musicians should be truly dedicated to the cause and not just acting stylish. __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

07-07-2007, 09:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
longbough Soylent Green is people. Location: Northern California	I wonder if someone is calculating the impact the concerts themselves have on "the environment" - I mean, with all the emissions from entertainers' private jets, power used from amplifiers, lights etc, not to mention all the trash generated from the patrons. Which reminds me here's an idea: I have an SUV - I'll just purchase "offsets" from my 6 year old niece and 4 year old nephew since they don't drive. Also my grandparents don't drive much anymore so I can purchase "offsets" from them, too. See how easy it is to live a zero-emissions lifestyle? __________________ "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence." - Mahatma Ghandi Last edited by longbough; 07-07-2007 at 09:42 AM..

07-07-2007, 10:15 AM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I happen to think it's an option worth exploration, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. 1) Global Uranium reserves are declining. It is not renewable. 2) Nuclear energy is not feasible transportation energy. 3) It would take about 10,000 large nuclear plants to replace the oil we burn today. 4) A nuclear power plant costs $3-5 billion to make, which doesn't include the cost of the eventual decommissioning. 5) No one is quite sure what to do with the waste. I'm not sure why everyone has to be pissed about this. There are plenty of reasons not to like nuclear energy. Edit: In case I wasn't clear: 10,000 x $3-5b = $30,000,000,000,000-$50,000,000,000,000 or $30-50 quadrillion That amount of money probably doesn't exist in the world and won't exist until large scale mining off world, so it's only a reasonable replacement i the cost to build drops dramatically, or if the whole planet drops consumption dramatically. Last edited by Willravel; 07-07-2007 at 11:43 AM..

07-07-2007, 05:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	It's been my experiance that the environmental movement has, at best, a hefty dose of fairly distressing neo-Luddism in the batter under the best of circumstances. I also don't understand the aversion to nuke power; modern technology has resulted in Europe and China having the ability to construct "pebble-bed" and "spherical mass" reactors which are physically incapable of melting down. The US, however, struggles and stumbles along on 1960s-level technoogy, stuck in a nuclear time-lock by idiotic laws enacted a generation ago. Fuel reprocessing and reconstitution, which would cut the nuclear waste problem considerably, are also not permitted. Meanwhile, France gets a whopping 70% of their energy from nuke plants and Russia is making a killing reprocessing spent fuel and then re-selling it. Unfortunately that Luddite streak I mentioned is quite influential in the American and European environmental movements, though it seems to be much stronger in the US. In some quarters, this kind of sentiment emerges as a perverse wish to undo every technological and scientific innovation of the last, say, 400 years...because supposedly the Industrial Revolution and the associated improvements in quality and length of life which were the outcomes thereof were/are bad for the planet. Mention of things like Tuberculosis, Gangrene, and Polio is usually countered with snarky advice to "eat right" or other such silliness. This kind of lunacy is in many ways not so much pro-environment as it is anti-human.* Worse still is an utter inability to admit error. My favorite example of this is Elephants in Kenya. For decades, environmentalists bleated that the only way to stop elephant poaching and restore their numbers was to totally ban all hunting and trading in elephants and their component parts. Well, twenty years later, the areas of Africa which continued to permit hunting have a serious problem with elephant over-population. Kenya, meanwhile, which was the environmentalist's poster-child because of their total ban...is having to purchase elephants from the over-crowded nations which still permit hunting. Kenya's absolute ban on elephant hunting has resulted in the near extenction of Kenya's elephant population, while hunter-friendly areas further south have more elephants than they know what to do with. The environmentalist's response? Urge the rest of Africa to adopt the Kenyan model.*** Vegitarian, naturally. I'm all about a healthy diet, but I want my dead things...and to suggest that proper diet is a workable replacement for antibiotics is just insane. Yes, I did get this suggestion. Which, if you're an environmentalist, is a somewhat understandable reaction; after all, we've fucked up the planet pretty good. However, I move that since environmental damage can be mitigated, reversed, or arrested much more easily and effectively than the impact of the kind of forced, collectivist primitivism one frequently sees espoused by some segments of the environmental movement. **Of course, this could just be due to the fact that the anti-overhunting wing of the environmental movement has a large and noisy animal-rights contingent which wishes to see -all- hunting banned.

07-07-2007, 10:26 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	harumph harumph those pesky greens... folks, i am confused. if this production reaches people and inclines them to get actual information about sustainability--say---then so much the better. any debate about environmental (a strange category, aint it? it's like background) would only benefit if more folk who played had more and better information, dontcha think? and if that's what this giant claymation beast of a concert does, then the downside starts where exactly? well, there is a downside, really, and the downside involves the mindbending lameness of the line-ups. i couldn't imagine sitting through any of it. but i could see why the idea would make folk snippy---if i were worried about being roped into your laz-ee-boy by a gang of roving green thugs and forced to watch network coverage of a long series of lame-ass bands follow one another between important messages brought to you by our sponsors, i would be in a snit as well. o no, wait: i bet you imagine there are folk who would confuse the on-stage patter of the performers with substantive information about stuff. because you think anyone who imagines that environmental consequences to capitalist activity is perhaps maybe something to take into account is a fucking idiot. obviously. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2007, 11:46 AM	#11 (permalink)
longbough Soylent Green is people. Location: Northern California	Nobody is slamming the basic principles of "environmental conservation." But people are quick to assume that every self-proclaimed environmental activist is a prime representative of those ideals. In the same vein it seems anybody who criticizes those individuals is quickly labeled as "anti-environment." How conveniently reactionary. The whole point of the OP criticism is against the knee-jerk activism of the entertainment industry. It's not against the idea of "environmental conservation" - only the dumb things that are done in its name. Get that straight. __________________ "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence." - Mahatma Ghandi Last edited by longbough; 07-07-2007 at 11:51 AM..

07-07-2007, 11:52 AM	#12 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	"Save the Planet. Give me $7 for a bottle of water." __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

07-07-2007, 12:39 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	and this thread is different in kind from what it was started to complain about how exactly? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2007, 02:37 PM	#14 (permalink)
therealcat Upright	Probably a satiric T shirt.

07-07-2007, 02:48 PM	#15 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	For all that some may disagree with it, it still seems to me a valid position - to promote reduction of greenhouse gases as well as 'no nuclear'. So it's a bit of an assumption in my view - to call her dumb. And to start a thread on that basis. Mind you... I don't really like the way she's polluted one cause with support for another. To me this is like somebody raising a banner for Y in a protest march for X. It dilutes the external support, and has little respect for the those present. If she wants to push the anti-nuke position, this should (IMHO) be in a seperate venue/forum.

07-09-2007, 04:29 PM	#17 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	If you want an organic tee just go to any outdoors store and you can pick them up for $15-25 Canadian. I bet almost all of the performing artists had no idea what the show was even about, it was probably just another gig for them.

07-09-2007, 05:08 PM	#18 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	It is true that uranium reserves are technically being consumed, but we are using so little in relation to the quantity available that it can be considered a non-depletable energy source. Also, by allowing nuclear reprocessing again in the united states we can drastically reduce the nuclear waste problem...fuel rods/pellets/etc. are pulled when only a small amount of the fissile material has been expended. If we were allowed to once again extract that material and put it back in the reactors, far less net waste would be produced, and what was left over would be less radioactive. Nuclear power is far safer than coal, produces less radioactive waste than coal (carbon holds a lot of isotopes which are released into the air via smoke or into rivers via coal slag), and is cheaper. How many coal miners do you think die every year? Ever hear about a uranium mine accident? Didn't think so. The costs of building and decomissioning nuclear plants is very high, but they are, I believe, cheaper to operate per megawatt, than coal plants. There has essentially been a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in the United States for many years now. This is due to ignorance and fear on behalf of our wonderfull lawmakers and gasp the masses as well. I remember when they shut down the research reactor at Brookhaven because word got out that there was a gasp radiation leak. What actually leaked was a small amount of tritium, which is just hydrogen with an extra neutron and is not particularly harmfull to people...Unlike uranium or plutonium, which are heavy metals, tritium is not concentrated in any one part of the body and is quickly flushed out of the body via urine. It also has a short half life and so becomes less of a problem very quickly. An investigation concluded that a very small amount of tritium had in fact leaked. It also concluded that the leak was not harmful in any way to anything or anyone, and that the pool that leaked could be repaired to prevent leaks in the future. But, do to mass protests and idiocy, congress did not allow the plant to open for at least three years, and keeping the plant on standby was hugely expensive so eventually the luddites won and the plant was closed permanently. This reactor was hugely important for medical research and treatments and it was saving lives every day. But due to unfounded hysteria about a non-threat, it was closed. I know progress energy is beginning to look at building another nuke plant, and perhaps it is a sign that people are realizing that nuclear power is really the only viable alternative energy right now...overall it is cheap, it is zero emission, and it is very safe. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

07-09-2007, 08:43 PM	#20 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	I live in the same town as a nuclear reactor used for scientific research. Do I have an issue with nuclear energy? No, not really. I think it's the best alternative we have at the moment to fossil fuels. It's unfortunate that it's still our best alternative. The fact is, if we want to reduce carbon emissions, we have to take coal plants offline, take gas-burning cars off the road, and enforce carbon limits. Generating power without fossil fuels means nuclear energy right now--and willravel, as for nukes not powering cars--well, directly they can't. But indirectly, via electric cars and the other alternative cars out there (such as the TOTALLY AWESOME Air Car: http://www.theaircar.com/), we CAN use nuclear energy to power our automobiles. Hydrogen cars also require large amounts of electricity to release hydrogen via electrolysis in order to create the hydrogen fuel cells needed for the cars. Most alternatively powered cars are just storing energy somehow, after all. As for getting fossil-fuel cars off the road now...really, eating meat is nearly as environmentally damaging. And well, I'm not gonna stop eating steak or driving my Volvo--but I am going to do what I can to mitigate the choices I make, which means recycling, driving less, using public transport when possible, cutting back on electricity usage, switching to a laptop from a desktop computer, turning down the water heater, and just generally living a lifestyle with less impact. Seriously, all any of us can hope to do is that--try and live a lifestyle with less impact. No impact is impossible--compromises have to be made. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

07-10-2007, 01:21 PM	#22 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Shakran...Reference my above post. First off: Modern power plants can't have the kind of accidents we saw with chernobyl. Chernobyl was also a worst case situation, and even then the UN Scientific Committee for the Effects of Atomic Radiation estimates the ACTUAL death toll to be 34 or less. During the 1990's the US averaged 45 coal mining deaths per year. Even if we suffered a chernobyl every year, according to the UN's casualty assesment, it would be less deadly than regular coal mining operations in the united states. Also, by reprocessing, you can take the radioactive nuclear waste and remove the radioactive parts and stick them back into the reactor for a while longer (short version), thus creating far less radioactive waste, and what would be produced would be less hazardous since it would be largely inert. The only reason reprocessing isn't allowed is because under the guise of 'preventing terrorism' carter outlawed it in the 1970's via executive order (IIRC) which just happenned to cripple the nuclear industry enough to keep it from outpacing fossil plants. It was never a scientifically sound decision as it required the formation of large waste pools which are a real hazard...a successfull terrorist attack on a waste pool would cause far more damage than upon a reactor. Also, coal contains radioactive isotopes and coal plants gleefully release them into the atmosphere and out with the coal slag into rivers...They have argued, successfully, that limiting these emissions would be too costly. As a result, coal plants release several times the TOTAL radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants into the atmosphere (note: Nuke plants don't put it into the atmosphere, which is the worst place to put it) and also into unprotected slag piles near rivers. See this address for an article providing an in depth explanation as well as references: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html Oh, and I am pretty sure that picture you posted is of Three Mile Island, which, I have to point out, resulted in ZERO deaths. Modern Nuclear plants are called Post-TMI plants and refer to the changes that were made to make sure such an accident wouldn't happen again. Attempts to argue that nuclear power is unsafe are simply idiotic...the evidence is in, the data have been collected, and nuclear power has been shown to safely and efficiently provide emission free non-depletable energy. Even more ridiculous than the worry about disasters is the environmentalist argument, which is mostly just anti-tech and absolutely not good for the environment....I.e. get rid of the clean, safe energy source in favor of the old, dangerous energy source that puts thousands of tons of green house gasses into the atmosphere every year and pollutes our waterways, and depletes our fossil reserves. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 07-10-2007 at 01:23 PM..

07-10-2007, 03:17 PM	#23 (permalink)
percy Addict	Global Warming = Social Conditioning That's good or bad depending on your take of the (mis)information to date. The bad part for me(outside of the(mis)information) is that I don't like people telling or dictating how I should live my life. When India and China are blowing the lid on greenhouse gases to the Nth degree, don't boo hoo me cuz I drive an SUV. The amount of environmentally friendly stuff I have been doing since I was teeny bopper blows away the so-called rock stars and their agendas,..and long before the enviro-bandwagon came a nockin.' The good part though if people are interested are new products that promote the lifespan of the earth and in years to come, are the next GM'S and IBM's, speaking investment wise. And will save the planet as you get rich and greedy, and fatter and fatter. Oh yeah,...social conditioning. Any sociologists out there? Haven't seen a push like this in a while. Maybe that's another thread.