Hi folks! I was all ready to do a bunch of posts with witty reparte, then I got a new job. I am in training for two months and there is a fair amount of driving to and from the training site, so I sleep a lot.
Anyway, I was plowing through the Drudge Report
this morning when I saw a refreshing blast of common sense from Roger Daltry
(as seen in The Sun
). His musical efforts are okay, but I really like his acting
, especially in the Highlander TV series
(thanks to TV.com
for having a great listing of shows). Anyway, Roger shows great acumen in identifying some of the flaws that Man-Bear-Pig
, oops, I mean Al Gore, continues to display in his quest to save the world (I'm Super Cereal about this!). And in case you forgot, Al's saga as an environmenalist includes his energy usage at home (story 1
and story 2
), his involvement in the oil business
, his connection to an incinerator
, and his private jet usage
There are a variety of stories there, and I tried to draw from differing sources. But regardless of where you sit, Daltry put some logic toward the overall problem. Specifically, you don't need a concert to make everyone aware of global warming because A) everybody who may contribute to the problem already knows about it, and B) the concert will only add to it. (My perspectives on climate change will be included in an upcoming blog entry. Prepare to be surprised.)
Let's start with the idea of needing to highlight global warming. Every news outlet is providing some form of coverage that may actually contribute to global warming. Between the hot air being expended by news casters and the energy being consumed to prepare, record, and transmit the stories, we could probably have an alternative heat source. Maybe we should only allow discussion of global warming during winter months to reduce on need for heating resources. The reality is Mr. Gore enjoys being a media darling and cannot get enough of the spotlight. Why else does he keep popping up? I really think his head has measurably gotten bigger with his fame, and not just in the metaphorical sense.
As for what the concert will generate, it will generate money. Who will get the concert money? When I perused the LiveEarth
website, I could not find out how the money collected will be used. I only know the concert will "...raise awareness about global warming..." What does that mean? I know the vendors involved should make money on this. But all the energy being used to get the concert ready and the people there, especially on the jets the people will be using, including the bands, appear to be another major contribution to the ever-present threat of global warming. The concert website even has an article on how travel is a hit on the environment
, only to be remediated by carbon offsets.
I could go on about carbon offsets, but I think I will save that for a later post. The key is, to attend the LiveEarth concerts, many people are going to have to travel. How many of them will purchase carbon offsets? Do the prices of the tickets go to pay for the carbon offsets needed for the concert goers? And who decides how big the carbon footprint is that needs offset? The story itself says carbon offsets are an inexact science. Anyone else see where this is going?
People that become famous usually have a tendancy to say illogical things and behave in a like manner. My mother used to say these people have swelled heads. Roger Daltry is a big star, but it appears to me that stardom hasn't caused his head to swell to a size that stops his brain from functioning in a logical way.