I thought concerts were bad for the environment?
Answer:
Because they make more in profit than it costs to repair the ecological damage done by the concert.
The old "cut down 1 tree but plant 10" argument
The money raised outweighs the bad it does, although you do seem to have a certain irony...
The concert this week was actually powered by bio-fuels if it makes you feel any better.
But yes, you are correct in all technicality, but the gained support for the cause is worth the emmissions, especially since they're barely a blip compared to the ones the concert is trying to stop or reduce.
yes they are
Because "save the earth" concerts are promoting the idea of living a greener life. If one person tries to save the earth it won't do much good, but if we all can do it, we can do it! So the concerts are trying to get that idea across to as many people as possible.
They might not know how badly they are destroying the environment and u should write a letter telling them
That was one of the critiques of recent concerts. So much money was spent on bringing in special cups, napkins, bio-diseal garbage handlers, etc., and then you have a bunch of trash left-over. How much did the concert really help the environment? Probably not much. Maybe it helps bring some people to the cause, but, probably not that many.
um, those people have to breath where ever they happen to be standing. It doesn't become "super CO2" when it's in a concentrated area.
those people are probably driving somewhere else if not going to the concert, but you do have a point. I think it's good that they're trying to make people aware and for some folks it takes seeing someone famous to believe what they're saying.
But don't you know that it's ok to increase your "carbon footprint" as long as you're out there screaming at everyone else to be "green"?
I think it's ridiculous. They have obviously never heard of "practice what you preach." If we all want to be truly green we'd have to go back to a time when there were no cars, no electricity, no cells phones, no batteries, no NOTHING.
In reality, the way to improve our world is move FORWARD, not backward.
Do you know a better way to attracts young people's attention than music. The hope is that the people who watched and attended will change to ways to preserve the environment and educate others.. If they do, then more energy will have been saved that was spent on putting the concerts on TV.
The questions is, are people unselfish enough to begin living green lives. That is the real question. Can people change not that the changed is voluntary. Or will they wait until they HAVE to change because if they don't death will be right around the corner.
I know what your saying, it thought it was a bit contradictory this afternoon on my way to work to hear the live concert supporting a greener environment. The amount of greenhouse gases being expelled into the air from the equipment involved in a live concert along with the supporters own emissions either by transport to concert, smoking or general grooming beforehand (hairspray etc.) must be astonishing. Oh well, they try I suppose
They are, they use way too much energy, and besides all of those Live Earth people are hypocrites. Have you seen how they get around? Private Jet. Al Gore is a jackass. Back to the question though, they also leave trash all over and do not tell me there didn't have to cut down a forest or something to put that stupid *** stadium there.
If you walk or bicycle to a concert, or take mass transport and bring your own recyclable beverage bottle, I think you can have your fun without fretting about carbon dioxide emissions.
The "Live Earth" concerts were relatively green when it came to stage design and lighting. Lots of use of LEDs and minimal big light effects (except in London and NY?) Washington DC concert was very minimal.
Get out of your car and have a Life!
what a fcuking joke, people who went to the concert don't give a damn about the environment they will do anything to get pissed, take drugs & have sex. its appalling
Good question. You should let the "environmentalists" out there try to explain this. I'm sure they'll say that it was to raise awareness, and that all the resources they wasted this weekend were understandable. But if you drive a SUV to be safer for your children you should be crucified. Don't be fooled by these morons. We should all do more to conserve the plant, but don't be a hypocrite while doing it.
People are going to breath no matter where they are. So the same amount of carbon dioxide will be released no matter what. Since they are going to a save the earth shindig they probably will turn off non essential energy burning devices as their leaving to go to the show. Say twelve thousand people came to the show. That would be approximately twelve thousand homes not burning energy until they came back from the show. Would not that offset the energy usage of the concert somewhat?
this is a liberal cause what would you expect?create a problem tell everyone else not to do it -then go and do it yourself??????? this is called intellect
Its only the hypocrites who don't really care about the environemet who rase fake objections like "concerts are bad for the environment." They'll raise the same objection about any effort to change things for the better.
Mostly because they look at people who are taking the time and trouble to make the world a better place--and thes fake "critics" know that the activists they sneer at or try to find fault with are better human beings than they are--or ever will be.
your point makes sense, but i think they used recycled materials for the stage and stuff in that field and probably some type of solar energy or ethanol was used
plus they made a lot of money for charity, so im sure the good is way more then the bad
That is a very good point. I like it. I would definitely agree that they are bad for the environment. At least they didn't have one concert that everybody had to attend. What about spending more money on helping the environment than paying the stars to play at the concert? Or did they play for free?
You are correct. The only major differences before or after this laughing joke was that gore had more money in his coffers. 95% stated that they where only there for the music. Did you see the people in the crowds? most where potheads, and freeks, who do not care about anything except who am I going to sleep with and where do I get my next fix. Of couse when the hipocrocy is on the left that makes it ok, because "we tried" who give a flip the results are the same failer and lies.
concerts get people more active. it is true that it uses electricity and that people still have to drive there, but if people see that celebrities care about the planet then people will start to care then we r able to start saving the planet.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: