Most celebrities (most, not all) are the least knowledgeable and least educated people around. Most (not all) live some of the most wasteful lives around. They then get together and tell everyone else how to live. That is why most of these things bug me. Many also use information that may or may not be true. I'd rather get a bunch of scientists and experts from all over the world in a big room and have them come up with some suggestions on how to better live our lives. Maybe an expert can tell my why earth temperatures have receded and risen in an almost perfectly cyclical period over the last 400,000 years and the pattern of rising temperature now is following right on course. Did we cause it? Was it going to happen anyways? If temperatures keep rising, will it level off and drop again like it has time and time again? And oil. That's another one. We apparently have found out that we have hundreds if not thousands of years of oil left on the earth. Funny how when oil gets more expensive, there is suddenly a lot more of it to find and dig up in different ways. Will we stop using oil? I understand that most of a particular barrel of oil is actually used to create chemicals, plastics, raw materials, etc. Refined gas is actually a small part of the use of oil, so even if you stopped using gas to run planes, trains, and automobiles, will we make a big enough dent in oil usage to care? Do we care about oil so much because of the political impacts? Environmental impacts? I think there has to be a cleaner way to run a car, whether its actually going to cause warming or not, or if I care if it warms or not. But we'll still need lots and lots of oil.
This is incorrect. There are several cycles, over different periods, but the net effect is that the cooling period started 6,000 years ago and should contunue for 23,000 years
I didn't watch or listen to any of it, but that is simply because the lineup of music acts was so pathetically horrid.
Coal plants release more radioactive waste into the atmosphere each year than nuke plants ~ we need to start developing and building modern nuclear facilities asap.
I was excited about seeing The Police....until Kanye West came out and started rapping during Message in a Bottle. That was simply HORRID. Then I saw an interview with Cameron Diaz and she was saying that her contribution to saving the earth was shaving her legs without running water. That's when I changed the channel and never went back...
C'mon. I saw her interview as well. That was a joke. She did, in fact, say something that was very intelligent and the best bit of advice I heard from the whole thing. She basically said that no one is asking for people to do everything suggested. If everyone just did one thing, it would make a huge difference. We watched a good part of the day on Bravo. It was allright. When did that Duff chick get so fat?
...and before you boys go proclaiming nukes the wave of the future, I've got two questions for you: 1) Checked on the price/availability of uranium lately? 2) Where are you planning on disposing of the radio-active waste?
"I'm sure in 1985 you can buy uranium on any street corner, but in 1955 its a little hard to come by" or something like that
That is what I have wondered too why not launch it into space and let it keep on going. Then I think about it. Too many problems. Disasters like Columbia and Challenger could happen where the carrier explodes sending toxic waste throughout the atmosphere among other things. Good idea, I think, but the safety concern will never allow it to be.
Another problem is the vast amounts of energy it will take to send that much payload towards the Sun.
basso how does it feel to always be sooo wrong?!?!? LiveEarth Garners Insane Online Traffic http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/13/liveearth-garners-insane-_n_56017.html Certain ironies regarding this past weekend's Live Earth concert have already been noted. Especially the criticism that a rock concert in itself is pretty intrinsically eco-unfriendly, owing to the cost of electricity, the emissions created by massive rock acts on tour, and the litter such events leave behind. Unfortunately for critics, when you gauge the concert's impact in terms of total user participation, Live Earth's overall carbon footprint was substantially offset by those who watched the concert online. According to Advertising Age, MSN "reported that 10 million streams were initiated...the day of the show." Now, do note, a "stream" does not necessarily equal one viewer, but in terms of content delivery, those figures represent a significant milestone. And Live Earth content is still being disseminated--YouTube is simply chock-a-block with footage, all of which can be enjoyed in a fittingly environmentally-friendly way. Of course, one point is worth debating: does the medium support the music, or the message? There's no metric, unfortunately, that would allow this to be gauged. Those who support the Live Earth cause will likely claim that every bit of online success helps (and it could be argued that the internet could support a "green" paradigm of concert viewing). Those who were predisposed to hate on the affair will likely tell you that none of what happens online matters, and that the numbers, however gaudy, should be dismissed. That said, viewed competitively, Live Earth is flat out crushing the critics, isn't it? [Note: Live Earth flopped on the tube? Bravo begs to differ : it's coverage brought the cable network record ratings.]
Yeah, but the problem is what is considered clean enough? New coal plants can be a lot cleaner than older coal plants, but some people still consider them too dirty. Al Gore said that no new coal plants should be built. Other technology like plants that capture C02 emissions are still years away. I think we should definitely invest in cleaner technology, but for the time being we shouldn't strain the grid by completely taking coal off the table.
