Inhofe is suck a fricking dumbass (re: live earth concert)

[LynneSin]

Somehow Senator James "Global Warming is a Hoax" Inhofe managed to block the Live Earth Concerts from being held in Washington DC even though there was support from both Dems & Rep to allow the concert to be held there

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/03/30/live-earth-dc-update-gore-vs-god/

Live Earth D.C. Update: Gore Vs. God
As Rolling Stone has already reported, Al Gore has twice been defeated in his attempts to hold the U.S. leg of his seven-continent, twenty-four-hour Earth Day event — featuring stars like the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Kanye West — in Washington D.C. on July 7th. First the National Park Service (a division of the Interior Department, headed by Bush appointee Dirk Kempthorne) denied organizers a permit for the Mall. Subsequently, Gore enlisted Senate majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Sen. Olympia Snow to propose a resolution allowing Live Earth, which is expected to attract 200,000 to 500,000 people, to be held on the west lawn of the Capitol. But Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe vowed to stall the resolution indefinitely, leading organizers to withdrawal the request and look for another location for the event.

Thanks to Inhofe, he just cost the city of DC probably millions of dollars that would have come into the city from the 200-500k people attending the concert, many who would be requiring hotels, food, rental car and a splattering of evening entertainment. So thanks to NJ, who clearly do not have any fricking dumbasses running their state, they'll take the benefit of the concerts instaed

[geardaddy]

1. K & R'd

What a dick.

He thinks he runs the country now?

btw: there's a typo in your subject line.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Inhoff needs rabies shots before he bites somebody. n/t

[NYCGirl]

3. Ironic, since Inhofe doesn't believe in global warming, but he does believe in MONEY.

[InvisibleTouch]

4. Petty revenge.

Since he can't win on the facts, he can exercise his little bit of bureaucratic power to gum up the works. Makes him look that much more pathetic.

[bighart]

5. More than one way to look at this.

I wonder what the total carbon emissions will be for just one of these concerts? You have the jet and bus fuel to get the performers to the location, the truck fuel to get all of the equipment to the concert locations, the fuel to bring in the road crew to set up, the fuel to run the heavy equipment to set up the show, the fuel required to generate the electricity required to put the show on, the fuel required for all of the attendees to get to and from. To me having big events like this are exactly the WRONG thing to do as they contribute to the very problem that is the focus to begin with.

[InvisibleTouch]

6. I don't quite agree.

The benefit of raising consciousness and getting the word out, will far outweigh the carbon emissions - which would happen anyway, just spread out over a larger area as the world goes on "as usual."

[AlGore-08.com]

7. They are carbon neutral events -- they're huge just to prove you can have huge carbon neutral events

That make money.

Because many of the arguments against changing to a carbon neutral economy or lifestyle are based on two things:

1.) We'll crash the economy if we go carbon neutral! Let's move slower!
2.) We'll be living like Dark Ages peasants if we go carbon neutral! We can't loose our culture! Let's move slower!

Live Earth, being a freaking huge set of concerts which are designed to make millions of dollars for climate change education, prove that both those fears are unfounded.

Here's a description of the concerts from the LiveEarth website:

http://liveearth.org/who_we_are.php

Live Earth will use the global reach of music to engage people on a mass scale to combat our climate crisis. Live Earth will bring together more than 150 of the world's top musicians for 24-hours of music from 7 concerts across all 7 continents. Live Earth will bring together an audience of more than 2 billion at the concerts and through television, radio, film, and the Internet. That audience, and the proceeds from the event, will create the foundation for a new, multi-year global effort to combat the climate crisis led by Vice President Al Gore. Kevin Wall, Worldwide Executive Producer of Live 8, is producing Live Earth.

All Live Earth venues will be designed and constructed by a groundbreaking team of sustainability engineers and advisors directed by John Picard. This greening team will address the environmental and energy management concerns of each concert site, as well as the operations of sponsors, partners, and other Live Earth affiliates.

Each venue will not only be designed to maintain a minimum environmental impact, but will showcase the latest state-of-the-art energy efficiency, on-site power generation, and sustainable facilities management practices.

And F.Y.I. folks who fly in from out of town - - or drive in, or take the train in - - can buy carbon offsets for their trip.

[InvisibleTouch]

9. Even better, then! Thanks for the info. n/t

[bighart]

11. I don't see

anything in the description you posted that says the event will be carbon neutral. If we, the very people who are concerned about the problem, don't show by our ACTIONS that we can make a difference and have an impact on the problem, we have no moral high-ground to ask others to change. I do not believe in the do as I say mentality if I am not willing to do the very things I am asking others to do. I am growing very weary of hearing people of influence, celebrities in particular, talk about the issue of global warming while they fly around in private jets and ride around in gas guzzling stretch limos and suv's. It all just make it look as if it is the "cause of the day" and "something cool" to be associated with. It kind of reminds me of Alec Baldwins statement that if Bush got re-elected he would leave the country. It looks good and sounds good but in the end is completely useless and accomplishes nothing. Change requires actions, not just words. We should have learned that from the Reub congress that came to power by promising a "new" way of operating in Washington, but all the country got was more of the same. If we are not willing to make change ourselves, we should have no expectation of others being willing to change.

[Beaverhausen]

13. More info

http://liveearth.org/?p=13

LIVE EARTH - GREEN EVENT STANDARD

In partnership with the U.S. Green Building Council, SOS – The Campaign for a Climate Crisis will implement a new Green Event Standard with Live Earth that we hope will become the model for carbon neutral concerts and other live entertainment events in the future, as well as anticipate the opportunity to develop this standard into a LEED-approved certification process for entertainment venues.


John Picard, the award-winning sustainability expert and former member of President Clinton’s Green White House task force, is leading the SOS team of sustainability expert. By embedding a team of world-class sustainability experts within the production staff, waste streams will be designed out prior to its negative environmental impact. From power generation at the concerts to garbage generated by concert goers, Live Earth will bestow an eco-friendly legacy on the live entertainment industry.

Among the steps being taken are:

All electricity that powers the shows will be from renewable sources, either through utility supplied renewable energy, biodiesel generators, or renewable energy credits

Concessionaires will be encouraged to use and directed to suppliers of agricultural / biodegradable plastics (i.e. made from corn). Also, concessionaire waste will be minimized through a comprehensive recycling system organized at the venue.

Venue offices, walkways, etc will be retrofitted with compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs, where possible.

The entire production design will follow sustainable light design principles. Production lighting will include the use of LED light bulbs and production/artist trailers will be incorporate low impact technology in areas such as air conditioning units.

SOS staff and artist air travel will be offset through carbon credits.

Ground travel will be hybrid or other clean fuel where possible.

Hotels will be directed to change light bulbs to CFLs, use nontoxic cleaning products, and have recycling containers present in the rooms.

[bighart]

20. All of these things are

Great, but there is no way these events will be carbon neutral. Yes the exposure is fantastic but I still think it sends the wrong message. There is no assurance that all, let alone any, of the vendors who are being "encouraged" to use biodegradable plastics will comply, not to mention the fact that the waste will be "minimized by recycling"- duh waste will still be generated that will end up in a land fill. And I see some "where possible" statements in this list. I find all of this very HYPOCRITICAL and am ashamed by it all. To me it is just another example of "do as I say, not as I do". I also find the whole "carbon credits" thing laughable. It is just a way for those who know that what they are doing doesn't fit with what they are saying to feel better about themselves without addressing the root of the problem. I quit driving myself to work over a year ago because I CARE.

[Beaverhausen]

21. There just aren't the resourses out there yet to make anything completely carbon neutral

It is not hypocritical for this group to use every 'available' method to make this event carbon neutral as you say.

It is very important to bring attention to the issue and to motivate everyone on this planet to go out and make the changes we need to make to ensure our survival.

Those who will attend and watch these concerts will learn a great deal about what actions they can take, and they will in turn educate others.

No, its not perfect, but by no means should they cancel these shows. The benefits far outweigh the negatives.

[AlGore-08.com]

22. It's not possible to be human and be 100% carbon neutral

These events will reduce their carbon footprints as much as possible, then buy carbon offsets for the rest. That's the what Gore is advocating, and it's important to understand that's how he lives his life.

It's great that you gave up driving, but you can't judge Gore by how you live your life. Gore can't stop driving to work because his work combating the climate crisis literally takes him around the world. He can't bicycle to China or India to lobby them about switching from coal to green energy sources.

Gore buys 100% green energy, he drives a hybrid, he runs two carbon neutral businesses (one an investment company that only invests in environmentally friendly companies/research projects). He gives tons of his own time and energy traveling around the world (in commercial airlines when he has to fly, on mass transit when he can avoid flying) teaching folks about the climate crisis - - and getting governments and private citizens around the world to actually do something about it.

For example, Gore talked Richard Branson into investing $3 billion dollars in renewable energy iniatives. Then he and Branson set up the Virgin Earth Challenge, which will pay $25 million to whoever can prove they have developed a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate:

http://www.virginearth.com/

The point of "An Inconvenient Truth" (which was certified carbon neutral) was to increase public awareness of the climate crisis. It was wildly successful - - it changed the debate across the entire planet.

The point of the Live Earth concerts is do the exact same thing - - to the Nth degree. To help get massive numbers of people around the planet demanding their governments end the climate crisis - - their target is audience 2 billion people. When they have 2 billion people bopping around at the concerts and in front of their TVs and computers, wearing "Save Our Selves! Stop Global Warming NOW" t-shirts, spineless corporate tools in Congress will be scared. They will rush to vote for bills that will make a real difference, instead of rushing to do the oil and coal lobbists' bidding.

[bighart]

23. Is it not up to

individuals to end the crisis? Governments can not solve this problem, they did not create it.
Consumerism and our insistent need for "more" caused the problem. Regulation can only go so far in solving this. If the consumer were the ones screaming for more environmentally sound products producers would have no choice but to make them. If everyone who is considering buying, because they want a new car not because they need one, would only buy hybrid or not buy at all what do you think would happen to the supply? I can tell you there would be a lot more hybrids available. Take responsibility and take action yourself, don't wait for the government to mandate it!!!!!

[LynneSin]

24. I think that's the whole purpose of the concert

I try to be as carbon neutral as feasible although I suspect I could be doing a better job. But you put a 24-hr concert on TV, televised probably by MTV and VH1 (let's hope they learned their lessons from Live8), bring some of the biggest names in music from a diverse background of genres and then promote the hell out of concepts that people can do in order to leave less of a carbon imprint. And the best thing is they will do everything in their power to be as carbon neutral as possible and where they can't make the adjustment they'll buy carbon offsets

It's clear our government will do nothing, which is sad because the technology is there and they could provide tax breaks and government funding for both profit & not-for-profits to go greener, but they choose not to do so. One of the best things that former NJ Gov Jim McGreevey did was to convert most of the the NJ government buildings to clean energy - that's the kind of example I'd like to see other governments including federal governments to do. (BTW, I learned about that at an Alanis Morisette/Bare Naked Ladies concert I saw a few years ago in NJ were they had several green groups there promoting environmental friendly products)

This concert serves one purpose - to help create the demand from the consumers.

[Beaverhausen]

25. You are right - that is the purpose of the concerts

You can't expect people to make changes about something they don't even know about.

[AlGore-08.com]

26. Individuals alone can not solve it; Governments ARE part of the problem and solution

Over 80% of Americans think that global warming is a serious problem that needs to be solved now. But American auto makers and energy corporations are spending millions to influence state governments and D.C. and bribe foreign governments, so that those governments won't pass laws mandating minimum MPGs and maximum emission levels or mandate the use of renewable energy sources. When states like California pass laws which are more stringent than the national laws, corporations fight them all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't know how old you are, but back in the 1970s, there was a energy crisis. For awhile, the most important feature for car buyers was their MPG rating. In a few short years, the crisis ended (for the time being) and the auto industry developed the SUV (which they wouldn't have been able to give away during the height of the energy crisis).

SUVs weren't created because consumers stood around car lots, loudly complaining that they couldn't find a hybrid truck-luxury car to buy so they were never going to buy a car ever again. SUVs were created because some very clever folks in Detroit took a look at their profit margin, realized that they would make much more profit on larger, less fuel efficient, less safe vehicles. They then did a lot of research to see if they could create a market for such a car - - part of that research was to see if there were things that consumers wanted that they could attribute to SUVs - - more room, more safety, more comfort. And part of that research was to see if they could get around the minimum fuel efficiency and safety regulations in place for cars at that time. They couldn't, so they made up a new category for these vehicles - - "Sport Utility Vehicle" - - and claimed the car laws didn't apply to SUVs. And they spent a h*ll of a lot of money on federal races to make sure that the majority of Congressfolk and Presidential candidates never questioned their interpretation of the law.

Corporations are not feathers in the wind, finding success or failure based on the whims of market forces. Corporations do their level best to create and control market forces, so that they will succeed.

And Governments who decide that the financial success of corporations is more important than reducing CO2 emissions - - and that corporations know best when it comes to global warming ARE a BIG part of the problem.

I'm not trying to get personal, but the fact that you're online means at a minimum that you have access to a computer, some electricity and some type of access to the 'Net - - and probably some kind of shelter. Was every single part of the computer you use manufactured in a totally carbon neutral way? How were the minerals and plastics in your computer created? Where were the minerals mined from? Are the plastics all recycled? How much CO2 was created getting the computer from the manufacturer to the store where it was originally bought? Is every single watt of energy you use to power the computer created from green energy? Is there any part of that energy creation which is not green - - were the power lines all created in a 100% green manner? How about the phone lines or wireless service? Are the companies that made the computer and provide the power and the internet access 100% green in every single branch office they have? How about the building you're in when you're online? Is it 100% carbon neutral? Who built it? What was there before it was built? What was destroyed to make that building? How were the raw materials harvested which made that house?

It's possible that you can prove that everything you use to get online, including your computer, is made from trash salvaged from a dump, and that you are able to create 100% of the energy you need from renewable sources. But if you're like the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. right now, you're limited in what you can do to combat global warming because the technology isn't available in your area. Or if it is, you can't afford to spend thousands of dollars on solar panels because you only make a buck above minimum wage - - and your landlord won't let you install solar panels because it says "no dish antennas" in your lease.

Assuming that you fall into that second, much larger group, if I follow your argument to it's conclusion...

If you can't say that every last atom that went into making your computer and electricity and internet service and your home (or the internet cafe or library or school or wherever you're logging on to the web from) is 100% carbon neutral - - you should have never gotten the computer, you should have never turned it on, you should have never gone online. If only you hadn't gone online, market forces would have driven the computer manufacturers and power companies and internet companies and homebuilders (or landlords or public school systems or internet cafe owners) to come up with 100% green products and the climate crisis would be solved by now.

But because you chose to go online, you must be considered part of the problem, not part of the solution.

However, Al Gore wouldn't see it that way. He'd look at the fact that you don't use a car any more, and anything else that you do to reduce your carbon footprint, and thank you sincerely for being part of the solution. 'Cause that's the kind of guy he is. (Seriously.)

[Maraya1969]

15. The information and contacts that you can receive at one of these gathering

is worth it. Yes fuel is going to be use but that is only because we don't have what it takes to not use fuel yet. These types of venues not only educate people they network and allow people to work together for better things.....like being able to live without using fossil fuel.

For example I found out here that I should unplug TV's and cordless changers because even it if looks like they were no using electricity they actually were.

I went to the World Congress For Animals in 1996 in Washington and the connects I made and the things I learned were invaluable.

Plus there is a great benefit of just getting people together and running on the positive energy of others.

[blm]

12. Thanks for the valuable info. You make a great point about what CAN be done

and the importance of PROVING it can be done.

[LynneSin]

14. I'm sure that the organizers are taking that into consideration

and will try to find as many ways to offset the carbon footprint. But the awareness will be amazing and let's face it - the concert lineup is pretty kickass!

[Tanuki]

8. So much for freedom of assembly

It was a great Constitution while it lasted

[Virginia Dare]

10. What an asshole, a James Watt wannabe...

he's the worst D.C. micromanager since Bob Barr.

[kwolf68]

16. Worst. Senator. Ever.

Or one of them. The guy is a Grade-A tool

[LynneSin]

18. He's almost making Rick Santorum look like less of a tool.....

....almost!

At least Pennsylvanians had enough sense to get rid of their asshole. I wish Oklahomians wake up and smell the coffee

[PaDem]

31. The problem is Oklahoma has two bozos.........

in the senate.

[Maraya1969]

17. James Inhofe contact info in case anyone feels inclined

Tulsa Office
1924 S. Utica Avenue
Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104-6511
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]



1900 NW Expressway
Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Map This
Directions To

http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServices.ConstituentCasework

[LynneSin]

19. I think writing or calling Inhofe would be a greater waste of energy....

...than hosting the Live Earth concert

[Apollo11]

27. Relevant article from The Independent

Carbon cost of climate change concert criticised

THE INDEPENDENT (London, England)
April 11, 2007

By Arifa Akbar

It has been billed as the greenest concert of the summer, a continent-crossing event aimed at galvanising support for the fight against global warming.

But yesterday, as the main acts for Live Earth were announced, among them Madonna, Corinne Bailey-Rae and the Black Eyed Peas, critics were raising eyebrows at the $2m to $3m (£1.1m to £1.6m) that the event is expected to cost in carbon offsetting.

About a hundred artists will require transporting by air to their respective concerts, to be staged in London, Sydney, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Shanghai and New Jersey. And complaints about Live Earth have begun to surface on the internet, with bloggers asking if pop stars and their taste for conspicuous consumption are the best advocates for cutting fossil fuel emissions.

John Picard, environmental director for the event, said he was "upset" by the offsetting cost of Live Earth, but there was no other option. "There are areas where we are going to be really successful and areas where we are terribly challenged. The air travel involved in all this is a nightmare and there is nothing you can do other than buy the offset. But, in terms of power in the venues, I think we will have a carbon-neutral event," he said.

Each singer will receive a "green briefing" on how they can change lifestyles to minimise their own, often above-average, carbon footprints. The briefing to which singers have agreed - to ensure they practise what they preach on 7 July when messages on the danger of global warming will be beamed to 2 billion people at the 24-hour concert - comes amid concerns that those delivering the green message are the worst offenders. Organisers have defended the concerts, which are the brainchild of the former US vice-president Al Gore, which aim to set a "green example" for other music events by using measures such as eco-friendly electricity, sustainable lighting and carbon-neutral travel. Mr Gore has come under attack for high energy consumption at his home.

In May, Mr Picard will begin a "briefings" programme with every artist taking part in Live Earth, by visiting their homes or offices for a "sustainability consultation". "You have to walk the walk. You can't get up there and tell the public to save the planet but leave in a big car to go to your big home," he said. He has already advised artists to trade in their vehicles for hybrid cars.

Ashok Sinha, director of Stop Climate Chaos, a group involved in the event, said: "Carbon will be produced, but it enables us to reach out to large numbers of people who will be encouraged to learn about how they can reduce their carbon footprint, so it will be worth the carbon."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2439525.ece

[Apollo11]

28. My 2 cents

I agree that offsetting is not the answer to global climate change. Certainly not by itself, in a context of no ceilings and no independent auditing of how offsetting money is spent and what is the NET impact on carbon dioxide emissions.

I don't believe that it is possible to persuade billions of people to become more conscious and reduce their carbon footprint - with guilt as their only motivation. You also need financial incentives to go green.

This is where governments come in. We need tougher mileage standards for all new vehicles, gasoline taxes that discourage people from making unnecessary trips and encourage people to drive smaller cars.

But I am still not convinced that climate change can be stopped. At most - we can slow down the rate of change from what it would otherwise have been.

Take the example of the United Kingdom. In the past 10 years (since 1997) - with a Labour Government that has always supported the Kyoto agreement and has never questioned the science of climate change - with Ministers who talk about supporting renewable energy - with some of the highest gasoline taxes in the world - in a country that will be directly and seriously affected by rising sea levels - carbon dioxide emissions have actually been increasing!

My view is that we cannot continue with more than 6 billion people on this planet. We will have to seriously downsize the human population, closer to the 2 billion inhabitants we had back in 1928. But of course I am free to say this out loud - as I am not running for office ...

[bighart]

29. And just how would you

propose we go about this population reduction?

[Apollo11]

30. I'm afraid we are heading for catastrophe

Humans have been on this planet for around 200 000 years.

In 1961 the world population was 3 billion.

In 1999 the world population was 6 billion.

How long can we keep on growing like this?