Emission Mission or Bust?

Global warming due to human activity is a fact. The Stern Report proves that world emissions of GHGs are increasing at a terrifying rate and a global movement needs to be sparked to curb energy related (and non-energy related, i.e. agriculture) pollution. Basically, if nothing is done, current energy demand will skyrocket (depleting fossil fuel reserves AND resources), devastating phenomenon such as El Nino, melting ice caps, and a dried up Amazon rain forest will severely affect certain ecosystems, and human life will be in even more danger.

Internationally, different groups, organizations, and governments are starting to implement programs and projects to start reducing harmful greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol is seeking results by 2012, and suggested solutions in the Stern Report will see significant results by 2050, if implemented. Things such as carbon taxes, less reliance on imported fuels by use of alternatives or domestic sources, using energy star labeled appliances, using renewable energy, etc are all ways to start cutting back on emissions. Former Vice President, Al Gore, has taken big initiatives in spreading the message on the climate crisis to the world. His movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", surely got the word out. Now, he, along with some musicians, plan on holding a concert to continue spreading the word on the issue. This, I have a problem with.

LiveEarth will be held on 7 different continents for a total of 24 hours on 7/7/07. The message: Stop fucking around and save the earth from human destruction. Although using popular music to get the message across (predicted 2 billion viewers), the whole ordeal is somewhat contradictory. Over the whole course of planning and executing this event, how much energy do you think is used? How much energy used do you think is "clean"? And do you really think that every stage's light show will soely use CFLs, if at all? My thoughts are doubtful. Here's another thing.. Leonardo DiCaprio said at the 2007 Oscars that the Acadamy Awards, from that day on, would be a "green event". I don't think celebrities showing up to the red carpet in Hybrids is enough to make the show green. A completely carbon neutral show would convince me of it's greeness. Going back to LiveEarth, it's true that it is a great way to educate the public on the severity of the situation..but, the money used to make the event happen (especially since it surely wasn't done by using wind or hydro power, etc) should have gone to something more constructive and effective; buying emission credits! Also, those 2 billion viewers will be using electric energy, the biggest polluter, to watch this concert. The amount of pollution created from planning, execution, and then viewing seems a to be a large price to pay for the result that they probably won't get. It also sounds really stupid: Let's emit a couple billion tons of CO2, methane, and VOCs so that people and nations will start cutting back on their own emissions? They are setting their goal farther from reach. Different approaches and measures could have been taken to spread the word in a more eco-friendly way.

Of course, this could be argued many ways and I am open to different opinions. However, the climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen, and I feel promoting by polluting just doesn't make sense.