Commentary 2 for Blog Submission 3: Term 3
Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=466775&in_page_id=1879
Commentary on Article:
Live Earth---- Eco-Friendly or Environmental Disaster? Even though Live Earth is over now, but the controversy continues. Did the Live Earth concert really make a difference in saving the environment, or was it just one big hype for nothing? Can carbon-offsetting really be used as an excuse for holding a global concert that will surely amount to lots of carbon emissions, burning of fossil fuels and the enormous amount of trash produced? What about the electricity that will be used when millions of people all over the world watch the live telecast of this 24-hour event? How will Al Gore, and the producers account for that? My opinion is that this whole concert is not actually helping the environment at all, it's actually ruining it. How so? Well, even though I know that millions of people will watch it, but who will actually care more about the environment through this series of concerts? I, for one, will not. Most people will just watch the concerts because of their favourite artistes and celebrities, but will then forget all about the real purpose of these concerts. Who will remember to conserve electricity after all the entertaining performances on stage? In my opinion, Live Earth will achieve as much hype as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", but it will not actually motivate people to act. Also, another important issue the article has raised is the topic of carbon-offsetting. Do planting of trees make carbon emissions acceptable? Basically, the Live Earth planning committee's justification for emitting 74,500 tonnes of carbon and generating 1025 tonnes of trash is that they are funding a reforestation project? These are two different issues, Al Gore, you can't just lump them together such that they cancel each other out! I personally think that this is a very weak excuse and it's just a way of shifting the blame away from them. If carbon-offsetting is allowed, then what about electricity-offsetting? Trash-offsetting? These are huge factors involved in this concert, and I worry that the damage done to the environment through this concert is more than the awareness raised about the environment. Also, isn't this whole concert a bit ironic in the sense that they are inviting artistes that are not environmentally friendly themselves? The private jets these artistes travel in EVERY DAY burn up so much fossil fuel already. Shouldn't these singers set a role model for their fans to follow? Why are they not even trying to conserve on fossil fuel by travelling commercially? At least the Arctic Monkeys have the guts to say that they do not save the environment, thus they will not be playing for the concert, but the other artistes? Do they have a right to sing on that stage, promoting environmental awareness?
In conclusion, this whole concert should be labelled a fiasco, and a hypercritical act by Al Gore. Unless he finds a way to answer those questions above, I'd rather support NTUC's policy to deduct 10 cents off for every plastic bag unused. At least I know it actually helps.
Word Count: 507 words
Commentary on Article:
Live Earth---- Eco-Friendly or Environmental Disaster? Even though Live Earth is over now, but the controversy continues. Did the Live Earth concert really make a difference in saving the environment, or was it just one big hype for nothing? Can carbon-offsetting really be used as an excuse for holding a global concert that will surely amount to lots of carbon emissions, burning of fossil fuels and the enormous amount of trash produced? What about the electricity that will be used when millions of people all over the world watch the live telecast of this 24-hour event? How will Al Gore, and the producers account for that? My opinion is that this whole concert is not actually helping the environment at all, it's actually ruining it. How so? Well, even though I know that millions of people will watch it, but who will actually care more about the environment through this series of concerts? I, for one, will not. Most people will just watch the concerts because of their favourite artistes and celebrities, but will then forget all about the real purpose of these concerts. Who will remember to conserve electricity after all the entertaining performances on stage? In my opinion, Live Earth will achieve as much hype as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", but it will not actually motivate people to act. Also, another important issue the article has raised is the topic of carbon-offsetting. Do planting of trees make carbon emissions acceptable? Basically, the Live Earth planning committee's justification for emitting 74,500 tonnes of carbon and generating 1025 tonnes of trash is that they are funding a reforestation project? These are two different issues, Al Gore, you can't just lump them together such that they cancel each other out! I personally think that this is a very weak excuse and it's just a way of shifting the blame away from them. If carbon-offsetting is allowed, then what about electricity-offsetting? Trash-offsetting? These are huge factors involved in this concert, and I worry that the damage done to the environment through this concert is more than the awareness raised about the environment. Also, isn't this whole concert a bit ironic in the sense that they are inviting artistes that are not environmentally friendly themselves? The private jets these artistes travel in EVERY DAY burn up so much fossil fuel already. Shouldn't these singers set a role model for their fans to follow? Why are they not even trying to conserve on fossil fuel by travelling commercially? At least the Arctic Monkeys have the guts to say that they do not save the environment, thus they will not be playing for the concert, but the other artistes? Do they have a right to sing on that stage, promoting environmental awareness?
In conclusion, this whole concert should be labelled a fiasco, and a hypercritical act by Al Gore. Unless he finds a way to answer those questions above, I'd rather support NTUC's policy to deduct 10 cents off for every plastic bag unused. At least I know it actually helps.
Word Count: 507 words
posted by the one at 8:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home