But I think on a basic level, it's hard to convince a man who grew in the bitter cold climate of Hibbing, Minnesota that a few degrees of warming over the next century will be that much of a problem. Other rock stars are questioning the very purpose of the concert. Bob Geldof, who put together the Live Aid concerts of the '80s to combat starvation in Africa, : Why is [Gore] actually organizing them?
To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? ..
. We are all [expletive] conscious of global warming. Similarly, the Who's Roger Daltrey the London : I can't believe it.
Then, in a rare bit of humility for famous entertainers, Daltrey argued that it's possible that rock stars may not have all the answers. We have problems with global warming, but the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help, he said. And the latest is from the new band Arctic Monkeys, who about the concert to the French wire service AFP.
It's a bit patronizing for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world, drummer Matt Helders said. Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical.
To be sure, not all these musicians are ready to embrace the of the debate. But acknowledging there are complexities is first step to halting global warming hysteria. What Geldof in particular seemed to realize is that the arguments to stop global warming are persuasive not because warming itself is bad (indeed, there could be many ), but of the effects it may allegedly cause, such as the worsening of drought and malaria.
Whereas Geldof's Live Aid raised money that directly went to buying food for Africa's poor (although there were some problems with distribution, as there are in many food aid programs), it's unclear how the Live Earth concerts will improve anyone's life. And environmentalists have rejected solutions to the problems they say global warming will worsen. Indeed, as I show in my book , environmentalists have created their own public health crises with many of their solutions.
It was not global warming but the banning of the pesticide DDT -- inspired by the hysterics of Rachel Carson -- that has led to millions dying of malaria in the Third World And there is even a question about how seriously environmentalists take the global warming threat. After all most eco-groups are opposed to nuclear power, which involves no pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. And they want to shut down the non-polluting dams that provide electricity in the Pacific Northwest, which would result in a sharp increase of the dreaded coal and oil to provide power.
These are even bigger hypocrisies than a fuel-burning concert, and provide even more evidence that global warming hysteria is jumping the shark. John Berlau is a policy director at the , a Washington-based free-market think tank, and author of the new Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health But I think on a basic level, it's hard to convince a man who grew in the bitter cold climate of Hibbing, Minnesota that a few degrees of warming over the next century will be that much of a problem.
News RSS