A Real Unmitigated Disaster (Thank God)

I think it is safe to say that this weekend's Gore-a-thon wasn't quite the rousing success folks were hoping for when Al dreamed it up on a Lear jet ride to one of his homes.

First, there were attendance problems for the Global Warming love fest in South Africa because it was too damn cold. (h/t to QandO)

Officials at Live Earth Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert, which starred Joss Stone, UB40, Angelique Kidjo and Baaba Maal.

This simply goes to prove the first rule in AGW hysteria making: blame Global Warming for every bit of weather you don't care for, including record cold.

Second, it seems not many folks in the U.S. or UK were, well, interested. From the Daily Mail:

Live Earth has been branded a foul-mouthed flop.

Organisers of the global music concert - punctuated by swearing from presenters and performers - had predicted massive viewing figures.

But BBC's live afternoon television coverage attracted an average British audience of just 900,000.

In the evening, when coverage switched from BBC2 to BBC1, the figure rose to just 2.7million.

And the peak audience, which came when Madonna sang at Wembley, was a dismal 4.5million. Three times as many viewers saw the Princess Diana tribute on the same channel six days before.

Two years ago, Live 8 drew a peak television audience of 9.6million while Live Aid notched 10million in 1985.

From CQ:

A new survey by Rasmussen shows that Americans didn't pay much attention to the celebrity-driven Live Earth concerts, mostly because of skepticism about their motivation. Less than a quarter of those surveyed bothered to follow the news stories about Al Gore's project, which may have political implications of its own.

At Heading Right, I take a look at the numbers and see a reality check for those who believe climate change to be a winning issue in the next election. Although a 22 share would be pretty good ratings for a televised event, it shows a distinct lack of resonance for political benefit. The Draft Gore movement may have to rethink its chances for success.

And here was this from the Rasmussen survey itself:

The Live Earth concert promoted by former Vice President Al Gore received plenty of media coverage and hype, but most Americans tuned out. Just 22% said they followed news stories about the concert Somewhat or Very Closely. Seventy-five percent (75%) did not follow coverage of the event.

By way of comparison, eight-in-ten voters routinely said they were following news coverage of the recent Senate debate over immigration. Fifty-four percent (54%) said they followed news coverage of the President’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence.

Skepticism about the participants may have been a factor in creating this low level of interest. Most Americans (52%) believe the performers take part in such events because it is good for their image. Only 24% say the celebrities really believe in the cause while another 24% are not sure. One rock star who apparently shared that view is Matt Bellamy of the band Muse. Earlier in the week, he jokingly referred to Live Earth as "private jets for climate change."

Bellamy's concern is echoed over at Stubborn Facts:

Tully's already touched on this, but the irony is delicious enough to double-dip: this weekends..."Live Earth" concerts, which aimed to raise awareness of global warming, are a carbon disaster zone:

far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

Hmmm...doesn't look like they are getting bang for their buck...excuse me, I mean for their carbon footprint.

I'd like to say I was pleasantly surprised by this dreadful showing, but I really wasn't surprised at all. The entire movement has all the subtlety of a political campaign, and if you have been paying any attention to those you already know there is nothing subtle about them. Of course, the reason the AGW campaign resembles a political campaign is that that is exactly what it is. It is an expression of political ideology pure and simple, and there was no way to disguise that fact from people, even young people. (Gee, Al maybe they are not the sheep you thought they were.)

One wonders where the "movement" will decide to go from here. Pseudo-documentaries and phony agit-pop only took them so far, and it doesn't look like they will be able to PR their way to "consensus." I'm hoping it will splinter between those with sensible ideas to combat pollution without hamstringing our economy, and the ideological dead-enders who can hold onto their pure visions of societal "transformation" as they fade into the obscure oblivion they so richly deserve.