Yes. Yes, you’ll see in the links for this article that today I’ve fallen to the level of pointing at TV Guide.

Live Earth aired this weekend, from 7, 8 or 9 cities, depending on what you read. Were you part of the 2 billion people who were supposed to have seen it? Did it change your lifestyle?

TV Guide ran a pair of articles this morning talking about the concert’s generally tepid reception by the media, barely being mentioned by the New York Times or major British newspapers.

A major issue was the impact of the concerts themselves… how do you run a series of 7 (or 8 or 9) concerts for 2 billion people without any environmental impact? You simply can’t. Some of the stars came under criticism, as well; Madonna in particular was estimated as having roughly 100 times the the carbon footprint of the average Brit, as well as being an investor in some major polluters.

The New Jersey show is described as being like Al Gore himself: “smartly organized, highly efficient and with its heart in the right place, it was also just a little bit dull”.

Only 20% of Treehuggers readers felt it was going to be a waste of time, for what that’s worth.

At least some of the entertainers were aware of the ironies… as Chris Rock is quoted: “I pray that this event ends global warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger.”

Still, entertaining 2 billion people for a day is a quite a feat… now if we could only do something for the other 4 billion.

Earth underwhelmed by environment pop extravaganza
Live Earth New Jersey: More efficient than inspired
Treehugger: How Was Life Earth?
Treehugger: Survey: Will Live Earth Hurt the Planet More than Help?

[tags]live earth, carbon, al gore, concert, music, madonna[/tags]

|