Live Earth音乐会的目的是值得称道的，但是我们是否应该更多地思考一下方式呢？毕竟，结果并不能反映出方式的好坏，但方式通常直接决定结果。气候变化尤其如此，由于不可持续的高碳发展模式出了问题而引起。也许我们需要重新考虑一下，考虑到参与者们的飞行及大量的耗费问题，是否举办一场全球音乐会就真的是拯救这个变暖的星球的办法呢？

The Live Earth concerts are admirable in intent, but shouldn't there be more debate about the means?

After all, the end doesn't justify the means, often the means defines the end outcome. This seems particularly true in the case of climate change, where it's the unsustainable carbon-intensive model of development that is at fault.

Perhaps we need to reconsider if a global concert, with its attendant air travel and sustainability questions, is really the way to organise an event on this warming planet?

首先我得承认这些音乐会初衷是好的——是为了提高人们全球气候变暖的认识. 但显然组织者首先考虑的是音乐会效应问题，然后才是绿化的问题.那么这种高调宣扬让人们参与环保的活动，是否太过全球化和戏剧化呢？
我在想如果7月7日是在全球各地人们的家乡举办700场小一些的音乐会可能会更难，听起来也没那么惊天动地，但肯定更有意思。而且那也许会是一种更好的地方和全球两级环保互动的模式。

I agree that the basic premise of these concerts sounds good, if awareness-raising is the goal. But clearly the organizers came upon the dramatic, numerological scheme first and then thought about how to make it green afterwards. I wonder, with this as with many high-profile schemes to get people to go green, if the method is actually too global and too dramatic. Sparking a movement to have 700 smaller-scale concerts in people's hometowns on July 7 might be harder, and may sound less earth-shaking. But I bet it would be just as fun, and perhaps a better model for how the local and global levels should interact in the environment movement.

-Ross P.

Ross， 我能理解你所说的。但是时下媒体的力量和影响不就是靠戏剧性，全球性的活动来造势，以提高人们对环境的意识。我只是怀疑它是否能如愿大获成功。和去年的Live8相比，我看结果将会非常吸引人......-Dan H

I see what you're saying Ross, but doesn't the power and reach of today's media demand a dramatic, global series of events in order to impact on peoples' consciousnesses. I wonder if it is going to do that completely successfully though? Comparing the global TV figures to those for last year's Live 8 is going to be interesting...

-Dan H