在青藏高原用烟花炸了一座山，始祖鸟和蔡国强错在了哪儿？

Core Viewpoint - The event, part of a brand's initiative, aimed to explore local culture through art but faced widespread criticism regarding its environmental impact and cultural insensitivity [1][3][29] Group 1: Event Description - The performance took place at an altitude of approximately 4600 meters, with fireworks launched along a ridge extending to 5050 meters, creating a visual spectacle [1] - The event was broadcasted online and quickly became a trending topic on social media, raising concerns about its artistic value and environmental consequences [3] Group 2: Environmental Concerns - The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is recognized as a fragile ecological zone, with limited capacity to recover from disturbances, making it highly susceptible to environmental degradation [10][11] - The area where the event occurred features alpine meadows, which are critical for the local ecosystem and difficult to restore once damaged [13][15] - The claim that the event would not harm the environment was met with skepticism, as the ecological impact of fireworks and related activities could be severe [9][16] Group 3: Criticism of Mitigation Measures - The organizers suggested using salt bricks to lure small animals away from the fireworks area, a method deemed impractical and ineffective for the local wildlife [17][19] - The use of biodegradable materials in fireworks was questioned, as the degradation process in high-altitude environments may not be effective due to low temperatures and limited microbial activity [20][22] Group 4: Legal Implications - The recent enactment of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Ecological Protection Law emphasizes the need for strict protection of fragile ecosystems, which the event may have violated [25][26] - Potential legal repercussions for activities that could harm the environment in sensitive areas were highlighted, indicating that the event could face scrutiny under this new legislation [28] Group 5: Aftermath and Accountability - Following the backlash, both the brand and the artist issued apologies, but the long-term ecological damage remains a significant concern [29][30]