Live Earth: concerts causing climate crisis?
ref: Straits Times Life, 9 July, Is It Just Too Much?
Straits Times World, 10 July, Green concerts? Rubbish!


Finally, after months of intense preparation, endless publicity and the message of saving our Earth reverbrating unceasingly in our ears, it is finally over.

I am, of course, referring to Live Earth, the 24 hour series of live concerts across the seven continents held on 7th of July 2007, organised to raise awareness of global warming and climate change. Featuring most of the greatest figures in music, the event urged viewers and concert goers worldwide to be aware of the damage mankind is doing to the earth and do something about it.

As the hubbub dies away, it is time to now evaluate the effectiveness of such a huge undertaking.

I do not deny that such an effort to raise awareness of the clear need to protect our earth from the stark realities is commendable. no one should ever underestimate the amount of pollution we are heaping on the planet. However, the fact that such a message had to be brought home through such a humongous event raises the question, how much is enough? And how much is too much?

One problem the critics surfaced was that the immense amount of power and resources in setting and running Live Earth, coupled with the pollution brought by the many concert-goers, served only to add to global warming. The amount of fuel burnt to provide power to the electric instruments, lighting, sound system, even to the thousands of cars driven by concert-goers, the amount of trash left behind by them, and the immense amount of gas burnt just for the travel of performer and spectator alike, doesn't it just exacerbate global warming. If so, what is the use of organising a concert to ultimately lessen global warming when actually it is adding to it?

The organisers of Live Earth have supported their decision by saying that the negative effects created would be reduced or even reversed by the awareness raised and the subsequent efforts worldwide to reduce global warming. The main champion of Live Earth, former US Vice-President Al Gore, also added that the good effects will in the long run outweigh the bad.

However, just how effective was Live Earth in helping reduce global warming? How many of those who went for the event or watched it at home would really take its message to heart? Many of these people are only watching for the pleasure of seeing their favourite celebrities perform. Those who are convinced may have been so saturated with the same message over and over again that they either give up on the cause totally, or mindlessly complies. Either way, not much of a concious effort is involved, and such efforts are only temporal. In the absence of such reminders, we all tend to forget the lesson learnt and go back to our old ways, as the lesson has not been driven home. Put simply, it is overkill.

Also consider the massive amount of rubbish the spectators left behind. At Sydney, a reported 20 cubic tonnes of trash was collected after the event. Apparently the spectators themselves did not seem to get the message. Increasingly it seems that most people showed up at the events just for a day of revelry and mindless entertainment. I think it would be justifiable saying 1 week from now, people will only recall the songs and singers, but few would remember the message well enough to put it into practice.

Yet another issue I feel is highly debatable about the concerts is raising awareness versus raising willingness. Live Earth called on many of us to wear green on 7 July in support of the green movement. Its main objective was to raise awareness of the need to reduce global warming. However, I feel what people today need is not awareness, but a willingness to change their lifestyle.

Who in the educated world today is not aware at least of the effects of global warming? Yet many of us still live everyday as if the earth's resources, clean air, good climate were all endless. Many pollution producing giants and their managers know about global warming, they just refuse to take steps to prevent it. Take the annual problem of forest fires in Indonesia. Farmers clear the forests by burning, heedless to the massive amount of greenhouse gases they produce, their only thought to get enough fertile land to plant their crops and support their families. Even if they were made aware of the danger of global warming, it is highly unlikely they would stop. What we need today is not awareness. Rather, it is the willingness to take steps, sometimes at our own cost, to protect our planet.

Despite its shortcomings, Live Earth did achieve its aim of raising awareness, which in the long run is bound to have some effects. How extensive and beneficial that will be, remains to be seen. Friends have told me that Live Earth was a poorly planned event, executed nobly. I rather feel that it is an excellent plan, executed poorly. The idea itself was good, but perhaps the organisers could spare thought to make it really effective and worth every bit of temporary pollution it causes.

I for one am glad its over. At least I will be spared from the vicious advertising. Next time, no need for concerts, just a simple, meaningful event will convince me to do my part for the earth. It may not be that far reaching, but it'll achieve better results.

And I'm sure Mother Earth would agree too.