Live Earth and the Green Paradox
Global Concert Unlikely to Save the World's Fragile Environment
Jul 8, 2007
Live Earth: The Paradox
Headlined by Madonna at Wembley Stadium, Live Earth saw 150 rock and pop performers appear at gigs on seven continents to attempt to persuade the world’s population that the environment matters and needs to be saved, in particular from the threat of global warming. Two million people watched the Live Earth events on their TV sets.
The paradox of Live Earth has not been lost on commentators. This paradox arises from the fact that the performers whose stated aim is to encourage others to consume less and act in a ‘greener’ manner, tend to be both conspicuous consumers and leave environmental footprints much larger than the people who were watching them. (Madonna, for example, has a carbon footprint of approximately 100 times that of the average Briton.) The celebrity lifestyle is at odds with environmental sensitivity.
The Newspapers the Day After
What have the UK papers made of Live Earth? The Independent on Sunday is a little sceptical, contrasting the day’s events with the fact of the five million people who travelled by plane, the 83 million barrels of oil consumed, and the 211,000 increase in the world’s population – all on the same day as Live Earth.
Scotland on Sunday details the environmental damage caused by Live Earth and, in particular, 5,600 tonnes of greenhouse gases generated by fans travelling only to the concerts in London and New Jersey, and £1.6 million worth of carbon-offsetting required to compensate.
The Sunday Times online edition restricts itself to a review of the Wembley event, which it rates as not very good, and the Sunday Telegraph leads on a details criticism of Madonna’s ‘hypocrisy’ because of her £2 million+ shareholdings in companies involved in oil, mining, defence, and industrial forestry.
The Sunday Mirror first reviews the acts and gives comments from them, and then moves on to give some ways in which individuals can reduce their environmental impact. It also quotes organiser Al Gore as saying, somewhat confusingly, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We need to go far. And we need to go fast."
For extreme skepticism, the best place to look was the Mail on Sunday which pointed both to the empty seats and the dissonance between the message and the Live Earth performers’ lifestyles, although their identification of Anthony Kiedis as the Rolling Stones singer casts doubt on their reporter’s ability as a rock reviewer!
The Observer gives a more balanced discussion covering both performance and paradox. As it points out, this was ‘another once-in-a-lifetime’ event, with Liver Earth happening only two weeks after the Live8 concert.
Was Live Earth Worth It
Was Live Earth worth it? Time will tell, but the auguries are not good. For the audience there may be a momentary increase in thinking about the environment, but action, not thinking, is what is required. For the performers, this was a good opportunity to promote themselves and their, in many cases, fading or emerging careers. Acting in an environmentally-friendly manner will require them to forgo some of the benefits of the superstar lifestyle. In the view of this commentator, a new concern will shortly emerge and the world will see another global event for ‘children’, ‘anti-slavery’, the ‘European brown bear’, or the ‘British rural economy’ (remember Bob Dylan and ‘farm aid’?). The same group of stars as appeared at Live Earth will all be sufficiently concerned to turn out for that next ‘Concert for the Concerned’.
