150 acts, two billion viewers - and an awful lot of hot air and greenhouse gas
Pastor Dale Morgan
150 acts, two billion viewers - and an awful lot of hot air and
greenhouse gas*
24-hour, seven continent show could raise awareness but at what cost to
climate?
Oliver Burkeman and Jonathan Watts in Beijing
Saturday July 7, 2007
The Guardian
The climate scientists have spoken. Now it's James Blunt's turn. But if
scepticism, even cynicism, is a natural response whenever pop stars
promise to change the world, there's no denying the sheer scale and
intensity of Live Earth, their latest attempt.
The 24-hour, seven-continent sequence of concerts, will already have
begun in Sydney by the time you read this - and the organisers,
spearheaded by Al Gore, hope it will reach 2 billion people via 120
television networks, internet and radio, making it the biggest media
event in history. At Wembley later today, 80,000 people are expected to
watch Madonna, Genesis, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Snow Patrol, the
Beastie Boys, Duran Duran, and Blunt, although last night rumours of an
appearance by Paul McCartney remained just rumours.
All this is hardly without its moral complexities. The Red Hot Chili
Peppers will be flying in by private jet from Paris, the band's
management confirmed, then leaving by private jet tonight for a gig in
Denmark. The Beastie Boys must be in Montreux by tomorrow. Genesis are
playing in Manchester tonight, as part of their Turn It On Again reunion
tour.
And an estimate calculated for the Guardian suggests that spectators
travelling to the London and New Jersey concerts alone will generate
approximately 5,600 tonnes of greenhouse gases between them - the
equivalent of 7,270 people crossing the Atlantic by plane. You can, it
seems, be part of the solution and part of the problem, at the same
time. Even those watching online will find Live Earth's website is
sponsored by the Chevrolet company, which manufactures SUVs.
These caveats will count for little if the event achieves its twin
goals: pressuring politicians to sign an international treaty pledging
massively reduced emissions within two years and persuading individuals
to make lifestyle changes, such as installing four energy-efficient
light bulbs, or taking public transport to work once a week.
"The important thing was not to have no carbon footprint and no acts,
but to have really great acts," insisted Steve Howard, a climate-change
consultant who runs We're In This Together, a UK campaign linked to Live
Earth. It was launched earlier this year and has already saved 36,000
tonnes of CO2, Mr Howard said. "Does that save the planet? No, not in
itself. But it's equivalent to 13,000 family cars being taken off the road."
At the heart of the challenge facing Mr Gore and his organisation, Save
Our Selves, is the nebulous concept of "awareness". The worst-case
scenario is that raising awareness about climate-change may not lead to
action - and might even instil a sense of fatalism. It doesn't help that
touring stars are among the worst individual greenhouse-gas offenders.
Last year, Madonna's Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of carbon
dioxide in four months, said John Buckley, of the website
Carbonfootprint.com, who also provided the estimates for Live Earth
concertgoers.
The rock group Arctic Monkeys said this week they had declined to take
part in Live Earth, because it would be "a bit hypocritical".
"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for [stage]
lighting," said drummer Matt Helders. He added: "There's more important
people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion
because we're in a band?"
Risking charges of inconsistency, Bob Geldof, instigator of Live Aid and
Live8, said in May that raising awareness was pointless. "Everybody's
known about that for years," he said. "We're all fucking conscious of
global warming."
Acutely aware of the need to minimise the event's own footprint, Live
Earth organisers have promised to power all shows with renewable energy,
and to offset flights taken by the 150 acts performing in London, New
Jersey, Shanghai, Johannesburg, Tokyo, Hamburg, Sydney, and - after a
last-minute threat of cancellation - Rio de Janeiro. (Scientists at a
base in Antarctica will also perform by satellite, so the event covers
all continents.) And Gayle Fine, a New York-based spokeswoman for the
Red Hot Chili Peppers, said the band offsets all tour travel, while
ground crews use biodiesel fuel where possible.
Offsetting is controversial among some environmentalists, who argue it
simply eliminates guilt. But Madonna, organisers noted, lives in London,
and generally, bands had been assigned to perform in cities where they
lived, or in the continents where they were touring.
Nowhere are climate issues more pressing than China. But far from
reaching the masses, fewer than 3,000 people were expected in Shanghai.
Most have been invited by sponsors, and the event, headlined by Sarah
Brightman, will be broadcast live by only one Shanghai channel. The
concert will not raise money because the cost of erecting an outdoor
stage will far exceed revenues. Even so, organisers hope to set an
example: the start has been moved an hour earlier, so the audience will
be able to catch public transport, and there will be recycling facilities.
Shanghai seems to have been chosen in the belief that the climate-change
message will make more of a mark on this cosmopolitan, educated city
than elsewhere. But, said Michelle Zhang, an invitee, "I don't think
this Shanghai concert is so exciting, because they only have Sarah
Brightman as an international star. At first we had very high
expectations, We thought big stars like Jay-Z might be coming. I don't
think young people like Sarah Brightman."
Local media panned the event, saying the line-up would embarrass the
nation, but Cindy Wang, the event's deputy general manager, said that
missed the point. "This is the biggest charity concert ever staged in
China," she said. "But it is not just a concert. It is a warning ... we
want to warn Chinese, not expats. That is why we're not seeking foreign
stars."
There is another possible interpretation of today's global events -
aside from the hope that they will make all the difference in the world.
This is the possibility that it is all a prelude to the announcement of
a presidential bid by Mr Gore, an idea he has been denying with less
force recently.
You might see that interpretation as the worst kind of cynicism. Then
again, Live Earth's message is that we each should do whatever we can
for the climate. And polls increasingly suggest that something Mr Gore
could do, besides changing his lightbulbs, is to win the Democratic
nomination - and, quite possibly, the White House.