Live Earth - Saving the planet?

Live Earth (LE) came and went on all seven continents July 7, so now that it’s all over, did it do what it was supposed to? 
 
The point, the message and the steps to be taken 
 
Organisers Al Gore and Kevin Wall said the mission of the event was to raise awareness of global warming and climate change, and to use the money raised to help combat it. 
 
Scientist Jane Goodall has said an event like this has the potential to make a huge impact. To paraphase: nevermind the politics, if everyone is made more aware, we’re at least going to see a ton of small changes, which will result in a large impact. If we start changing our habits and lifestyles, product makers are going to be forced to change theirs too. 
 
Sadly, Goodall’s speech was cut from broadcast by both Bravo and NBC. Speculation says it was due its content: informing the public that going vegan is the biggest thing anyone can do to help the earth. 
 
A UN report on the topic states animal agriculture accounts for 18% of greenhouse gases, more than automobiles. It is a significant producer of methane, 23 times more harmful than CO2 as a GHG. This was just one topic subject to censorship on the Live Earth MSN discussion boards. 
 
 
Critics and cynics 
 
Keith Farnish, a British environmentalist, said before the event that “Live Earth doesn’t seem to have an end game, or a target, which I have a problem with. It’s very ethereal: ‘Let’s raise awareness.’ But for what purpose? If the show could be tied to very specific targets for reducing greenhouse gases, that would be great.” 
 
Gore responded to these comments during LE with his seven-point pledge, which asks everyone to practice ways of improving the health of the planet; it has recently been signed by Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Washington. 
 
In a Billboard interview, Kevin Wall elaborated on the event’s principles: “On Live 8, we really had all the NGOs, the charities, in a coalition for the show, and eight days later they went back to their respective businesses. [With Live Earth] we’ve got to get these people in lock step, and [keep them there].” 
 
Gore says there will be more LE events for at least a few years to come. 
 
But the intentions are still worthy of suspicion: Intelligent Giving, a non-profit website for charity donors, found no solid information when trying to find out what actually happens with the money during an extensive investigation. 
 
 
Why music? 
 
The Daily Mail reported the artists alone at LE had to fly at least 222,623 miles, the equivalent of nine times around the planet, to take part. With statistics like these, we have to wonder whether or not the money and effort could’ve been better spent. On the other end of the spectrum, one could ask: why not music? As Gore said to Billboard: “Music engages people in a way that nothing else does.” Surely, two billion people wouldn’t pay £55 (much more in some cases) to attend a global warming awareness conference. 
 
In the same way the US has downplayed the global warming situation in the past, perhaps Gore has tried with LE to make up for it. In either case, he has been involved on the political front, and certainly, the statistics have shown global warming is not as of big of a concern as it could be (perhaps due to negated programming like ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’): The Pew Research Centre reports that as of this past January, 77% of Americans believe there is solid evidence of global warming, but less than half believe it is manmade. 
 
 
Speaking hypocrisy? 
 
While Live Earth was committed to doing minimal damage, the facts remain stark: Carbonfootprint.com reported the festival consumed about 31,500 tonnes in total, more than 3,000 times an average Briton’s annual footprint. 
 
The artists have generated their share of backlash (aside from the millionaires-asking-people-to-tighten-their-belts thing): singer John Legend is featured in a new Lexus SUV commercial while one of Sheryl Crow’s songs is heard in an advertising campaign for Subaru SUVs (Crow was recently in the media advising people to cut down on the amount of toilet paper they use to help the environment). 
 
Madonna’s song “Hey You”, written for the Live Earth compilation album, has garnered criticism as purely a money-maker. In either case, $250,000 USD of the song’s profits will be donated to ACP. 
 
Fashion magazine Marie Claire reported Madonna is the owner of several environmentally hazardous vehicles; The Guardian reported that she produced about 440 tonnes of CO2 on her last tour. 
 
 
Good in everything 
 
No matter your stance on Live Earth, a quick look at the website (which happens to be “green hosted”) should stifle any accusations of the festival being ‘pure evil’. But my point is this: even amidst corruption, greed and ulterior motives, we can usually find positive things, and vice versa. Which end of the spectrum Live Earth is on is entirely up to you.
Originally published in <a href="http://southernrailway.com">Southern OnTrack</a>.

Leave Your Comments Cancel reply