2006-2007 Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
No related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
live
earth
concert

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page

2007/19: Were the Live Earth concerts an effective means of promoting environmental awareness?<BR>

2007/19: Were the Live Earth concerts an effective means of promoting environmental awareness?

What they said ...
'The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert ... the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help'
Roger Daltrey of The Who

'The prospects for every future generation depend on us understanding, hearing and acting upon this information'
Former United States Vice President Al Gore, commenting on Live Earth

The issue at a glance
On July 7, 2007, Live Earth was staged. This was a series of worldwide concerts intended to spearhead a three-year campaign to reduce global warming.
Despite the obvious good intentions of the organisers, who included former United States Vice President Al Gore, the event was criticised prior to its staging for lacking focus and achievable goals. After July 7, there were those who compared it unfavourably with other similar attempts to shift popular opinion or raise funds on an international scale.
Despite such criticisms the organisers claim their event was a success.

Background
Live Earth was a series of worldwide concerts held on July 7, 2007, that initiated a three-year campaign to combat climate change and advocate environmentally-sustainable living.
The concerts brought together more than 150 musical acts in eleven locations around the world and were broadcast to a mass global audience through radio, television, and the Internet. The umbrella organization for the event was Save Our Selves, founded by Kevin Wall (Executive Producer), and included major partners such as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, the Alliance for Climate Protection, MSN, and Control Room, the production company which produced the event.
The logo for the event was the Morse code distress signal. The worldwide producer of talent and programming for all of the events was Aaron Grosky. The worldwide producer of the events was Lily Sobhani.
Unlike the similar Live 8 concerts, which were free, Live Earth charged admission but the event was made broadly available via television and the Internet. The event set a new record for online entertainment by generating more than 9 million streams, while its television ratings were described as a 'flop' in terms of programming for BBC One. Television ratings in the United States were poor as well. NBC's broadcast of Live Earth was the least watched network program between the Big Three Television Networks and Fox.
The plans for the Live Earth concerts were announced at a media event in Los Angeles on February 15, 2007 by Al Gore and other celebrities. The inspiration for promoting the cause using benefit concerts came, from many similar events over the past 25 years including the 1985 Live Aid concerts and the 2005 Live 8 concerts. The event was claimed to be carbon neutral, and organisers said they would purchase carbon credits to offset the environmental impact of the flights associated with the events.

Internet information
The Wikipedia entry on Live Earth gives background information on the events and outlines some of the controversies it prompted. The full text of this entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Earth

Live Earth's official Internet site, including information about the events and 'climate crisis tools' including advice on recycling can be found at http://www.liveearth.org/news.php

The Wikipedia entry for the Alliance for Climate Protection, a United States environmental awareness lobby group which helped to organise Live Earth can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Climate_Protection

The official site for the Alliance for Climate Protection can be found at http://www.climateprotect.org/ The site includes a wide range of information as to how individuals can reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.

On July 10, 2007, the Canadian news site Dose.ca posted an article titled, 'Live Earth Declared Brilliant Success - or Pitiful Failure - Depending on Who You Ask' which gave an overview of the concerts considering the claims that they were either a success or a failure.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.dose.ca/music/story.html?id=f87c0b1b-9878-4e73-b248-a7edad86e511&k=49726

After the concerts the United States news site USA Today posted an article titled 'Big show, big impact? Live Earth hopes so' The article gives a detailed treatment of the history of such events and of political activism/social awareness endeavours associated with the music industry, as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of Live Earth. The full text of the article can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2007-07-04-live-earth_N.htm?csp=34

On July 7, the British newspaper The Guardian, published an editorial titled, 'The world won't listen'. This presented a series of arguments as to why the Live Earth concerts were unlikely to achieve their objectives.
The editorial can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2120891,00.html

Arguments suggesting the Live Earth concerts were not an effective means of raising environmental awareness
1. The Live Earth concerts lacked a clear, achievable target
It has been claimed that other global concerts had clearer missions and indices of success. Live Aid raised $245 million to feed starving Africans; a 1992 tribute to Queen singer Freddie Mercury drew $40 million for AIDS research; the 2001 Concert for New York City took in $35 million for 9/11 victims' families.
However, it has been argued that Live Earth's goals are both less concentrated and less achievable. It has been suggested that like Live 8, a world wide series of concerts intended to persuade world leaders to forgive Third World debts, Live Earth's agenda is unwieldy.
The Live Earth concerts were criticised by Live Aid organiser Bob Geldof and Roger Daltrey of The Who for lacking a realistic, significant final goal.
Geldof stated in an interview on May 15, 2007, that the concerts were a waste of time because 'Everybody's known about [global warming] for years.' Geldof claimed he would organise a concert like Live Earth only if he 'could go on stage and announce concrete environmental measures from the American presidential candidates, Congress, or major corporations.'
Roger Daltrey further said, 'The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert ... the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help.'

2. The Live Earth concerts caused pollution and were not 'carbon neutral'
Bands including The Who, Muse and the Arctic Monkeys called Live Earth 'Private Jets for Climate Change'. The event's total carbon footprint (the amount of carbon dioxide it produced), including the artists' and spectators' travel and energy consumption, was probably at least 74,500 tonnes, according to John Buckley of CarbonFootPrint.com - more than 3,000 times the average Briton's annual footprint.
Performers flew at least 358,278 km - the equivalent of nearly nine times round the planet - to take part in the event, and this figure does not include transport of technicians, dancers and support staff.
Al Gore was reported to be unhappy with the travel arrangements of the British band Razorlight. After their appearance at the London Live Earth event, they were ferried to an airport in a large tour bus with a police escort to catch a private jet to Scotland. From the airport in Scotland they travelled by helicopter to Balado to perform at another event. Razorlight claimed they would offset their emissions by planting trees
An estimate reported that 100,000 planted trees would be required to offset total carbon emissions produced during the entire event.
It has been estimated that the concert generated some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which went directly into landfill sites. Concert-goers at the event's London leg had left thousands of plastic cups on the floor of Wembley Stadium, although organizers had urged audience members to use the recycling bins provided, the BBC reported. A spokesman for Wembley has said they only had the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest going into landfill sites.

3. Reducing global warming is beyond the scope of individual concert goers/viewers
It has been suggested that the Live Earth project is essentially futile as the problem it is intending to address is beyond the scope of individuals to address. It has been suggested that it is a problem best addressed at an international level and that, as the Live 8 attempts to alter international attitudes to Third World debt have demonstrated, international relations do not respond strongly to lobbying via concerts.
In an editorial published in The Guardian on July 7, 2007, it was stated, 'The trouble is that they [those viewing the concerts] ... know that if every household in Britain were, say, to bike to work and wash their whites at 30 degrees, the carbon savings would be entirely negated by a few days' emissions from the coal-fired power stations that China is rapidly building so that it can supply us with cheap manufactured goods. That is the logic that leads to the gloomy conclusion that an individualistic response will never be adequate. Taking the moral high ground might be a good reason for turning down the heating and taking the bus. But it will not save the world.'
The same editorial noted, 'the limits of rock'n'roll remedies to the world's problems were on display at the G8 last month when, two years on from Live 8 and Gleneagles, there was a bad-tempered scramble just to get many of the participants ...to recommit themselves to the promises they had made in 2005. Meanwhile, as the UN reported earlier this week, poverty in sub-Saharan Africa is stubbornly resistant to improvement.'
Given the probable futility of any efforts made by concert goers/viewers the editorial concluded, 'instead of inspiring the world to action it may merely highlight how little of substance is being done to avert climate catastrophe.'

4. The Live Earth concerts received relatively little attention
The Live Earth concerts were labelled a relative failure in Britain and the United States.
In Britain the concert was not a significant ratings drawcard. It drew less than a third of the audience who watched the Concert for Diana the week before. Live Earth peaked with 4.5 million viewers in Britain, compared with 14.8 million for the Diana concert. Two years ago, Live 8 drew a peak television audience of 9.6 million while Live Aid notched 10 million in 1985. The BBC blamed the poor figures on the good weather and said its Wimbledon tennis coverage had drawn away afternoon viewers. Critics, however, claimed that the public had simply snubbed what they saw as a hypocritical event.
In the United States, the Live Earth concert promoted by Al Gore received plenty of media coverage and hype, but most Americans appear not to have paid attention to its message. Just 22 percent said they followed news stories about the concert 'somewhat closely' or 'very closely'. Seventy-five percent did not follow coverage of the event.
Further, though total viewing figures appear impressive, the vast majority of viewers only watched a small portion of the program. The Live Earth concert highlights show on NBC, designed to raise public awareness about global warming, attracted some 19 million viewers at one point or another Saturday night. However, more than 16 million of these viewers switched away from the three-hour concert that occupied the network's prime time Saturday evening. This left NBC with about 2.7 million viewers to earn fourth place for the night behind ABC with 3.4 million, Fox with 4.6 million and CBS with 5.2 million.

5. Concerts are ceasing to be an effective lobbying or promotional strategy
Paul Simon, a frequent benefit performer and co-founder of the Children's Health Fund, has suggested that international concerts have limited effectiveness as a lobbying or promotional tool.
Simon has stated, 'Sometimes they're helpful, and sometimes they're clich‚s that distract from the actual point. When millions tune in to see huge stars at a big event and miss the point that people are actually suffering, the priorities are off. It's not the fault of the organizers. We as a species quite often pay attention to the wrong thing.'
It has further been suggested that international music concerts are an inappropriate lobbying device for the global warming issue as high profile performers tend to be massive polluters. This tends to make them appear either hypocritical or unreliable when they promote a conservation cause.
An audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth revealed that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets emit thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. It has been estimated that one hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.
The British newspaper, The Daily Mail, found that five of the top performing acts in Britain for the Live Earth concert together have an annual output of almost 2,000 carbon tonnes. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes.
Further, many of the performers appeared to make little or no effort to promote the cause of reductions in carbon emissions. Billy Corgan promoted his new Smashing Pumpkins album, not the globe, while Kanye West said little except to call for 'new leaders to follow' as he closed the New York show with The Police. In addition, some who tried to push the green issue just fell flat, such as Duran Duran, who publicly praised themselves for not arriving via a private jet.
Most Americans (52%) believe the performers take part in such events because it is good for their image. Only 24% say the celebrities really believe in the cause while another 24% are not sure.

Arguments suggesting the Live Earth concerts were an effective means of raising environmental awareness
1. The Live Earth concerts were watched, attended and followed by large numbers of people
Live Earth organisers have claimed that the 7-continent, 24-hour music extravaganza was the largest global entertainment event ever held. The concerts attracted TV, radio, Internet and live audiences and generated media attention and discussion in every corner of the globe to engage an estimated audience of 2 billion people on the issue of the climate crisis. This, despite the fact that the concerts did not attracted the estimated television audiences in either Britain or the United States.
Live Earth reached its audience through a network of more than 500 media partners covering television, radio, Internet and wireless channels in more than 130 countries. Live Earth was broadcast across television networks in more than 100 countries with more than 20 of the world's leading broadcasters, including NBC (U.S.) Shanghai Media Group and CTV (China), BBC (UK), Pro Sieben (Germany), TVGLobo (Brazil), Fuji TV and NHK (Japan), South Africa Broadcast Company (South Africa) and Foxtel (Australia), dedicating a combined total of more than 100 channels to Live Earth concert coverage.
It estimating the concerts' global reach, it has been noted that the number of people who watched the televised concerts is not the sole measure of their impact and success.
Over 10,000 'Friends of Live Earth' events and house parties were held in 195 countries.
Live Earth Alert, was a Netherlands contribution to the program Live Earth. In Westerpark in Amsterdam a parallel event was organised which included a continuous 24 hour live broadcast program on Nederland 3 of live streams (in sequential order) from Live Earth events and reports from Dutch correspondents stationed on all seven continents as well as an almost twelve hour side event at the home location with performances, artists and other side activities. Some parts of this Dutch program were included in the official Live Earth streams and broadcast worldwide.

2. The Live Earth concerts raised money for environmental preservation
Though the principal aim of the Live Earth concerts was to raise awareness rather than money, those funds which were raised will be directed toward environmental conservation.
Money raised from the sale of tickets has been pledged to Alliance for Climate Protection, the Climate Group and Stop Climate Chaos.
Some of the bands made additional financial arrangements of their own designed to advance the cause of conservation and the reduction of global warming. An exclusive download of Metallica's Live Earth performance was made available for a minimal fee immediately after the event finished. All money raised is to benefit four climate charities hand-selected by the band: Sierra Club, The Apollo Alliance, WWF and Rainforest Action Network.
Online auction site eBay made it mandatory for anyone trying to sell Live Earth tickets through its site to donate at least 20 percent of the money from sales to charity.

3. The Live Earth concerts promoted awareness of global warming
Live Earth concert promoters intend the concerts to be the beginning of an ongoing educational endeavour, designed to increase public awareness of the causes and dangers associated with global warming.
Al Gore indicated that the concerts would mark 'the beginning of a three-year campaign worldwide to deliver information about how we solve the climate crisis' and that 'the prospects for every future generation depend on us understanding, hearing and acting upon this information'.
Al Gore's appearances drove home Live Earth's plea that people sign a seven-point pledge demanding environmental reforms from governments, big business and themselves. Between band sets, crowds were treated to environmentally themed short films, and eco-friendly tips scrolled in the background and during commercial breaks.
The Black Eyed Pease performed a song about the climate crisis for their London show, while Madonna urged fans to jump if they wanted to save the planet.
The musical acts were interspersed with speakers such as actress Cameron Diaz who said the concert was not about 'gloom and doom' and primatologist Jane Goodall who greeted the crowd with an imitation chimpanzee cry.
Further information on the issues raised by the concerts has been published in The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook, written by environmentalist David Mayer de Rothschild. Profits from the book will be donated to the Alliance for Climate Protection, as will some of the profits from the concerts.
The Alliance for Climate Protection is an organization in the United States aiming to 'persuade people of the importance, urgency and feasibility of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis'. The founder and current chairman of the alliance is former US Vice President Al Gore.
The Alliance is a member of Save Our Selves, the organisers of the July 2007 Live Earth concerts.
According to the Save Our Selves organisation, research in January 2007 indicated that while 77% of Americans believe that there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming, only 47% understand its link with human activity. The Alliance believes that explaining this link, and motivating people to take action, is the organization's key challenge.

4. The Live Earth concerts sought to alter the personal and political behaviour of those who viewed or attended them
In addition to raising awareness of global warming, during the concerts people were asked to support the following 7-point pledge:
* To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
* To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become 'carbon neutral';
* To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
* To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
* To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
* To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
* To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

5. The Live Earth concerts attempted to be carbon neutral
Numbers of those involved with the concerts, including Al Gore, have stressed the measures that were taken to reduce their production of carbon dioxide. Mr Gore stated, 'The concerts themselves are designed to be green, and some real groundbreaking innovations are being employed, such as using biodiesel fuel and minimizing waste. As awareness increases, I think you're going to see people in all walks of life adopt these practices.'
A spokesman for the London concert said, 'We are saying that this is a project that's going to help stop climate change, so it would be ludicrous for us to pollute any more than is necessary.
We are taking every single step to reduce the impact and at the very end we will offset carbon emissions.
Quite a few of the acts are going to be local, we're not in the days of Concorde flying Phil Collins across the Atlantic to play at two concerts.
It's not just a lot of musicians wanting to appear to be green, the people behind this are green experts.'
John Picard, the environmental consultant for Live Earth, said the concerts themselves were intended to be carbon neutral. But he admitted that carbon credits would have to be purchased to offset the environmental impact of the flights associated with the events.
He said solar and wind power was used wherever possible, that all unnecessary lights in the stadiums were switched off and that rubbish was intended to be recycled.
Some of the steps taken to reduce the environmental impact of the concerts included:
* Electricity to power the shows will being taken from renewable sources;
* Food and drink stands using biodegradable containers;
* Rubbish sorted for recycling at the venues;
* Offices and walkways were fitted with low-energy light bulbs;
* Air travel taken by event staff and musicians to be offset through carbon credits;
* Hybrid or clean fuel cars to be used where possible;
* Hotels were told to fit low-energy light bulbs, use non-toxic cleaning products and put recycling containers in rooms.

Further implications
Despite the fact that viewing figures may not have been as high as anticipated, there is no denying that Live Earth attracted an enormous worldwide audience. Its probable effectiveness beyond this is more difficult to gauge.
This was an extremely ambitious project, aimed at influencing the behaviour of private individuals and altering the policies of governments.
While individual behaviour is susceptible to alteration, it is hard to know where the prompt of viewing a music concert while have been sufficient to achieve this end. Many of those who viewed or attended Live Earth concerts in the United States, claim to have done so without paying attention to the environmental message they were intended to promote.
Further, even if Live Earth succeeded in altering the behaviour of its international audience so that they reduced their individual carbon dioxide emissions, the problem may not be solvable by this means. It has been claimed that unless the emission rates of super producers such as China can be reduced, the behaviour of individuals is of relative insignificance.
Thus, effective measures to address the problem are likely to involve action at a governmental and international, inter-governmental level. The capacity of grass-roots awareness and protest to alter the actions of governments on this issue remains to be demonstrated.

Newspaper items used in the production of this issue outline
The Herald-Sun: July 8, page 12-13, news item, `World unites in song to take the heat off planet'.
The Age: July 6, page 13, comment by Simon Feeny, `One size fits all won't end poverty, so call in the tailors'.
The Australian: July 7, page 8, news item by Ian Shedden, `Live Earth rockin' for a green world'.
The Age: July 7, Insight section, page 11, comment by George Marshall, `Talking 'bout a revolution? No, just a rock concert'.
The Age: July 7, page 7, news item by Danialla Miletic, `Rock stars stage fight to pressure governments on climate'.
The Age: July 8, page 7, news item by Christine Sams, `Gore sets his "inconvenient truth" to music'.
The Age: July 8, page 7, comments from Peter Singer and others, `Can rock concerts change the world?'.
The Australian: July 9, page 16, cartoon.
The Australian: July 9, page 6, news item by Nick Leys, `Gore Blimey, Live Earth a global hit'.
The Age: July 9, page 10, editorial, `Success or carbon-copy footprint?'.
The Age: July 11, page 12, news item, `Live Earth transmission fails to light up the globe'.
The Australian: July 12, page 13, comment by Emma Tom, `Sure, save the planet but we don't like your motivation'.

Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google