By Otto Spijkers
Today was – and still is – Live Earth day. So what do we personally help to make happen by listening to the Live Earth concerts, on television, internet or live in New York, London, Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Tokyo (on the photo you can see Ayaka perform there), Sydney, and Hamburg? According to the website, Live Earth "will bring together more than 100 music artists and 2 billion people to trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis." That is the aim: trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis. The aim is a bit vague, and there does not seem to be a political process linked to Live Earth (as was the case with Live8, see below). The message is addressed directly to us, the 2 billion viewers: if we live more environment-friendly, then our governments may follow. 
Live8 was organized in 2005 to give a boost to the G8 Summit that immediately followed the event; the aim was to include the global fight against poverty firmly on the agenda. Unfortunately, the fight against poverty is not going so well, and Live8 does not seem to have changed much. According to the United Nations Secretary-General, it will be very hard to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (governments’ pledges of 2000 to halve extreme poverty and halt the spread of HIV/AIDS and provide universal primary education, all by 2015). The global fight against poverty and other economic and social ills can be won in most countries, says the Secretary-General, but only if political leaders in rich and poor nations take urgent and concerted action, and they must do so now. 
Today is Live Earth day. Of course, it is fun to watch all these performances, even if only on television and not live. (Unfortunately, the weather in the Netherlands was beautiful today, so I haven’t actually seen much of the performances myself.) But does it help? The artists themselves make very brief statements in-between their songs, such as ‘save the polar bears!’, or ‘save your energy!’ Some of the artists have altered the lyrics of their songs a bit, to get the message across. The Black Eyed Peas even performed a brand new song on climate change. But not all artists have done so. The small video messages after each performance are helpful, at least the less ‘artistic’ ones; they show how ordinary people can make small changes in their way of life to significantly improve the environment (if all 2 billion viewers act on them, that is). And, at least on Dutch television, all commercial breaks are filled with environment-friendly commercials. At first, when watching some of the performances, I couldn’t help thinking of the word ‘hypocrisy’. I was wondering: How much energy does it cost to organize this event? (According to the Live Earth website, "All Live Earth venues will be designed and constructed by a team of sustainability engineers who will address the environmental and energy management challenges of each concert site"; that is reassuring.) More importantly: I always find it a bit suspicious when people preach and tell others how to live, especially if this is done by artists who travel around the world by airplane almost on a weekly basis (and airplanes drink energy, and lots of it). However, if all the preaching is done with some humility and self-reflection, this may turn out to be a very successful day. Clearly, the climate change message is urgent and necessary. Just behind the Giants Stadium in New York, one of the Live Earth venues, a lot of heavy four-wheel drives were parked, and not many environment-friendly vehicles. There was also an enormous fun fair right next to the Stadium: while the fun fair attractions drink large amounts of energy, the people in these attractions drink cola from non-recyclable plastic cups. Indeed, Americans may have the most to learn (some statistics: less than 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the US, but around 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases are created there). The fact that the Bush administration stubbornly tries to deny the fact that global warming is caused by human actions does not help very much. – Otto
:))It is such a nice reading this blog,It’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained!
Thanks….
Hello Nick,
Your comment was very interesting and I agree with almost everything. Like you, I believe that there are very few people who are not hypocrites when it comes to environmental issues, and thus we need someone to force us to act on our ideals.
However, I was a bit puzzled by your last six words. I think it is much worse not to care about the environment at all than to be hypocritical about it, although the factual result is unfortunately the same in most cases. Perhaps it is more honest to openly say you do not care about the environment. Then again, hypocrites are not necessarily liars; they just lack the strength of character to actually change things. That’s what I think. But in your famous last six words you were referring to the lifestyle I hope, not the fact that you are worsening the world’s environment every day, right?
Otto
I think the environmental movement is slowly beginning to clue in that “education” and asking people to change their lifestyles voluntarily is not going to accomplish much. Environmental issues are a classic economic problem involving externalities over time and space – to think that people are altruistic and far-sighted agents who care so much about all of humanity (including future generations), and to base our hopes on appeals to their better nature, is naive and I daresay dangerous. The biggest problem is environmental concerns rank very low on the political agenda, because ultimately most people care about having more money or jobs or healthcare which impact them in a direct way. Like solving poverty, the only way to do it is through political action that forces people to do things they don’t want (automakers making more fuel efficient cars, paying more for gas and electricity and water, paying higher taxes). And frankly, even if rockstars were to adopt the lifestyles of middle-class Americans or Europeans, we wouldn’t be on a path to sustainability and a better environment. Where is the political courage by a leader willing to trade current votes for the welfare of future (currently non-voting) generations or people in drought stricken Africa? There are sadly very few people who are not hypocrites on environmental issues (Al Gore included if you believe the articles about his home in Tennessee) – I for one know I am worsening the world’s environment every day with my lifestyle, but I kind of like it…
Good morning Jack,
To look only at the USA may have been a bit hypocritical. Admittedly, yesterday there was a little fun fair at my home town (Leiden) too. My intention was not to say that the Americans are the only ones responsible for climate change, for the tsunamis and the rain storms and the increasing temperatures.
As for the monitoring of posts like these: that is exactly why we need people like you to write comments! Or did you mean that someone should prevent posts like these to be written and published in the first place?
Otto
Wow, Otto — love the America digs. And thanks for that Rolling Stone link! Nothing like a non-biased publication to help win hearts and minds.
Seriously, though, I don’t know how we’re going to deal with the smug pollution problem if we don’t have some way to monitor posts like these. Bring on our environmental gatekeepers!