Last Saturday, more than 100 artists on all seven different continents joined together to play to an estimated worldwide audience of 2 billion people.
This "Live Earth" event was modeled after the Live 8 and Live Aid Concerts, which were created to bring attention to world poverty.
While the aim of this concert was admirable -- to bring attention to climate change, several factors involved with it seem counterintuitive.
First, climate change is an issue that has been highly publicized since 1988 when Dr. James Hansen testified before the U.S. Congress and authoritatively warned the United States that climate change was a real, man-made issue that had to be addressed.
At the very least, much of the world (especially developed or developing nations who have access to the technologies or money to view these concerts) knows of the issue, whether they are convinced that it is anthropogenic or not.
Given that much of the world knows about the issue, the aim of any climate change campaign shouldn't be focused on education. It should be to convince the public that humans are causing this and furthermore to convince the public on how they can change their behaviors to minimize the effects.
I don't think Live Earth does this. For the most part, I think that the people watching the Live Earth concerts will be music fans, looking for a couple of hours of good music. And any attempt at talking about climate change will probably sound very redundant.
Because climate change is such a complex issue, there is only so much that can be described in a public event before attention is lost. Consequently, I don't believe much valuable knowledge can be gained from this event.
Most people watching probably are already aware of the hotly debated climate change issue and most likely already have their minds made up.
Another shortcoming of this event is that there is no tangible goal. Most obviously, these concerts bring attention to climate change issues. However, not only are these issues probably already widely known, but no conceivable way exists to measure the effect on the world.
With the exorbitant costs of putting on these shows, the organizers must be sure that the price is worth it. Without any way to measure the outcome, it is uncertain whether the carbon footprint and monetary cost of the event is worth the potential benefits.
Alternatively, if organizers had decided to raise money or achieve a certain charitable goal, that would be more worthwhile because it involves a specific goal with specific causes.
One the other side, many are bringing up very illogical criticisms of the event. The main one is that the event is politically motivated (especially because Al Gore is leading it) and is essentially one big stump speech show for Gore's potential 2008 White House run.
Regardless of Gore's candidacy in 2008, it is unfair to demonize the event just because it is led by a politically controversial figure.
Critics should criticize based upon the potential merits of the event rather than make quick judgments based on the people involved.
This, I think, is how climate change became such a controversial issue in the first place. Too many judgments are made based upon whom is championing them rather than whether or not the issue is sound.
Unfortunately, this has led to confusing political battles where the wrong issues get addressed and inefficient solutions get implemented.
Ultimately, while I am willing to give Gore the benefit of the doubt in that he cares very much about climate change and that he truly believes that the Live Earth concerts will go a long way to create a meaningful awareness of the issue, I am uncertain that the event will have any tangible effects other than to make some noise to an already noisy political climate.
Reach the columnist at: uven.chong@asu.edu.
