This should have been a mass movement
with clear political objectives
Imagine millions taking to the streets
around the world with a coherent agenda
for slashing greenhouse gas emissions
Instead, we got a rock concert
with climate infomercials
London headliner Madonna, whose carbon footprint
last year is estimated as the worst of
all the artists on the bill.
The Live Earth concerts highlighted
two inconvenient truths about our world
The first was the undeniable fact of climate change
The second was our apparent inability
to understand a point unless a celebrity
is making it - usually fairly badly
Pop & Climate Change: A Clash of Cultures?Rock'n'Roll Lifestyles:
Live Earth concerts took place around the globe. Their aim was admirable, but if we are serious about climate change, then telling concert-goers to change their light bulbs and take the bus once a week is not enough.
Our refusal to acknowledge climate change has very deep roots - too deep to be addressed by feel-good concerts.
After all, we have known about climate change for a surprisingly long time. The first serious warnings came in 1965 and climate change has been at the top of the political agenda for 15 years.
Live Earth played strongly to powerful denial strategy in all of us: the adoption of minimal and token behaviour as proof of our virtue.
One concern is that people will believe that their participation in the concerts is in itself an action against climate change.
And we can be sure that the rock industry has such an overinflated sense of its own importance that it will hammer this message home at every opportunity.
"Here we are," it shouted through the speaker stacks, "the world's greatest rock stars and two billion people all standing shoulder to shoulder demanding that something happens about climate change. WOW!"
This could be a revolution if it were a mass rally with clear political objectives. Imagine millions of people taking to the streets around the world with a coherent agenda for slashing greenhouse gas emissions.
But it is not. It is a rock concert with climate infomercials spliced between bands singing about the people they fancy.
The music contained virtually no mention of climate change and lacked the anger, fear and aggression needed to galvanise change.
The 80,000 people in Wembley didn't march on parliament Instead, they marched to the car park and drove home, happy in the knowledge that they had really done something about climate change and had a fun day to boot.
To be fair to Live Earth, it was calling on people to "answer the call" and sign a pledge. But this wasn't the core agenda of the concerts - it is a tag on.
When you enter the pledge, you are told that the actions that count are turning off your lights more than you do at the moment and using the bus once a week.
These are fine as first steps, but I worry that people are tempted to stop there.
We need to be honest with ourselves that the low-carbon economy will simply not permit long-distance holidays, commuting by car, mass consumption and the continuation of poorly built and maintained housing stock.
Rather than concentrating on small steps or personal abstinence, Live Earth should have been promoting a far more exciting vision of the sustainable low-carbon world we need to create:
A world based around health, animal and social rights, justice for the poor, good housing for all, and the promotion of happiness rather than consumption.
This is what would inspire real social and political change.
Al Gore's vital message was compromised by the hypocrisy
of the celebrities he chose to broadcast it through
The Live Earth concerts highlighted two inconvenient truths about our world.
The first was the undeniable fact of climate change. The second was our apparent inability to understand a point unless a celebrity is making it - usually fairly badly.
"We are all fucking conscious of global warming," Bob Geldof claimed charitably this week. "It's just an enormous pop concert or the umpteenth time that, say, Madonna or Coldplay get on stage."
A privilege as it always is to take a lesson from Sir Bob on naive initiatives, this is as ill-informed as it is unfair.
Mori research this week revealed that the majority of people on our relatively savvy shores still believe scientists are debating whether human activity contributes to climate change.
And so it is that Live Earth overlord Al Gore has judged that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, which is why private jets, helicopters and limos were fired up to ferry our well-meaning artistes to various stages.
There is no question that awareness will be raised. But it seems worryingly simplistic to think that there is not a trade-off between raising awareness and using people whom many know to be hypocrites to do so.
There has always been something faintly Marie Antoinettish about rock stars' understanding of green issues.
Recently, Jo Wood - self-styled environmentalist wife of Rolling Stone Ronnie - was asked by this newspaper what skills she possessed for a post-oil world.
Her answer began: "I come from a family of model makers, artists and sculptors ..."
The Rolling Stones will not be stamping another of their legendary carbon footprints on humanity's face this weekend, but to pluck an example from those acts who will, let's consider Sting, whose band the Police play at the New York concert.
Not long ago, this fabled eco-warrior could be found advertising the biggest gas-guzzling Jaguar of them all. To clarify: Sting's personal wealth is estimated at £185m - £185m!
You have to ask that if people this rich appear unconvinced that they have enough money to say no to another wedge on principle, then what hope is there that some cash-strapped Chinese worker will start giving serious thought to the kind of fuel choices he's making?
As for Sting's wife, Trudie Styler, it is difficult to know where to start with her recent 80-mile helicopter journey for a weekend at the estate of fellow environmentalist Zac Goldsmith.
It beggars belief that these people can continue to be taken seriously by anyone remotely serious; yet there they are, still in the vanguard of celebrity activism alongside London headliner Madonna, whose carbon footprint last year is estimated as the worst of all the artists on the bill.
Perhaps there is a greater message in all of this. It is that politics is increasingly becoming a matter of fashion rather than thought.
Whether Live8 or this latest series of concerts, they all give out simplistic messages, messages that do not encourage thought, and messages that are accepted because of celebrity endorsement.
Where is the debate? Are any of the people who watch this, or any of the other 'good causes' ever given a balanced view of the issues?
I do not think that anyone will disagree that the answer is 'no'. I also have no doubt that some people will say that it is okay as it is in 'a good cause'. My answer to them is:
Since when did it become a good thing for people to mindlessly follow a cause, or believe in something, just because it has celebrity endorsement?
The health of democracy lies in debate, in people understanding issues, on issues being subject to challenge, and then letting people decide.
These 'causes' are followed in the same way that bands are followed, or the latest clothing fashions.
They are nothing to do with consideration of what is at issue, but more to be seen to have the 'right' beliefs to match the latest 'lifestyle' fashion.
I am sure that many people will protest their 'sincerity' but I very much doubt, over many of these issues, they will even begin to understand the other views on the issues, or the real complexity of the issues.
This really is dumbing down. It is politics as fashion accessory.