Live Earth
The media blitz for Live Earth is ramping up as July 7th draws closer. With the hue and cry over global warming at an unprecedented high, this year's event seems set to be the largest of its type. While I like to think that the cause is a noble one (I wonder what the organizers do with the ticket revenue though... soak it in some political campaign?), I wonder if holding a series of mega concerts is the way to tackle this problem
a) Uh... Singers? Maybe the organizers had Woodstock in mind, but I don't exactly look up to singers as bastions of environment protection. I mean, these mega stars usually have a penchant for commuting in limos and flying around in private jets. Many probably own huge-ass estates that can soak up enough electricity to run a third world country. And they're preaching to me to save the world? Hm. Take public transport for a year. I'd be more impressed.
b) Huge concerts, huge audience, huge logistics issues. How do all these people even get to the concert locations? Cycle? Walk? Drive? What of the litter generated from these mega concerts? How much fuel is burnt to actually run the concerts? Is the trade off between the awareness raised and these 'side effects' worth it?
c) When Katrina hit New Orleans, a TV event was organized to raise funds. 8.5 million US viewers tuned in. Not too shabby if you ask me. Granted, Live Earth is aiming to reach significantly more people, but there is also the issue of getting the message across to them. Raw numbers count for nothing if the penetration rate is low. The Katrina concert worked because it was honest, down-to-earth and intimate, which are all qualities that glitzy mega concerts lack. Honestly, I personally find it hard to coincide rowdy concerts and environment protection. Maybe I should organize a gaming marathon.
d) Finally, the issue of awareness. The concerts are held in powerhouse countries (US, Japan, China etc). With the media coverage on global warming, I doubt many are still in the dark regarding the issue (target audience anyway). Raise awareness all you want, but nothing is going to change without affirmative action. With nobody to walk the walk, these concerts are nothing but circus shows.
a) Uh... Singers? Maybe the organizers had Woodstock in mind, but I don't exactly look up to singers as bastions of environment protection. I mean, these mega stars usually have a penchant for commuting in limos and flying around in private jets. Many probably own huge-ass estates that can soak up enough electricity to run a third world country. And they're preaching to me to save the world? Hm. Take public transport for a year. I'd be more impressed.
b) Huge concerts, huge audience, huge logistics issues. How do all these people even get to the concert locations? Cycle? Walk? Drive? What of the litter generated from these mega concerts? How much fuel is burnt to actually run the concerts? Is the trade off between the awareness raised and these 'side effects' worth it?
c) When Katrina hit New Orleans, a TV event was organized to raise funds. 8.5 million US viewers tuned in. Not too shabby if you ask me. Granted, Live Earth is aiming to reach significantly more people, but there is also the issue of getting the message across to them. Raw numbers count for nothing if the penetration rate is low. The Katrina concert worked because it was honest, down-to-earth and intimate, which are all qualities that glitzy mega concerts lack. Honestly, I personally find it hard to coincide rowdy concerts and environment protection. Maybe I should organize a gaming marathon.
d) Finally, the issue of awareness. The concerts are held in powerhouse countries (US, Japan, China etc). With the media coverage on global warming, I doubt many are still in the dark regarding the issue (target audience anyway). Raise awareness all you want, but nothing is going to change without affirmative action. With nobody to walk the walk, these concerts are nothing but circus shows.








Technorati Profile


0 Comments
Post a Comment
<< Home