web metrics
Browse by:
Get daily news round-up
« Greenfibres summer fashion range | Main | People Tree launches Japanese Vogue designer collection »
Yay or Nay

Yay or Nay: We don't need a concert to warn us about climate change

bob%20geldof.jpgSir Bob Geldof ruffled a few feathers yesterday when he launched an attack on Al Gore's Live Earth concerts, due to take place all around the world on 7 July. Sir Bob criticised the motives behind the shows, saying that people did not need a concert to tell them about climate change, that they are 'all f*cking conscious of global warming' already, and also took the opportunity to correct those who had assumed he was involved with the project, due to his association with Live 8, and the similarity of the two names. He also expressed a view that seems to have become fairly widespread within the green community already; that rather than being a platform to make genuine demands to those in power about saving the planet, the concerts were simply an excuse for 'Madonna or Coldplay to get up on stage'.

I have to admit that I sympathise with Geldof. To me, the entire stunt seems a bit pointless, and even a bit hypocritical, as the simultaneous concerts will surely require a huge amount of power and how many of the acts will need to be flown in? Raising awareness of climate change is obviously a good thing, but what will these concerts tell us that hasn't already been broadcast more efficiently and directly elsewhere?

So what do you think - important raising of awareness, or an almighty stunt that we don't need.

Posted by Abi on May 15, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://shinymedia.headshift.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/32317

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Yay or Nay: We don't need a concert to warn us about climate change:

Comments

Um, yes Live Earth is a bag of wank, but then so was Live 8 so I don't know what Sir Bob is complaining about. Of course holding a concert isn't a good way to do anything other than have a concert.

Posted by: Rickbot | May 15, 2007 4:13 PM

I think Geldof makes a valid point that it is purposeless to hold a benefit gig without any concrete benefit, whether that be in the form of capital raised for charity or concrete pledges from government or business. I also understand that the title of the gig is practically misleading and is causing Geldof's foundation difficulties, in that people are contacting his charity's offices in connection with the event thinking that it is his organisation's work.
However, I do also agree with those who observe that Live 8 lacked the same kind of concrete initiative that Geldof says is missing from Live Earth. Poverty is pretty far from being history, and I tend to think it'll tajke more than a white wristband to eradicate worldwide economic imbalance, just as I think it will take more than Madonna duetting with Coldplay to end global carbon emissions.
It might even be counter-productive to believe that, because we've watched a gig, we;ve done our bit. Concerts and large-scale events have their place in awareness-raising and directing interest towards a certain issue, but we should be careful not to mistake this for actually solving the problem.

Posted by: Lise | May 15, 2007 5:27 PM

As a general rule, I think all such concerts are publicity grabs by those involved, ever since Live Aid people saw how it helped certain careers and wanted in.

OTOH, I think he's wrong that everyone is aware of it, there are many, even in the UK, that are either buying into the anti- line or just don't care; there was a thing on the radio a few weeks back about football fans and the impact of travelling to matches, and loads of the fans said they thought global warming was a load of bollocks. Makes me wonder how much the media lens is only really talking to the converted not really going out there with real people anymore.

Ah well.

Posted by: MatGB | May 15, 2007 10:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.