Live Earth. The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis.
Live Earth: goals
Live Earth Concerts was a worldwide event initiated by Kevin Wall, music producer, and Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and famous due to his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” a film about how we influence our environment and thus cause a global climate change. The concerts were meant to raise awareness of environmental issues such as Global Warming and “to help individuals to take action in their personal lives.” [1]
Locations
On July 7, 2007, there were 8 official concerts worldwide with 150 musical acts, including such top acts as Madonna and Linkin Park:
All in all, almost a million people attended the concerts in person. Not every single event was a full success though, Hamburg and Johannesburg, for example, were not sold out, and prior to the concerts, Al Gore said that he expected a million people in Rio de Janeiro. The concerts were broadcasted online via MSN, and it is said that 15 million people watched the concerts online, which makes this event to the largest event of this kind in history.
Since Live Earth should raise awareness of environmental problems, the events themselves were intended to be earth-friendly, which means to use as little energy from definite resources as possible, and use recyclable materials. A Live Earth Green Team was set up to evaluate the projected global energy and resource use, and to develop a plan how to lower this impact.
The important questions are: did Live Earth reach its goals? Concrete: Was it a ‘green’ event? Did it set new standards for environmentally friendly events? Did it raise awareness?
Live Earth: a “green” event?
In order to lower the negative impact on the environment, the Live Earth Green Team developed the “Green Event Guidelines,” in which they focus on three areas: energy reduction, sourcing of sustainable materials, waste diversion. Activities that were considered to be part of the measurement are explained in the following Footprint Boundary Statement:
“The scope of Live Earth’s carbon assessment encompasses all activities by Live Earth head-quarters, all production contractors that are classified as direct contractors for Live Earth, and those parties that hold a significant role in the creation, setup, production, or operation of the eight Live Earth concerts. For the concerts, this comprises both organizations Live Earth has and does not have a contractual agreement with, including the production team, production contractors, the venue’s operations, broadcasters, the artists, and Live Earth’s setup team Ignition. As the audience accounts for the largest portion of carbon emissions at any event, Live Earth will also take relevant audience emissions (e.g., transportation to the venues) into account when calculating its emissions.”
Not included in the measurement were hotels, merchandise manufacturing, sponsor programs, NGO travel, concessionaire transport, and activities by broadcast viewers.
A month before the concerts, the Live Earth Green Team’s final estimate of carbon emission was 18,526 tons, contrary to the Daily Mail who quoted an estimate of 31,500 tons of carbon emission. The final result was 19,708 tons. As expected, audience travel made up for the biggest contribution to the emissions: 87.0%. Some practices how to reduce the carbon footprint of the global event were:
1. Install energy efficient lighting.
2. Use video and telefonconferencing
.
3. Reduce air travel by stationing employees in relevant areas for extended time.
4. Run generators on neat or blended biodiesel.
5. Book local artists (or artists who are already on tour in the country).
.
To save energy, most Live Earth concerts were hold during daylight hours. And though the Giants Stadium, for example, used biodiesel, the “trucks that carried the gear were still burning diesel.”[2] And in Japan, the top acts Linkin Park and Rihanna flew in especially for the show. To get as close to a zero-net- impact event, Live Earth purchased carbon offsets (greenhouse gas credits).
For the waste management, the concerts produced 87 tons of waste, contrary to the publicly expected 1,025 tons. This is mostly due to the fact that 81% of all waste could be composted or recycled. For example, there were fountain dispensers instead of bottled drinks at all locations, and in Johannesburg, all items were removed that required Styrofoam, boxes, or plastic bowls and replaced by compostable paper. Waste collection stations were supervised in order to guarantee that items were recycled.
I think that the Live Earth concerts really were green events. There are still factors that can be improved, such as the carbon emission due to audience travel, but all in all, the Live Earth Green Team did a lot to make the concerts earth-friendly events. And as Jason Garner, CEO of North American Music for Live Nation, says: “Live Earth was that great big spotlight on an issue we all were kind of working on and aware of. It united the industry behind this movement.”[3]
The concerts have shown that musical events can indeed be (almost) carbon-neutral and earth-friendly. In this, they play a leading role towards an environmentally more responsible music industry.
Live Earth as an awareness-raising event?
But what about the individual awareness? And, more important, do people actually do something because of the Live Earth concerts? This is hard to measure. There was a so-called Live Earth Pledge, a list of seven small actions everyone can accomplish: turning off the light, using energy-efficient lamps, or recycling. But do those who signed the pledge really do it? No one knows.
The Ethical Reputation Index and Lightspeed Research surveyed 500 18-45 year olds who were aware of the Live Earth event in the US, Great Britain, and Australia before the concerts about their environmental behavior. Here are some of the results.
Over three quarters of peopled said they recycle.
31% of the surveyed Britons said they would reduce air travel.
88% of Britons were convinced that personal action can have a positive influence on climate change.
These are just some examples. If you think they are kind of irrelevant, yes, they are not very important. They were made before the event, thus do not show at all how the concert influenced individual behavior. Companies that took part in the event gained reputation as being environmentally friendly, but besides perhaps better sales figures this does not change a lot.
In my opinion, the event eventually lacks consequence. There is not one survey dealing with the impact on individuals afterwards. Not one. Some newspaper articles deal with that topic, most of them concluding that the earth did not really change because of the Live Earth Concerts. What is missing is concrete data. There should have been a long-term survey of people who attended the concerts for, let’s say, five years. Did they change their behavior? If yes, to what extent? Did they maintain the new way of life, or did they return to old customs? How did/do they experience the change? Do they think that it limits their way of life or enriches it? All these questions, and possibly much more, should have been asked afterwards in order to get a better picture of how Live Earth changed the world. Without this, guessing is the only thing we can do.
[1] [1] If not indicated differently, all quotes, facts, and data are taken from: Live Earth Carbon Assessment &Footprint Report.
[2]Spahr, Wolfgang.
[3]Waddell, Ray. The Green Issue: A Look back on Live Earth. Billboard.
Live Earth Concerts was a worldwide event initiated by Kevin Wall, music producer, and Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and famous due to his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” a film about how we influence our environment and thus cause a global climate change. The concerts were meant to raise awareness of environmental issues such as Global Warming and “to help individuals to take action in their personal lives.” [1]
Locations
On July 7, 2007, there were 8 official concerts worldwide with 150 musical acts, including such top acts as Madonna and Linkin Park:
- Giants Stadium in New York (52,000 guests);
- Wembley Stadium in London (71,000 guests),
- Aussie Stadium in Sydney (45,000 guests);
- Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro (400,000 guests) ;
- Coca-Cola Dome in Johannesburg (10,000 guests);
- Mukuhari Messe in Tokyo;
- Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai;
- HSH Nordbank Arena in Hamburg (31,500 guests).
All in all, almost a million people attended the concerts in person. Not every single event was a full success though, Hamburg and Johannesburg, for example, were not sold out, and prior to the concerts, Al Gore said that he expected a million people in Rio de Janeiro. The concerts were broadcasted online via MSN, and it is said that 15 million people watched the concerts online, which makes this event to the largest event of this kind in history.
Since Live Earth should raise awareness of environmental problems, the events themselves were intended to be earth-friendly, which means to use as little energy from definite resources as possible, and use recyclable materials. A Live Earth Green Team was set up to evaluate the projected global energy and resource use, and to develop a plan how to lower this impact.
The important questions are: did Live Earth reach its goals? Concrete: Was it a ‘green’ event? Did it set new standards for environmentally friendly events? Did it raise awareness?
Live Earth: a “green” event?
In order to lower the negative impact on the environment, the Live Earth Green Team developed the “Green Event Guidelines,” in which they focus on three areas: energy reduction, sourcing of sustainable materials, waste diversion. Activities that were considered to be part of the measurement are explained in the following Footprint Boundary Statement:
“The scope of Live Earth’s carbon assessment encompasses all activities by Live Earth head-quarters, all production contractors that are classified as direct contractors for Live Earth, and those parties that hold a significant role in the creation, setup, production, or operation of the eight Live Earth concerts. For the concerts, this comprises both organizations Live Earth has and does not have a contractual agreement with, including the production team, production contractors, the venue’s operations, broadcasters, the artists, and Live Earth’s setup team Ignition. As the audience accounts for the largest portion of carbon emissions at any event, Live Earth will also take relevant audience emissions (e.g., transportation to the venues) into account when calculating its emissions.”
Not included in the measurement were hotels, merchandise manufacturing, sponsor programs, NGO travel, concessionaire transport, and activities by broadcast viewers.
A month before the concerts, the Live Earth Green Team’s final estimate of carbon emission was 18,526 tons, contrary to the Daily Mail who quoted an estimate of 31,500 tons of carbon emission. The final result was 19,708 tons. As expected, audience travel made up for the biggest contribution to the emissions: 87.0%. Some practices how to reduce the carbon footprint of the global event were:
1. Install energy efficient lighting.
2. Use video and telefonconferencing
.
3. Reduce air travel by stationing employees in relevant areas for extended time.
4. Run generators on neat or blended biodiesel.
5. Book local artists (or artists who are already on tour in the country).
.
To save energy, most Live Earth concerts were hold during daylight hours. And though the Giants Stadium, for example, used biodiesel, the “trucks that carried the gear were still burning diesel.”[2] And in Japan, the top acts Linkin Park and Rihanna flew in especially for the show. To get as close to a zero-net- impact event, Live Earth purchased carbon offsets (greenhouse gas credits).
For the waste management, the concerts produced 87 tons of waste, contrary to the publicly expected 1,025 tons. This is mostly due to the fact that 81% of all waste could be composted or recycled. For example, there were fountain dispensers instead of bottled drinks at all locations, and in Johannesburg, all items were removed that required Styrofoam, boxes, or plastic bowls and replaced by compostable paper. Waste collection stations were supervised in order to guarantee that items were recycled.
I think that the Live Earth concerts really were green events. There are still factors that can be improved, such as the carbon emission due to audience travel, but all in all, the Live Earth Green Team did a lot to make the concerts earth-friendly events. And as Jason Garner, CEO of North American Music for Live Nation, says: “Live Earth was that great big spotlight on an issue we all were kind of working on and aware of. It united the industry behind this movement.”[3]
The concerts have shown that musical events can indeed be (almost) carbon-neutral and earth-friendly. In this, they play a leading role towards an environmentally more responsible music industry.
Live Earth as an awareness-raising event?
But what about the individual awareness? And, more important, do people actually do something because of the Live Earth concerts? This is hard to measure. There was a so-called Live Earth Pledge, a list of seven small actions everyone can accomplish: turning off the light, using energy-efficient lamps, or recycling. But do those who signed the pledge really do it? No one knows.
The Ethical Reputation Index and Lightspeed Research surveyed 500 18-45 year olds who were aware of the Live Earth event in the US, Great Britain, and Australia before the concerts about their environmental behavior. Here are some of the results.
Over three quarters of peopled said they recycle.
31% of the surveyed Britons said they would reduce air travel.
88% of Britons were convinced that personal action can have a positive influence on climate change.
These are just some examples. If you think they are kind of irrelevant, yes, they are not very important. They were made before the event, thus do not show at all how the concert influenced individual behavior. Companies that took part in the event gained reputation as being environmentally friendly, but besides perhaps better sales figures this does not change a lot.
In my opinion, the event eventually lacks consequence. There is not one survey dealing with the impact on individuals afterwards. Not one. Some newspaper articles deal with that topic, most of them concluding that the earth did not really change because of the Live Earth Concerts. What is missing is concrete data. There should have been a long-term survey of people who attended the concerts for, let’s say, five years. Did they change their behavior? If yes, to what extent? Did they maintain the new way of life, or did they return to old customs? How did/do they experience the change? Do they think that it limits their way of life or enriches it? All these questions, and possibly much more, should have been asked afterwards in order to get a better picture of how Live Earth changed the world. Without this, guessing is the only thing we can do.
[1] [1] If not indicated differently, all quotes, facts, and data are taken from: Live Earth Carbon Assessment &Footprint Report.
[2]Spahr, Wolfgang.
[3]Waddell, Ray. The Green Issue: A Look back on Live Earth. Billboard.
