« Learning design and the miscellaneous | Main | The RAE - time to make a stand? »

09/07/2007

Comments

AJ Cann

So what are the affordances of a global rock meagfest?
:-)

Martin

It afforded me opening a bottle of Pinot Grigio...
Martin

Ken

Martin, I think you're mostly on-mark with this; I had most of these thoughts myself, as I skipped across coverage of the concerts throughout the day on Saturday.

Benefit concerts can be very useful to generate awareness (or donations), but I think you'd have to be living in a rather remote area to not have heard about global warming by this point. Again, I didn't attend a concert myself, but from watching the broadcast, it seemed that the educational component - what can we do about it - was not especially ... compelling. I suspect that a concert - despite all its other attributes - is not the best pedagogical venue.

On the other hand, I found 95% of Gore's film to be quite good as a teaching tool. I wonder if we might get more traction with our ability to adapt our infrastructures and behaviors through something like straight-up, blue collar eco-DIY shows (not like that Beggley abomination).

Guy Pursey

I caught maybe thirty seconds of it - it was during Melissa Etheridge's set as she played that awful power ballad which very nearly ruins the impact of An Inconvenient Truth - fortunately, it plays over the credits. I couldn't help feeling that all the flashing lights and big screens telling people to "turn off" and "recycle" were not just a little hypocritical, if not horribly self-congratulatory. Perhaps I missed an important disclaimer part where they revealed the whole show was being powered by people on bicycles. It seems unlikely though. They probably just sold "carbon offsets" with every ticket. Not very constructive criticism I know... I'm basically saying I wholeheartedly agree :-)

Martin

Hi Guy and Ken
I think you're right about the 'if you haven't got it now..' point. If they wanted to make a statement then the films should have been a lot more direct, political even. Just saying 'recycle' more doesn't mean much, but for instance there was a documentary on BBC2 a few weeks back that showed albatrosses on Midway dying because their stomachs are full of plastic items such as toothbrushes. This made much more of an impact than some band saying 'err, yeah it is important I suppose.'
Martin

Kat

I came across this site while doing a research. Anyway, I agree that Live Earth was the wrong medium. First off, flying harms the planet, and artists and audience traveled here and there. Then, the spotlights/lights consumed energy. I'm also sure that machines were used in setting up the stage, and some of the staff who worked in the preparation have probably used their car at least once. (Shall we still count the number of the members of the staff worldwide?) The artists also sang love songs during a concert which, by the way, is about saving the planet and not saving a relationship. Most of them aren't environmentalists, and in fact, celebrities just generally consume A LOT. I don't think that's green. There was also the printing of tickets, printing uses machines which consume energy, and the high demand for tickets meant that there was a high demand for wood.

If ALL of the people who attended the concert or watched it on television have switched to greener lifestyle, half of the world's environmental problems would be solved. However, I think that many people from the audience attended it because it's a concert and their favorite artists were there. Most probably arrived home saying, "I saw (name of artists) perform live!" and not "I want to save the planet!"

It was simply ineffective.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Flickr

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from edtechie99. Make your own badge here.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter