Wednesday, July 11, 2007

I was NOT "underwhelmed" by Live Earth, were you?


On Monday, July 9, the Environmental News Network ran a story examining the global concert event for climate change awareness--Live Earth--led by former Vice-President Al Gore, which took place this past weekend.


Their review was less than stellar, claiming that Live Earth "rocked the world" but did nothing to change it. What did they intend to leave us thinking or feeling after scrutinizing the overall low intensity news response, the choice of Madonna as a participant, and the difficulty of mixing music with real problems and important causes in the world? Basically, nothing, except the cheerful news they thought Live Earth was a dismal failure but Germans were happy with Snoop Dogg. That ain't much to offer.


So, I don't know if anybody reads what I write, but like everyone else blogging, I'll be squeezing off my two cents worth.


First and foremost, Live Earth was awesome. It was awesome to see some action, to see steps taken to highlight a real problem and seek support for a solution. A Darwinian view of life is a rational and humanistic view, a view which prizes philosophical morality and is sensitive to moral philosophies about how we live our lives with respect to the biosphere. This means that moral (understood to also be educated) Darwinians support the logical and personal decision to be conscientious and supportive of environmental issues like climate change. For a serious scientist who reads and teaches about conservation, and one who recycles excess paper and comingled recycles every day and is mindful of his carbon footprint, seeing somebody get out there and raise awareness about this problem and do something about it, not just talk about it, was a rare and beautiful event.


The second reason I view Live Earth as a success is that it brought a relevant message in a relevant format. That speaks success to me. Young people showed up, in case you didn't notice. The celebrity status of the performers was a good thing, an eye-catching and inviting piece of the puzzle, not something that reduced the credibility of Live Earth. Criticizing the concert series only underscores a critics unique position to bad mouth. It's an easy out. The environmental philosophy (or lack thereof) of the performers has absolutely no impact on the credibility of the message of LE. The truth is that Live Earth was relevant. I am proof of that.


I was able to watch Live Earth via the internet. Including myself, approximately 2 billion people are thought to have witnessed the event. I sang along with Bon Jovi and Jack Johnson, and that's not all. Ultimately, I felt a deep connection with hundreds of thousands of strangers who (a) enjoy good music and (b) showed up for an event that supported an arm of the environmental movement. Undoubtedly, even more have heard about the event orally or by way of other forms of advertisement than was reported. Wasn't your passion ignited as well? Weren't you moved by the show of support? If so, your duty is action. Based on the reviews, if you thought Live Earth was productive, you need to stand up and say so. If not, like the ENN folks, then I would be willing to accept skepticism, but barring it from the logic, I would only be willing to call into suspicion the integrity of your environmentalism. And that's ok. You're just immoral or illogical, a fool either way.

No comments: