Live Earth: TV coverage misses a major trick

Sadly, I was ill that day, so had to watch from my sofa. The atmosphere in the stadium was obviously electric, but I wonder what kind of message the groovers really took home at the end of it all.

From a TV viewer’s perspective the event was really frustrating. Lots of the music was great, the Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Foo Fighters sublime. But most of the musicians barely seemed to notice they were playing at an event with a life-or-death message. Apart from a few jokey references to swapping to a hybrid car (one of the stars actually said they’d only use one if it was given them for free), it took Madonna’s final slot, complete with dodgy schoolchild anthem, to overtly address the issue, shouting “Let’s hope tonight’s concert and the concerts going on around the world are not just about entertainment but starting a revolution around the world”. Were the other performers worried about over-egging the message? At an event like this that’s worrying…

Viewers at home missed the short films between sets, which perhaps helped even out the balance of messages in the stadium. Instead we were subjected to Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton interviewing a string of singers, celebs, and the occasional expert about a number of things, which occasionally included the environment. The Met Office apparently provided experts to advise performers on climate change, but the message obviously hadn’t got through. Surely we’re beyond vaguely saying we care about the climate and giggling about recycling?! What a waste of a golden opportunity to explore the realities of climate change and what we can do about it!

Why not at least give Ross and Norton an eco mentor for the month leading up to the concerts? If they’d really learnt about climate change, and more importantly tried living a low carbon lifestyle themselves, they might’ve had something relevant to say when people like David Baddiel wheeled out some tripe about no-one really knowing whether climate change is real.

BBC’s ‘impartiality’ is way off target – on TV…

In an attempt to stay neutral on current affairs after criticisms that it’s not sufficiently impartial, for the Live Earth coverage the BBC apparently ordered Jonathan Ross to remind viewers that climate change may not have been caused by human activity.

Thousands of the world’s most respected scientists agreed earlier this year that there’s a greater than 90% probability that climate change is caused by human activity. In scientific terms that’s a huge probability so why oh why is the BBC still trying to make it look like there are two ‘balanced’ sides to the debate?Why on earth would we bother having such concerts if the jury’s still out? Come on BBC – get with the programme…

I’d argue that by continuing to give as much airtime to the sceptics’ perspectives, the BBC could be abusing their public service mandate by causing major public confusion about an issue of crucial importance to us all.

…and on the radio

I suffered at the hands of this ‘impartiality’ on Radio 1 last week, when I was pitched against one of the most diehard climate change sceptics I’ve ever encountered. I was told the interview on the Sunday Surgery would focus on what listeners can do to reduce their carbon footprint, but instead found myself having to argue the case for climate change against an ‘expert’ spouting a list of his theories about why we shouldn’t worry about climate change. He even said we should wait 30 years to see whether there’s really a problem and then decide whether to do anything about it. Sorry polar bears and people living on low-lying Pacific islands – we’ll have to wait and see how fast you get wiped out…

Afterwards I was furious with myself for getting tangled up in such a wrong-headed discussion about theories that have long-since been addressed properly by respected scientists. I’m sure it left listeners confused and at a loss about what to do. But when the media keeps setting up these situations it’s very hard to get the message across without seeming rude!

Live Earth: the papers have their say

The event dominated the print media over the subsequent few days, with all the major newspapers devoting significant space to the 9 concerts.

The Independent on Sunday’s front cover featured the concerts in all seven countries. It called the events a day of celebration, but warned that such concerts aren’t a substitute for action by governments worldwide. I really hope that everyone who watched the event makes sure their politicians know it’s time to act.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Mail on Sunday’s still sceptical about whether global warming is caused by human actions (hmmm… why am I not surprised?), so chose to focus on the fact that a number of the artists used ‘foul language’ during the afternoon’s live concert.

The Sunday Mirror insisted the event wasn’t a gimmick, and the Sun held its first Green Day, encouraging its readers to go green by making pledges to take a number of eco-friendly actions - from changing lightbulbs to installing solar panels. How cool to see the Sun embracing the idea of collective action: “It may seem like a tiny gesture, but together we can make a huge difference to the planet”…

Live Earth: artistes’ eco credentials under the spotlight

Understandably, a number of commentators criticised the performers’ enormous carbon footprints (Madonna’s is 100 times that of the average Briton, and would apparently fill half of Wembley stadium each year).
All the artistes were given Live Earth ‘bibles’ that ask them to adopt a low carbon lifestyle and promote it to their fans. All 150 acts have pledged to reduce their emissions and campaign against global warming.

Perhaps upset by being singled out, Madonna released a statement pledging to take substantial steps to meeting Live Earth’s guidelines. With 8 homes and a fleet of cars, it’ll be an extreme makeover before her carbon footprint’s shrunk to match her petite frame… Living in the public eye, such stars can play a major role in inspiring action by demonstrating their commitment – as long as they get it right…

But Madonna needn’t feel alone – a number of other stars are already embracing the green agenda: Metallica have funded the creation of a rainforest reserve, KT Tunstall is building an eco-home and has given up her car, and a number of other singers have ‘eco riders’ in their contracts stipulating demands such as backstage recycling, organic food and eco-limousines. Maybe if swaps her limo for a bike she won’t need to do so much yoga!

Time for us all to change our habits

The two billion viewers of Live Earth were asked to sign up to a seven-point pledge to tackle climate change. One is to work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of your home. Al Gore himself has been criticised for his wasteful lifestyle and heavy use of energy in his mansion. To show he’s doing his bit, he’s giving his home a radical eco makeover, with 33 solar panels fitted to his roof, a geothermal energy system to provide heating and hot water, complemented by energy bought from renewable sources and low energy lightbulbs. Sounds like a good start to me!

If nothing else, the Live Earth events have at least placed climate change firmly in our minds. It’s up to us what we do next. Al Gore’s message from the concerts sums it up for me: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We need to go far. And we need to go fast”.

No sunny delight for climate change sceptics

A new scientific study has found “almost completely conclusive proof” (that’s scientific speak for “swear on my mother’s life this is true”) that modern-day climate change isn’t being caused by changes in the sun's output.

This will be a blow to many climate change sceptics who’ve argued that we should stop worrying about human impact on the climate, as much bigger changes in climate are caused by variations in the natural cycles of the sun.
The scientists behind the study were partly prompted to carry out their investigation through frustration at this spring’s Channel 4 documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, which featured this ‘cosmic ray’ hypothesis. The programme ignored vital pieces of data, and led many viewers to believe that the climate change currently being observed is a natural phenomenon beyond our control.

Analysing records of all the sun’s activities over the past few decades, the researchers found that while cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, the warming observed in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity, as the sun's output fell over that period, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
The Royal Society (the independent academy of science in the UK) commented: "There is a small minority which is seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day."

I dread to think which zany excuse the climate naysayers will dream up next to try to convince us we don’t need to worry about climate change, but let’s hope we’ve heard the last of this one…

Cows’ table manners tackled in the name of climate change

Did you know that cow and sheep burps (and to a lesser extent farts) are responsible for up to a quarter of "man-made" worldwide emissions of methane (a greenhouse gas 23 times as potent as CO2)? A single cow can produce between 100 and 200 litres of methane every day.

UK scientists are working on new diets for these ruminant animals to help bring down Britain's soaring levels of greenhouse gas pollution. Changing the diet of farmed animals to make it more digestible – for example giving them grass varieties bred to have high sugar levels – can mean they can produce up to 50% less methane. And maybe they’ll suffer less indigestion along the way!