Reacting to Live Earth

Written by Luke

Topics: Coal, Finance

share this story
facebook twitter email stumble upon
Get Energy Alerts

Slate sums up the general public reaction to the Live Earth concerts this past weekend: Lame Earth. Both the event itself and the criticism of it seemed off the mark to me. From the little bit I saw and what I’ve read in the coverage, the actual environmental movement seemed largely absent from the consciousness-raising event. Organizing for collective action is by far the most effective way for people to make a difference—yes, even more so than changing out those incandescent bulbs. But although there are plenty of grassroots organizations out there that can help people make a difference, there didn’t seem to be much of a presence.


Rather than focusing on that angle, of course, the mainstream media seemed much more interested in the amount of electricity and number of paper plates consumed during the event. Our own Mike Brune appeared on CNN today on the Glenn Beck Program—the host was more apparently more interested in bovine flatulence (and the fact that Live Earth organizers didn’t exhort the audience to become vegetarians) than in why we should stop the construction of new coal-fired power plants.

Both of the things that bother me about the whole affair—the lack of real grassroots organizing at the event and the media focus on the resources consumed during the event itself—stem from the same problem in popular environmental consciousness; namely, that many people equate the environmental movement with the movement toward “green” consumerism.

Now, don’t get me wrong: the fact that consumers now value environmentally friendly choices (and that corporations feel obliged to offer them) is a good thing. It isn’t, however, good enough. While it might be true that “if everyone did x, we would have the benefit of x multiplied across the entire population,” the fact is that “everyone doing x” as individual consumers is not a realistic plan, nor would it even be sufficient to prevent environmental catastrophe (at least not for any value of x that each consumer would find acceptable). Limiting the role of the public to the cumulative effect of individual purchasing decisions in the market means that power to make change is limited to the sum of their individual actions.

We can’t count on a “free market” to address the environmental crisis, no matter how concerned individual consumers become. For one thing, it’s very easy for corporations to put one over on consumers in the absence of accountability groups (like RAN) and government regulation. It’s also important to remember that markets are regulatory spaces, created by and for the people that they serve. Left to their own devices, the private companies that burn coal to generate electricity would happily externalize the environmental cost of their activity until we’re all under water. Do you want to wait around for the market to solve that one?

Instead, people need to organize—through unions, governments, and NGOs—into groups that have more influence than the sum of their parts. There’s no way we could convince coal power plants to adopt a voluntary carbon tax. We can’t each decide to take the bus if no one gets together to create public transportation. And no matter how many times we fill our own sack with groceries, the store is unlikely to stop handing out plastic bags until a law is passed. In other words, structures like governments and advocacy groups exist for a reason: so that we are better able to make collective decisions.

8 Comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

  1. Rick says:

    I really don’t see what the problem is. It seems like there is nothing good enough for grass roots organizations these days. First they ask for awareness, then when corporations and individuals become aware, they bash the way they are doing it. Did anyone make an attempt at calling Al Gore or his people and giving suggestions on how to run this event? I would bet no. It seems like grassroots orgs and critics were just sitting around waiting for the event to be over so they could do what they do best…COMPLAIN about everything. I hate to be a wet blanket, but I think the critics should sit back and shut up. If you’re not going to throw the event a better way…don’t criticize the efforts of others. It just isn’t right.

  2. Luke says:

    Live Earth was a good thing. Certainly RAN couldn’t have organized an event on that scale, with that kind of star power; maybe some people will really be affected by its message. It’s just unfortunate that they couldn’t do more in the way of active organizing rather than telling people how they should change their personal (economic) behavior.

  3. ida says:

    I think the project went off without a hitch – so that’s amazing. Energy should be spent workng toward the goal of cleaing up the planet – criticising the smaller advances causes stagnancy. Every bit helps. Praise little things? They’ll grow!

  4. Joe says:

    Could we please watch our use of ableist language? I won’t claim that I’ve never said “lame” disparagingly, but I’m far from an official RAN organ.

  5. Luke says:

    I’m not sure I’m an “organ” either, but “Lame Earth” was Slate’s headline on the linked page at the time I posted this.

  6. Joe says:

    I don’t want to sound like I’m climbing onto a pedestal or a soapbox, as I’m far from blameless myself, so I’ll simply state that some things don’t bear repeating, particularly without commentary, and leave it at that.

    And I didn’t mean “organ” negatively. But posts here do carry the RAN stamp of approval in a way that my personal utterances do not.

  7. Justin says:

    seeing as bovine flatulence is a contributing factor in global warming, i dont see why it was harmful for the reporter to bring up. by no means am i an advocate of moral purity, far from, but lets not be single issue here. the earth is dying my friends, and no dumb politician is going to save us. i agree that grassroots orgs should have hijacked the show in order to better represent those on the ground, but then again, how far would they let you go? lets stop complaining and start getting effective…

  8. willie says:

    well i think this post is pretty on-point.

Leave a Comment Here's Your Chance to Be Heard!

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.