Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version

LIVE EARTH: A PUBLIC DIPLOMACY THAT SPARKED NEW INTEREST IN FIGHT OF GLOBAL WARMING
AUG 6, 2007 - 12:01PM PDT
by Vivien Pertusot

The diffusion and evolution of new technology has profoundly changed the practice of public diplomacy. Originally considered an activity only practiced by states, private actors have increasingly begun to invest in public diplomacy related initiatives. This is what Jan Melissen calls “the new public diplomacy.” NGOs, companies, and social movements have embarked upon large campaigns via the Internet, satellite TV channels, and radio with the expressed intention of mobilizing foreign public opinion. Importantly, these new actors have forced governments to engage with them; they challenge governmental authority and have been able to impact the political agenda and the decision-making process. On July 7, Live Earth kicked off a three-year campaign to combat global warming by organizing massive pop concerts all around the world. Live Earth represented an attempt to combine both old-fashioned and cutting-edge trends in social mobilization. The concert followed established patterns followed by previous events like Live Aid and Live 8 by bringing celebrities on stage to highlight a cause. The new component in the Live Earth formula was the rationale behind the initiative. The Alliance for Climate Protection wanted to raise awareness about global warming among the international public so that they will in turn pressure their governments to act upon and reform current environmental policies. As Marc and Craig Kilberburn wrote in The Toronto Star, “Al Gore simply bypassed policy-makers and took his message of conservation straight to the people.” In contrast to previous events, Live Earth’s goal was not to pressure governments directly but to mobilize the public. Interestingly, media coverage failed to report that Live Earth represented the launch of a three-year campaign and instead focused only on the event itself. Live Earth events took place in eight cities around the world (i.e. Washington, DC; East Rutherford, NJ; London, Shanghai, Hamburg, Johannesburg, Tokyo, and Sydney.) Each event received the tacit support of their local governments. This was particularly important in the case of China, because Live Earth was the first such event endorsed by the government. Moreover, Live Earth coincided with the Chinese government’s launch of several initiatives to combat climate change. Although the Chinese government has been criticized because it still refuses to release an environmental report. In the West, Live Earth suffered from various criticisms centered on the carbon footprints and the related hypocrisy of some of the performing artists. The strongest opponent of the event turned out to be Bob Geldof, organizer of Live Aid and Live 8. He downplayed the relevance of the initiative. “To make us aware of the greenhouse effect,” he wondered, “everybody’s known about that problem for years. We are all f*****g conscious of global warming.” According to Geldof, “Live Earth doesn’t have a final goal. I would only organize this if I could go on stage and announce concrete environmental measures from the American presidential candidates, Congress or major corporations. So it’s just an enormous pop concert.” Others, particularly those from developing countries, depicted Live Earth as out of priority. Many African commentators considered Live Earth…... FULL TEXT

Read Comments:

No comments for this entry.

Add a Comment:

Your Name:
Your Email:
Comment:
Please enter the word you see in the image below:

NOTE: Comments are moderated by CPD and will typically be posted if they are relevant and respectful.