Live Earth: A Public Diplomacy that Sparked New Interest in Fight of Global Warming

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 as a slight, considering global warming as secondary to the humanitarian situation in the continent. Others characterized the event as a Western extravaganza designed to promote greater environmental consciousness. In response to the event, representatives from several African governments (Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe) publicly acknowledged how seriously global warming could affect the continent. Although the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey found that environmental issues do not rank highly on the overall list of African concerns..

Some Western scientists also spoke out, arguing that global warming should not be the international priority, but rather global attention should be focused on clean water programs, malaria, or AIDs. In Germany, Greenpeace criticized the fact that Daimler-Chrysler was Live Earth’s main partner, because they objected to the car company’s environmental record-.

A few days prior to the event, Al Gore introduced a seven-point pledge outlining how individuals could take small steps in their daily-life to better the situation. Even though the Alliance for Climate Protection claims that millions of people have already signed the pledge, very few officials or governments have publicly expressed their commitment. There have been a few exceptions.  In the United States, Harry Reid, Democratic Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, announced that they had signed the pledge a few hours after Gore introduced it.

While government officials have hesitated to sign the pledge, several governments have capitalized on Live Earth’s momentum by announcing initiatives featuring environmental reforms and international cooperation. The government has boosted its cooperation with the European Union on environmental issues. Australian Prime Minister John Howard addressed the issue on a video posted on YouTube before announcing a new set of environmental reforms. Australia announced new policies just days after Live Earth occurred in Sydney. These movements play to domestic changes in Australia’s domestic public opinion.  According to a recent Worldpublicopinion.org survey, 92 percent of Australians now favor measures to combat global warming.

Initiatives to fight climate change were not limited to countries that hosted a Live Earth show. India is set to launch a program called “Green India,” which was described as “one of the world’s largest forestation efforts in recent times.” According to a recent HSBC global survey, 60 percent of Indians are really worried about climate change.

Several NGOs tried to capitalize on the current mood as well, by actively sponsoring Live Earth and its mission, such as WWF and I Count. International organizations also shared enthusiasm with Live Earth initiative. The United Nations Development Program particularly welcomed the Shanghai concert; because it has been deploying important efforts to assist China to reduce its energy consumption.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also announced that the UN would hold a debate on climate change on September 24 that would “give strong political impact and guidelines” to the December climate change conference in Indonesia.

In the aftermath of Live Earth, many commentators openly questioned the relevance of the event, but few of them focused on Live Earth’s public diplomacy successes. As one commentator argued in The Boston Globe, “It seems that the potential to influence nearly a third of the world’s population to engage the issue and change their behavior outweighs the negative impact, and given what’s at stake that’s a leap of faith worth taking.”

The following is an aggregation of articles and commentaries published on Live Earth. The links are divided into four sections: (1) articles presenting Live Earth and its public diplomacy purposes (2) articles criticizing Live Earth (3) articles emphasizing how governments, international organizations and NGOs capitalize on the momentum (4) and public opinion polls.