Straits Times, 14 July 2007
THINKING ALOUD
BY PAUL JACOB
Deputy Political Editor
A WORD to the uninitiated.
When mulling over how you can play your own small part in curbing global warming, it may be best to keep your plans to yourself.
And go about your business quietly.
The danger otherwise is that when you next meet people, they expect to see you in green tights and a cape, with a huge recyclable Save the Earth logo on your environmentally friendly T-shirt.
The mistaken assumption that comes when such statements of intent are offered is that the transformation is going to be immediate, overnight, instant. Out with plastics, dump the car, cut meat intake, stub out the cigarettes – and so on.
But life is not like that. The reality is that you have to struggle against instinct and habits, and contend with the accumulation of paper, junk, power-hungry equipment and gadgets from over the years.
And no way are you ready to give up a car that is distinctly more comfortable and convenient to use than an environmentally friendly bicycle.
I speak from brief experience, having written just a while ago about how much more conscious I had become of things green, especially after being startled by just how large a carbon footprint I was leaving behind.
But it was the weight of expectation foisted by others that I was unprepared for: the expectation of a 180-degree change towards leading a healthier, more completely green, and more environmentally conscious lifestyle.
In time perhaps, but not just yet.
Old habits die hard. So the green tights and cape associated with an
environmental crusader will have to wait.
Just how tough is it to effect change?
Take the case of the mother of all environmental events as a case in point.
Last Saturday’s Live Earth show was a 24-hour, seven-continent extravaganza to raise awareness about global warming.
It featured more than 100 performers and luminaries in concerts across the globe and was broadcast, podcast, vodcast and aired to an audience estimated to number two billion.
The event’s impact on changing mindsets and spreading the word is debatable. Were people drawn to the cause being promoted or were they attracted to what was effectively a rock concert, an occasion for groups like the Police to showcase their reunion?
More critically for an event that was intended to spark change in the way people view the environment, what kind of footprint did it leave in its wake? Mr John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, was quoted in the Observer newspaper as saying that the event’s total carbon footprint – including the travel and energy consumption of the artists and spectators involved – amounted to at least 31,500 tonnes.
That was more than 3,000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain, the paper added.
The Singapore average: 8.38 tonnes.
Some other data that makes you wonder if those involved were part of the solution or contributed to the problem: Performers flew over 350,000km to take part in the events.
That was the equivalent of nearly nine times around the planet, the Daily Mail fumed.
And the aftermath of the concert at the new Wembley stadium was a sight to behold – thousands upon thousands of plastic cups and bottles strewn on the ground.
It would seem that there, too, old habits die hard.
Organisers of the Live Earth concerts countered such concerns about the event’s negative environmental impact by pointing out, among other things, that food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable; shows were powered by electricity from renewable sources; low energy bulbs were used; and that trash was sorted out for recycling.
A massive event, such as Live Earth was, no doubt helps focus the minds of those who attended or who tuned in to watch the whole or part of the show.
Yet I wonder if the effects and its impact linger long.
What did you, for instance, take away from it, if anything?
How much have similar well-meaning events like the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh and 1985’s Live Aid benefit concert for Ethiopia changed the course of lives for people in those countries, and where are they today?
The key to effectiveness must be in what continues to be sustained on the ground after the performers, feeling good about lending their names to a cause, pack their instruments and jet back to their mansions.
Which brings me back to my starting point.
Make up your own mind about what you can and want to do in your own small way – and not because Al Gore, Madonna and others made a song and dance about it last week.
That’s the most sustainable way of getting our hands, collectively, around the problem.
As a Geography student, I know and can understand the importance of protecting our environment and slowing down the rate of global warming. Global warming is actually caused by the emission of too much greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide which trap infrared rays as rays from the sun reflect against the earth’s surface.
In the article, the author talks about the old irresponsible habits of everyone of us, which can never be improved. The fact is that no one would ever give up any habits just for the sake of the environment; you wouldn’t give up a car for a bicycle. However, it’s not only a habit; it is a way of life too. You can’t possibly not use paper, can you? Therefore, I think the same way as the author; it is hard to effect changes.
In my opinion, I feel that people are actually doing something, but what they do does not help much. Take the example in the article, Live Earth concert. The concert is supposed to raise awareness of people about global warming, but it has failed in doing so. According to the article, the total carbon footprint of the whole event was 3000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. My immediate response was “Oh my god?” Yes, it’s very scary. While trying to raise awareness about global warming, the unusually high carbon footprint has caused even more carbon dioxide to be emitted, adding on to the worrying rate of global warming.
Furthermore, from other related articles I’ve read, a lot of rubbish has been disposed of during the event. Yes, the concert made use of electricity from renewable sources and food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable. However, from a photo that I’ve seen, a lot of disposable cutleries have been used and then throw away, of course. I am not quite sure why the contradiction, but since I have limited knowledge of the facts, I shan’t talk about it. But the photo which I’ve seen could not be wrong; the earth’s resources are not conserved.
Lastly, the article mentions that whether people have understood the message that the concert was trying to convey. My hypothesis is that a large percentage of audience of the event is more interested in the concert rather than the purpose behind it. There may be a small percentage that got the message and may try to do something to conserve the Earth. As such, the impact is insignificant.
However, I must say that as a teenager though a Geography student, I am not quite aware of what have been done to raise awareness other than the Live Earth concert. Therefore, I’m not in the position to say whether events of this kind are useful. Furthermore, my concerns for the environment may have made me skeptic about the significance of such events. However, one thing for sure is that, the Live Earth concert has not done as much as it aimed to.
