I guess it is publicity stunt.

It was a publicity stunt.  if they'd really wanted to reduce the amount of CO2 floating around the planet, they'd have planted copious amounts of greenery all over the world.  In fact, is that even what they said they wanted to do?

I didn't think Live8/Make poverty History would work, and I don't think it did, in the end.  But at least they had a clear aim, no plan, but an aim.  Live Earth seemed to lack any aim, never mind a plan.  We wanna make the world aware that there's pollution/climate change/overuse of resources/insert global issue here.  is it me, or does each global concert actaully make less difference?  Perhaps it's global concert fatigue?  Live Aid 'we need your money' we got your money, we kinda spent it badly.  Live Aid II  we need more money, we kinda spent it equally badly. Live 8, we need you to know people are dying of hunger (cos that makes it all OK then - people are still dying of hunger but now we at least know (or we did - does the world know it's still happening, or have we solved it?  Live Earth, we need to use less resources, so we're going to hold the biggest concert in the world to do that.  BUt I didn't come here to rant, rather because I thought people might like to see what your USian counterpart thought.

http://www.trentstampstake.org/2007/07/view-from-live-earth.html

I understand your point, Little Chef - but we expected the organizers to know pretty much immediately where the money from the concerts was going to end up.  And we, not unreasonably, expected them all to say the same thing! 

This was a simple question, with what should have been a simple answer.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Couldn't it just be that you tried to contact the Live Earth people on the busiest day of their lives, and so they were just very confused, busy, etc?? Maybe if you had given them time to respond, none of this would have happened!

The problems IG has encountered trying to squeeze information out of Live Earth are indicative of a wider malaise in the environmental sector. Unlike the Make Poverty History campaign, there has not been a single clear message from the Live Earth concerts, and the picture is further muddied by the various other environmental campaigns that are also ongoing - as jan42 highlights. 

Campaigners need to focus on a single, clear message: and they need to band together to deliver it. Unless that happens, I do not believe any of their efforts will meet with success.

This event smacks too much of last-minute opportunism and unfocussed thinking, as your research suggests. Plenty of people agree - see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_earth#Controversy_and_criticism

Of all the climate change initiatives aimed at the general public, Friends of the Earth's Big Ask makes the most sense. FoE asked supporters to apply pressure to ensure a climate change bill was promised in the Queen's Speech and now it's asking everyone to apply extra pressure to make sure the bill contains strong, meaningful measures.

While you're watching Madonna sing about biodiesel you can actually do something: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/big_ask/take_action.html

=====:)======

This evening we received a rather frantic call from a Live Earth representative in New York. She had apparently heard about this story and wanted to set the record straight.  We were happy to listen.

Unfortunately, however, her explanation of where the money goes didn't shed much more light on the situation.  She confirmed that all proceeds from all the concerts would go to the Alliance for Climate Protection in California.  She then said that the money would be split up between 'partner organizations' according to the fabled Plan (see above). But when we pressed her on who the partners were, or what the Plan entailed, she became less talkative.

So the shroud of mystery at best, secrecy at worst, stays in place.

Adam, Intelligent Giving