Sex, Rock 'n' Roll and Global Warming

Can globally synchronized music concerts change the world? Was Al Gore's Live Earth extravaganza worth its cost in carbon emissions? Since the July 7 event, a number of commentators have groused about the carbon footprint of the events, the lack of focus on measurable goals and the inherent wastefulness of mega-stars who fly their bloated entourages around in private jets.

These complaints are all valid enough, but the organizers also never claimed the concerts to be anything more than the launch of a public education campaign about global warming. In the long run, however, the organizers have extremely outsize ambitions. They hope the Live Earth concerts will have been the tipping point for a transforming change in consciousness. The proof of this concept, that a global entertainment event can start a revolution, will only be available as time shows us how Live Earth has impacted mass consumer culture.

Preliminary returns are not greatly encouraging if you go by such barometers as People magazine. People's story on Live Earth, wedged into the back half of the July 23 issue, ran barely 250 words with a scant half dozen pictures. The article's main point was that the music "helped the medicine go down." These are not words to start a revolution.

Dissecting the rest of this issue of People shows you what the problem is. From the cover story, "The World's Richest Teens," to the multi-page spread on the million dollar Eva Langoria-Tony Parker wedding, it was all about bling. Clearly, to save the planet, we'll have to find other role models than the winners of the most lavish wedding competition.

But according to culture experts, we'll never separate the people from their bling. Dr. Matt Prescott, in a column for the BBC News titled: "Sex Sells, But at What Cost?," argues global warming and other environmental ills are just a side effect of our need to impress the opposite sex with our conspicuous consumption. The fast car, the big house and the endless parade of fashion are hardwired into us.

Prescott explains: "In early human societies, people were able to compete in non-lethal ways by collecting beautiful objects such as feathers, unusual pebbles or animal skins ... Now that we have succeeded in harnessing the world's fossil fuel reserves, our brains' fixation on visible status symbols has become something of a hindrance ...."

That is putting it mildly!

Dr. Prescott is head of the British "Ban the Bulb" campaign that seeks to ban the incandescent light bulb and replace it with much more energy-efficient compact fluorescents. It is important, he says, to know ourselves, to know we have a deep-seated need for status and security that often makes it impossible for us to think rationally about resource use. He recommends we start small in changing people's behavior. He says easy first steps like changing light bulbs can "help us to feel secure about our social status, foster a sense of achievement and encourage changes in everyday activities."

Changing light bulbs becomes less like medicine and more like bling. The new light bulbs transform into jewels you can add to your low-carbon crown.

One of the reader comments on Prescott's story also caught my eye. Colleen Sudekum of San Francisco, California wrote:

Fast cars and conspicuous consumption are definitely part of sexual display. But we females choose our males based on what we consider best for long term relationships and families. Girls, we need to tell the guys with the hot cars that they aren't husband material, and we aren't impressed by this behavior. We did it once, when we chose men who weren't going to kill each other in sword fights, we can do it again. Choosing the guys who protect the future, even for that one night stand, is promoting your own welfare.