I posted this elsewhere this weekend, but thought I’d put it here as well…

On July 7, Live Earth will broadcast The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis from all 7 continents. Get it? 7/7/07 on 7 continents. So if you’re in New York, you could see Kanye West and Fall Out Boy among others. If you happen to be in Sydney you could catch Wolfmother and Jack Johnson. If you can’t make it in person (London, Johannesburg, Rio de Janerio, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Hamburg are the other venues. The Antarctica location hasn’t been advertised just yet.) you can watch the whole deal streaming live at at MSN . So, what to make of Live Earth? Should we be excited or cynical?

The appeal to the public for our participation has led me to associate Live Earth with the ongoing

(Product) Red campaign. You may remember the hype when The Gap, Apple, American Express, and some other companies announced that a percentage of profits from the sale of certain (red) products would be donated to The Global Fund. For a while I couldn’t turn on the television, open the paper, or walk down Michigan Avenue without one of these companies trying to sell me one of their brightly colored, socially conscious products. And maybe that was a good thing. While the hype for (Product) Red has died down recently, it seems likely to pick up with this month’s Africa issue of Vanity Fair guest-edited by Bono.

NBC recently reported that the (Product) Red corporations have spent $100 million in advertisement for the campaign, while only raising $18 million for The Global Fund. While $18 million is a lot of money, there has been a lot of grumbling about how much has been spent on advertising. Buy (Less) Crap has creatively spoofed the whole campaign while encouraging people to skip the middlemen and donate directly to The Global Fund and other charities. From their website,

Shopping is not a solution. Buy (less). Give more. Join us in rejecting the ti(red) notion that shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering. We invite you to donate directly to the (RED) campaign’s beneficiary The Global Fund and to these other charitable causes…without consuming.

It’s those last two words- without consuming– that catch my eye. While the motivation behind (Product) Red is likely above board, it’s the means that seem questionable. In the face of human suffering, is our best option really more consumption?

The issues (Product) Red and Live Earth are addressing are massive and those behind these campaigns and concerts should be commended. But given the implications of extreme poverty and global warming on the world’s most vulnerable, could those of us who are the target of these campaigns do more than consume as a response? To be fair, Live Earth’s purpose is to raise awareness and should probably be judged differently than (Product) Red whose goal is to raise money. But the question remains. Do these campaigns and events lead you and I to consume or to sacrifice? And does it matter? Is consumption the best we have to offer? Or, through our sacrifice, could our impact be greater?