We hold these truths to be self-evident, or at least - we should

You'd be forgiven, after last week, for suffering from a touch of "concerts for a cause" fatigue, what with the Princess Diana concert so closely followed by Live Earth, and the echo of Live 8 still ringing in the not so distant past.

With Live Earth, along with such trendy campaigns as MTV Switch, Pop culture meets environmentalism, in much the same way as it met poverty during Live 8 in 2005, just as it had two decades before. Good intentions, I think we can safely assme, I'm just not quite convinced about their methods yet.

The main focus appears to be raising awareness, rather than asking outright for donations. Clearly, the music industry believes it has a special & unique power for good, that it can use at will to alter the public consciousness, to stir up outrage and outcry, to summon support, or in some cases dissent. But ultimately, in the case of live 8 for example, it's poverty-fighting organisations like Oxfam & others who put in the groundwork, who actually get food to people who are starving, who actually ACT rather than wallow in their heightened state of musically-inspired awareness. And to do that, they need the funds, whether from private donations or public gouvernment spending money. That's how it works. In theory.

But climate change isn't a charity. It's a problem of a radically different nature and as such merits a good deal of reflection on how it should be tackled most effectively. Yes awarenesss needs to be raised, yes it needs a higher profile, and yes hearts and minds do need to be won. But the similarities end there.

This is not a problem that money can solve. Poverty, if in theory rather than in practice, is. Even if it's not sustainable to try to solve it in the way the Western world currently is, and even if the systems in place are inherently flawed and unfair. It does not, technically, necessitate a complete overhaul of our industry, of our conception of growth and progress, of our daily household & personal habits. Maybe it should, but no earthly force is going to bring about that transformation. In the case of Global warming, perhaps one just might.

Trevor Nelson, one of the presenters, said it was nice to have someone more informal than Al Gore, in his suit and tie, pushing the message of environmentalism. But are they really? Isn't this another cause? Like Diana gig, only days before, and all of live8, celebrities latch onto a cause brought to the forefront of public consciousness – they don't put it there! and the vast majority of them it seems, are also completely incapable of talking about the subject in any kind of remotely articulate terms. And they're hardly about to convince people of anything if they don't even appear to know why they're there. And even if they did, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm not saying their intentions aren't golden, or that their hearts aren't in the right places, I'm just really not convinced that this is the way to save the planet.

And it doesn't really impress me either, to see Russel Brand making sarcastic cracks about feeding baby rhinos. Surely one of the most basic of token efforts made by these "celebrities" ought to be to take the whole thing seriously at least, especially given the lack of consensus (political, not scientific) on the subject.

That's not to say of course, that one can't take a light-hearted approach, or have a sense of humour about it all. Those science twins managed that pretty well:

"Skeptics say global warming is being caused by... The SUN
Answer: Get rid of the sun.
Aviation is responsible for much of the CO2 emissions
but you don't care - because holidays are nice.
Cars are responsible for pollution and also CO2 emissions
but you don't care - because public transport is for poor people.
Etc."

Especially with a question that potentially involves so much science, there's nothing wrong with bringing it back to basics, making sense of it all, and putting it in rational terms. Surely this format is the most effective way of changing attitudes and changing habits, when seeking to adress "the general public".

But beyond eliciting a few laughs with ironic quips, how do you actually entice them into actually doing anything, in concrete terms? To me it seems the most straightforward approach is to translate these large principles into actions and rationalise those actions in terms that make them appear self-evident. Everyone's come across these lists of things you can do to play your part, and so here's my selection, complete with what's in it for you.

Some Golden rules...

- switch the light off – pay less on your electricity bill
- print on both sides – less to be carried around
- with as many pages as you can possibly squint to read on one sheet – less ink and paper gets used up, less frequently needs replacing
- if the windows are open, the heating should be off – should stop you wasting money on heating bill
- unless the heat is completely unbearable, give air conditioning a miss – you won't get an AC cold, and you'll acclimatise much quicker
- sack the tumble dryer - ruins your clothes, surely everybody knows that?
- recycle, obviously – well there's just no excuse not to in this day and age, is there?
- boycott stuff with too much packaging (i.e. if you can buy loose fruit vs. in a package, you know which to go for) – less trash, always agreeable
- always remember to bring your trusty reusable bag out shopping – chance to show off how trendy/well-travelled/politically active you are, depending on your choice of bag
- cut down the carbon miles, buy local – shopping at markets is a soul-restoring exercice
- buy fairtrade – generally lovely, great quality stuff
- support companies that are making an effort, boycott the ones that clearly aren't – gives you a (misplaced) feeling of control and influence
- boycott the evil multinationals - it might not save the whales but it'll help you sleep at night, and probably avoid obseity as well
- turn the red light off (i.e. don't leave appliances on standby) – again, will help you sleep at night, those things are annoying...
- don't rush to flush if it's just a... you know the rest – erm...
- take the bus, tram, bike or walk – people-watching. enough said. often quicker and cheaper, too. and the latter two are much healthier.
- stop moaning about wind farms – they're lovely, end of.
- and finally, the one I almost can't bring myself to say... try not to fly, unless it's completely necessary – sorry, no benefits. or redeeming aspects. at all. whatsoever. apparently you can meet interesting people on long gruelling international bus journeys, but I'm far from convinced.

What is the blatant correlation that emerges? Environmentally-friendly equals enhanced quality of life, equals more ethical work practices, often equals greater social justice, almost always equals simply a more humane way of living. For that, we first need to push away the dodgy alternative we're being fed, and maybe that requires something of a small revolution.

And who should start that revolution? Answer – the people who usually start revolutions. Leaders, to Politicians. The ones to come, rather than the ones we have. Those who acknowledge the problem, who are informed about it, and most importantly who are willing and brave enough to begin the trend that others will follow – Taking personal responsibility for our actions. This is critical – in the context of Globalisation and I mean that in the sense of the emergence of problems on a global scale. Inescapably, it implies a new conception of multilateral negotiating between states, a new conception of cooperation.

When the planet is under threat, it can no longer be each nation for themselves. Rather it has to be about multilateralism, unity and shared responsibility. I know the word makes me sound like an old lefty Trot but solidarity. No longer an aspiration, it may well turn out to be a precondition of the preservation of our species. And shame on those nations who appear still not to have grasped this obvious transformation, who it appears, want to push backwards the precarious progress that has been made thus far – naming no names Sweden with its threatening noises about leaving the EU, or Britain with its blunt refusals to make any concessions or sacrifices to anyone, ever. But why should they, I mean they used to rule over a third of the world. Try reminding the population of that fact, Gordon Brown, when they're submerged under water, and see how much of a useful consolation it is. Oh wait, most of them already are.

We don't need Madonna gyrating on stage yet again, what we do need is the triumph of common sense (I know, how many times in history has that occurred – the outlook is bleak from the get-go) and a general realisation of what we're up against. Realisation of the collective influence of consumers. It's not complex, in fact the message should be as simple as a slap in the face.
Get your priorities sorted - everybody wins.

Except those afflicted with a love of planes...

This might not cure you, but it's a step in the right direction.