As a follow-up to the discussion of the pollution caused by K-pop concerts, I would like to add that these events not only produce noise and light pollution but also what appears to be significant amounts of pollution from the waste on the site and the energy required to power the area. This is a result of the use of electricity for the performers, crew, and audience members’ transportation as well as for lighting and sound equipment. The subsequent high energy use would increase air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions that contribute to air pollution can be produced when lighting and sound systems are powered by generators and other machinery. This is valid for outdoor concerts, where electricity is frequently provided by diesel generators. Also, a lot of waste is produced, including glowsticks, confetti, and empty plastic cups, all of which, if not recycled, can contribute to environmental degradation.
The carbon footprint of music venues, such as a concert, can be calculated and divided into three categories, according to Tucker and Edesess (2023): direct emissions that the venue is in control of (emissions from energy fuel burned on-site), indirect emissions (electricity imported to power the site), and all other indirect emissions (transportation of crew, performers and attendees). While indirect emissions make up the greatest portion of the total emissions produced by hosting a concert, its issue is frequently overlooked by organisers. As such, it is crucial to recognise them and minimise them as much as possible.
Tucker and Edesess (2023) investigated this and calculated it through the case study of Future Yard, a UK-based organisation that connects the city’s cultural landscape to its environment. According to their data, audience travel looks to be a substantial producer of carbon emissions for music and cultural venues.
Audience travel being a substantial producer of carbon emissions for concerts can also be further supported by Connolly et al. (2016). It was mentioned in their journal article that live concert has had substantial environmental consequences, with it being estimated that the cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the UK’s music industry alone have about 540,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, of which 43% is generated by audience travel (Bottrill et al, 2010; as cited in Connolly et al., 2016). Here, it is evident then that the largest generator of GHG can be attributed to the concert attendees, in particular the travel done to the venues.
I have also highlighted in my previous blog that tourism from the influence of K-pop can also generate a large amount of pollution from greenhouse gas emissions mostly due to the transportation used. Here, I would like to also link these two issues in which audience travel can be a component of tourism. As a result, the GHG emissions would be designed to be more than what was evaluated because it would take into consideration longer and ‘heavier’ modes of transportation such as the use of aircraft or rail transportation as opposed to short-distance vehicle travel. This makes me wonder if an online concert would be less polluting than a live one. The shift to moving concerts online has been done before during the pandemic. In my next blog, I’ll analyse if online concerts are more useful and environmentally friendly than live events.
References:
Connolly, M., Dupras, J. and Seguin, C. (2016). ‘An economic perspective on rock concerts and climate change: Should carbon offsets compensating emissions be included in the ticket price?’, Journal of Cultural Economics. 40(1), pp. 101-126.
Tucker, S. and Edessess, A. (2023). A Carbon Neutral Music Venue: A Sustainable Urban Development. In: Proceedings of PLEA. (PLEA SANTIAGO 2022 Will Cities Survive?, Santiago, Chile). Retrieved from: https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/18231/ (Accessed: 21 March 2023)