Who’s really benefiting from celebrity environmental “activism”?

When acting moves off the big screen

Genuinely caring about the environment is this year’s biggest summer blockbuster. As the reality of living in a climate crisis becomes harder to ignore, more public figures are vocalizing their concerns about climate change––going green is a good PR move for celebrities, after all. Celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Meryl Streep, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (who owns eight cars and a private jet) have all spoken out about their anxieties related to the climate crisis, and some have even taken the truly radical action of making documentaries related to the issue. Celebrities continue to claim that climate change is a major issue that will affect our future and that they’re committed to change, but they aren’t concerned enough to curb their own unsustainable lifestyles.  

With cancel and call-out culture so justifiably prominent in pop culture, why are we so hesitant to address the celebrities who are clearly jumping on the bandwagon of sustainability for self-serving purposes?  

In late July, 114 private jets flew celebrities such as Katy Perry, Chris Martin, Orlando Bloom, Harry Styles, Barack Obama, Priyanka Chopra, Nick Jonas, and, of course, Leonardo DiCaprio to a Google conference in Italy to discuss new ways to moralize about climate change. Dozens of the richest and most influential people in the world who attended this glorified conference chose to stay in their giant superyachts and were driven to and from the events in Maseratis.  

It’s reported that Prince Harry gave a speech, while barefoot, about how he and his wife Megan Markle have vowed to only have two children due to their environmental concerns. Just weeks before giving this speech, Harry and Megan had flown privately from Ibiza, Spain to Nice, France. These two flights alone produce six times more CO2 emissions than the average British resident does each year, but don’t worry, he’s reducing his carbon footprint with the truly selfless act of only having two kids. The ultimate political statement is one’s personal life—and personal acts can undermine one’s political claims. 

The problem isn’t that celebrities care about the environment, the problem is that celebrities are in the same category of big polluters that they often call out in their speeches. This eliminates their moral authority to lecture others on reducing their carbon emissions and discuss the importance of sustainability, because they continually undermine their own messages. The love these elites claim to have for the environment is only matched by their love of publicizing it. 

Some may chalk up this hypocrisy to pure ignorance, that these celebrities just don’t know that they’re the ones burning such large amounts of fossil fuels. But it’s inconceivable that these celebrities don’t know that they’re being hypocritical, and that they don’t know the impact their lifestyle is making on the environment. You don’t need to be a scientist to know that owning multiple homes in various countries, constantly flying via private jet, having hundreds of pieces of clothing that will only be worn once, and lounging on yachts that aren’t solar powered is bad for the environment.  

They act in such a hypocritical manner because hypocrisy is the ultimate power move. It demonstrates that one plays by a different set of rules than the ones that most people would stand by. Hypocrisy establishes how unaccountable someone is to conventional morals. The sense of moral superiority that these people have means that they can’t and don’t see the harm in their own actions. This works because status is inherently subjective. The more of it you are perceived to have, the more of it you do have. While such celebrities may not be making a conscious decision to flaunt their status, their behaviour is driven by the urge for power, of which social status is a form.  

Celebrities behave hypocritically about climate change because to some degree they want to. To act sincerely about climate change would require them to give up their luxuries, spend money on sustainable clothes instead of Gucci, and use a paddleboat instead of a superyacht that has a helicopter landing pad. Because of their desire and need to be seen as socially superior, they will not give up such luxuries, as without them they have no way of showing that they are in fact of a superior status.  

Yet, we will continue to exempt celebrities from conventional morality because we want these beautiful and talented people to display their status so that we can consume their cultural capital. We want to see the good in them. We are continually wronged by political leaders, so we don’t want to see or believe that the celebrities we idolize can be just as fake as Justin Trudeau (who continually builds pipelines despite being a self-proclaimed eco-warrior.) We can excuse their shitty behaviour because their movies, music, and drama distract us from the realities of the climate crisis. The large readership that tabloids and gossip sites have is proof of this. 

Caring about the environment isn’t a new thing. It’s something for which environmental activists and Indigenous communities have been advocating and fighting for decades with no glamorous dinners or parties held to discuss the environmental pros and cons of getting that new Tesla. Celebrities are only really starting to show that they care about climate change because it’s what everyone is talking about, and they want to stay relevant so that they can continue making gross amounts of money.  

What we need is drastic action and systemic change to stop the climate crisis from worsening. We don’t need elites to tell us how to live our lives as they ride their jet skis off the coast of Greece. 

Comments are closed.