So Leonardo DiCaprio is picking up where Al Gore left off in the battle to keep Earth habitable. Is this a good thing?
Set aside, for the purposes of this discussion, any misgivings you might have about DiCaprio's acting prowess or lack thereof. They guy has a certain ineffable quality that has propelled him to the top tiers of celebrity, and he has, to his credit, decided to spend some that charismatic capital on the climate change campaign.
There are risks with embracing political and social movements, and not just to one's own career. Many would argue that one of the primary reason why the U.S. is even more polarized on the issue of climate change today than a couple of years ago is Al Gore himself. The theory is that someone who, for whatever reason, already gets under the skin of a large slice of the electorate, shouldn't so dominate a campaign to the point where he or she becomes inextricably linked to, and even indistinguishable from, the campaign itself.
DiCaprio is much less of a polarizing figure, fortunately, but he has his detractors. Or more precisely, those who won't take him seriously. I mean, look at that excuse for a beard...
Across the pond there is perhaps a better example of a celebrity type who may be doing more to undermine environmentalism than propagate its essence. Among the best know public figures is a journalist and Green Party candidate by the name of Julia Stephenson, the "Green Goddess" whose efforts to minimize her carbon footprint the London Independent shares with the world each week, which is nice for those who can afford to follow in her footsteps. She's getting off the grid and extolling the virtues of wind power by getting the first one in Chelsea. Or something like that. Excellent.
Stephenson is attractive enough to warrant the "goddess" label it would seem. But when it comes to scientific credibility, we run into a problem. Stephenson is also, among other things, a fan of naturopathy -- "It may sound unorthodox, but if it works, who cares?" -- and recently joined the ranks of those who have turned off their wireless routers and returned to landlines for fear of "electrosmog" pollution.
Many doctors are now convinced that this powerful technology is storing up huge problems for our future health ... Despite being implicated in a number of health problems -- It seems that even God cannot offer protection from this insidious pollution.
Which is bad enough, considering the complete lack of decent evidence to support such claims. But Stephenson goes further, embracing pseudo-scientific protection from electromagnetic pollution, technologies like the Q-link, which is described thusly on its manufacturer's website:
The QLink is at the absolute cutting edge of quantum physics technology.
...
Most people have heard of molecules and atoms, but if one was to go even smaller (sub-atomic) one would find electrons, and even smaller than that photons and quarks. Imagine going even smaller (Super String Theory) and discovering a group of minute energies. They vibrate, or resonate, with each other (in sympathetic resonance). They are the most elementary form of energy.What some scientists and engineers believe is that when these energies are clarified, they can be used more efficiently. When clarified through Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT), then placed in the QLink, these refined energies will resonate with the body's own energy. The stronger signals (the purest, most refined ones) will help re-shape and clarify the weaker ones.
This is what happens when you wear the QLink Pendant. It in effect communicates with your body's own energy, which itself becomes more refined, clarified and strengthened. So that when you get put under stress (particularly the stress created by the man-made electricity from mobile-phones, computers etc.) you can cope more effectively. The external forces will not disrupt your own energy. You have more resilience and resistance.
The result is that people who wear the QLink will have more energy, be less prone to suffer from headaches and sleep better. It is the modern day antidote to modern day living.
I can find no evidence that DiCaprio is similarly hobbled by an inability to tell science from claptrap. If we're lucky, and his new documentary, The 11th Hour, doesn't misrepresent the science of climate change too much, perhaps he will manage what Al Gore failed to do: unite rather than divide an already polarized audience.
But I remain skeptical. Sting's effort to save the rainforests are still considered an embarrassment, rather than a badge of honor, for example.
I'm not sure we should actively discourage celebreties from campaigning for what matters to them. When it comes to scientists with the charisma to reach true celebrity status in their own right, there aren't enough Carl Sagans and Neil deGrasse Tysons to go around. But those at the forefront of the environmental movement's efforts to take science to the public would be wise to be extremely selective when it comes to choosing a public face.
In the case of Ms. Stephenson, UK greens (or at least the greens who are running wild on the Independent's environment pages) I have made a mistake, I think. We'll see what comes to pass with Mr. DiCaprio.
- Log in to post comments
'Among the best know public figures is a journalist and Green Party candidate by the name of Julia Stephenson'.
Mmm. I'd never even heard of her until now, and I read the Independent (online). But Q-link magnetic pendants, now those I really do recommend. You and your cold-blooded cynicism!
I think you misread the influence of Al Gore. Climate change was nowhere on the public agenda 5 years ago. Now it's number 1 among environmental problems, and Al Gore deserves some of the credit for that change.
We enviros can labor in obscurity for years, working on a problem with little visible success. Then, progress can come suddenly and it seems like "the stars aligned" by happenstance. Sometimes, it really can be because of stars.
Please, give me the problem of a highly visible spokesperson for my issues who sometims makes errors. Puh-leaze!!
Leo is a decent actor, and I don't mind him advocating for environmental causes as long as he has a basic understanding of the science involved.
There are two Julia Stephenson's. One is the excellent actress (Truely, Madly, Deeply v Ghost - no contest), who also narrated a rubbish 'drama' based on the MMR story, and appeared to support Wakefield.
The other one (which is the one the story referes to), is a 'a charming green party candidate and beef heiress living in Chelsea on a trust fund' http://www.badscience.net/?p=425 - who no one has ever heard of, apart from the editor of the Indie and possibly her PR company. In short, she's a dappy nobody, who the Indie should be ashamed of having anywhere near their paper.
For real green campaigners, we could start with George Monbiot, Lord Melchett (yes, really), and Caroline Lucas MEP, plus all the environmetal charities that do great work (including the small but perfectly formed Buglife, which my wife just happens to work for!).
As for DiCaprio, more power to him - he's doing something, and I hear that '11th Hour' is damn good.
Is clarifying your body energy the same as clarifying butter? I hope not. The problem with celebs prmoting something like global warming or any other serious issue is that it always looks kind of faddish. It makes global warming look less like a legitimate concern and more like the latest hollywood liberal "agenda" that needs to be promoted. It lumps global warming in with the same people who promote Scientology and Jenny Craig. I suppose I can take Leo a little more seriously then John Travolta, but not much more.
I don't agree with the notion that it is or should be somehow embarrassing for celebs to advocate for the environment. It reminds me of the conservative trope that any liberal who is not impoverished is somehow a hypocrite; to believe it is to be disempowered. If you have a high public profile or money or any other asset you wish to put to socially responsible use, you should use it without shame. If you are mature at all, you will put the cause ahead of your ego, and earn respect.
Al Gore, by the way, is not a 'polarizing figure'. The same tag is often attached to Hillary Clinton. These are intelligent, capable people who have not themselves done anything 'outrageous' to deserve that label. They don't make porn movies, they don't hunt humans for sport, they are not brainwashers and cult leaders, they don't own huge store chains that steal overtime from the workers. What makes them 'polarizing' is that they are the targets of very big SMEAR CAMPAIGNS done by people who hide behind Fox News and other well-heeled sniper platforms. There should be a word for those snipers: call them 'polarizers,' or better yet 'polarists.' If people who rape are rapists, people who polarize are polarists. Usage: "Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are notorious polarists."
Ebert reviewed it and found himself aggreeing with the movie's message/content but found it tedious and boring. He recommended instead watching An Inconvenient Truth.
There is a difference between celebrities promoting Scientology and Global Warming. The Scientologists are mildly brainwashing people (but perhaps giving spiritual/psychological meaning to some), while Global Warming advocates are deprogramming people with the truth.
Don�t worry, nature will take care of this.
Either GW will close a feed-back loop to kill the organisms responsible for the CO2 emissions, or it will not. If it does not (an admittedly unlikely scenario), there is no problem.
Even if it does, some populations will take the brunt of it, while others get off relatively lightly. If you are one of the lucky, there is no problem.
If you are one of the unlucky, past experience indicates that the lucky will find some rationalization to allow them not to worry about your fate, in which case, there is still no problem.
I suppose it is possible in an abstract way, that people will see the danger of our way of life in time to actually prevent the consequences, but I find this to be the least plausible scenario of all. For this to happen, three conditions must occur simultaneously:
1) Consequences are immediate and terrifying.
2) There is a connection between 1) above, and our way of life that even the dullest mind cannot deny.
3) This occurs in a timely fashion, while action is still useful.
The climate is a massive system, with correspondingly large time lags. By the time 1) and 2) are true, 3) will almost certainly be false. I predict the impact of prosletyzing by celebrities on this dynamic to be close enough to zero not to matter.