Climate Crisis Action Day Pt. II: Thoughts on Celebrity, Consumerism and Conservation

The other day I made a passing comment about the issue of using celebrity as a face for conservation:

I have a few tough questions for the organizers of the event, mostly about the questionable choice of using celebrity to promote and give a face to conservation. It has worked for promoting purely humanitarian causes in the past, but is this movement different and should it be addressed in a different manner? Furthermore, where are the young Goodalls and Attenboroughs of the world? Surely they would be glad to step up and reach out to people instead of a polarizing, disconnected celebrity.

Since I didn't get a chance to speak with any of the organizers at length, I'd like to address this as briefly as I can, and open the floor for discussion.

First off, don't get me wrong. Celebrity support is much appreciated, just as any concerned citizen's is. Everyone should be out there calling for change, doing their part to promote science-based conservation, not only as a moral obligation, but also as a means to maintain the biological diversity and inherent integrity of the planet's ecosystems.

Jonathan "Weasel" Gilbert, the 40-year veteran DJ in the DC area, made a comment at the rally about how he is blown away by the new state of environmentalism. He never thought that being "green" could be marketable, and praised the efforts of companies to promote green products and services like 94.7, The Globe, the area's first green rock station.

How many institutions has consumerism degraded in our country? Advertising tends to reframe the original intent of ideas. No longer can we behold the late works of Mondrian without mentally referencing hair products. Led Zeppelin sells us Cadillacs instead of ideas. Mainstream films have become two-hour-long commercials.

I'm generalizing, I know, but I do wonder how much marketing and consumerism will actually affect the face of environmentalism. Will the point of it all, the philosophy, get lost in the shuffle? Does that even matter?

This is all compounded by the fact that consumerism is inextricably tied to celebrity and politics, not only in these figures promoting products or financial interests themselves, but also by their proclivity for slogans and sound bites, which become hollow and trite after a month or so (will as a renewable resource, etc.). Most celebs and politicians live in a cloister, detached from the common person. I honestly do not know how one can identify with a blue collar worker like my father when one is raking in billions every year.

At the risk of sounding like a cheeseball, I want to qualify the preceding statements: I am a proud American. I am not a naive, insipid activist who blames the media, the government and corporate America for the all of the ills of the world. Capitalism serves a vital function in our country, and more power to the business people that promote innovative, ethical products intended to improve our quality of life, not only here, but across the globe.

But living a life devoted to the conservation of resources like energy and wilderness requires a modest lifestyle, one that most celebrities and politicians cannot promote with a solid example, considering that their own lifestyle exceeds the required restrictions (or amendments, if you like that word better). Because of this, people like John Kerry and Leo DiCaprio make bad examples and easy targets for the opponents of necessary measures to curb environmental hazards. Oprah has very little ground to preach the dangers of global warming to the public and expect them to change when she maintains a small town for a home and a fleet of SUVs.

The contrary argument is something like this: If they can successfully spread the word and make conservation simultaneously important and hip, then the harm done by their hypocrisy is a trifle in comparison. The detractors, with no arguments left at their disposal, are just nitpicking.

I agree to an extent, and again, it is not my intent to brush aside the intentions and contributions of personalities that see the political gridlock and want to use their influence to get things done properly (especially the incredible response stimulated by films like An Inconvenient Truth).

But let's not forget that using personalities with obvious political and social allegiances is inescapably polarizing. If we want this to be a bipartisan movement, then cut the pro-Dem rhetoric when addressing it. If we want people to consider change, then present them with realistic, down to earth figures that are practicing what they preach. Jane Goodall, David Attenborough and Jeff Corwin immediately come to mind. I can think of 60 bloggers on a popular science website (hint, hint) that are charismatic and hip enough to provide leading examples of the attitudes and lifestyles necessary to support conservation through good science and sound humanitarian policy.

So I pose these questions: Do we need Leo DiCaprio to give a face to environmentalism and conservation, and if we do, what does that say about our conception of the American people? By accepting this as a necessary measure in today's idea market, are we underestimating the capacity of the general public to accept substantial

I will finish this little diatribe with some praise where it's due. The organizers of events like Climate Crisis Action Day deserve a lot of praise. The NGO's have been instrumental in taking action when our government seems frozen by competing interests.