Green Celebrity: The Earth's Best Ally or Hypocritical Nonsense?

One of the most recently popular trends in Hollywood is environmentalism. “Over the past couple years, global warming has become the fashionable cause among the bien-pensant class,” says Jeff Bercovici in the article “Green Fakers." While a handful of celebrities have been involved in the environmental movement for quite some time, many more have jumped on the proverbial bandwagon, sparking criticism that these individuals have only recently begun caring about the environment because of the cause’s popularity. Celebrity endorsement and the increased level of public awareness that has resulted from this trend, yet has also induced polarized responses from consumers and critics ranging from appreciation to outrage at perceived hypocrisy involving the celebrities’ doctrines compared to their actual lifestyles. However, although environmentalism has become a trend, the overall positive effect of celebrity publicity far outweighs the reality that celebrities promoting a green lifestyle are not always perfect in living it themselves.

When one thinks of a green celebrity, politician-cum-filmmaker Al Gore comes to mind. His Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was the first far-reaching, celebrity-driven attempt to inform the public about critical environmental issues. As a result, people worldwide were exposed to the information, and in October Gore was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Another celebrity famous for both acting ability as well as his green lifestyle is actor Leonardo DiCaprio (pictured at left on the Vanity Fair Green Issue cover), who started the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation in 1998, has made two feature-length documentaries concerning the environment, and actively works toward political and social change involving the earth. According to Erin Courtenay, “without ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and Leo’s sexy plea for environmental stewardship, a significant percentage of Americans would never have even contemplated reducing their own environmental footprint.” Voices such as Gore’s and DiCaprio’s have placed environmental concerns on the front burner and have sparked major action.

To environmentalists, action of course is the ultimate goal. Why then do some have a problem with celebrity endorsement? This viewpoint argues that celebrities do more harm than good for the environment because, in the opinion of blogger Jill in a post entitled “Green Living with Celebrities," “hypocritical celebrities and politicians are clouding the message and could be crippling to the budding ‘green-living’ movement.” According to this perspective, celebrities such as Sheryl Crow are detrimental because they give poor recommendations (Crow has suggested limiting toilet paper use to one square per sitting and wearing clothing with detachable dining sleeves instead of using napkins) and can over-saturate consumers to the point that global warming becomes an annoyance rather than a primary concern. These critics also condemn celebrities such as Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, and Al Gore (pictured at below right) because these so-called “eco-hypocrites” do not follow their own doctrines: Streisand and Clooney both travel in private jets and Gore reportedly use twenty times the national average of energy use while running his mansion. Why should we applaud these double standards? Because, while our role models are far from flawless, they are some of the best channels we have for disseminating environmental information to the public.

Today’s obsession with celebrity has allowed these public figures the media outlet through which to preach their opinions on political or social issues, and their voices oftentimes overshadow those of more qualified spokespeople. But this is not necessarily negative. “The positives are limitless,” says an article on Goodcommonsense.com. “In a culture driven by media sound bites, these individuals [celebrities] tend to have as much influence over the popular mindset as our political, religious, and otherwise leaders.” So if a fashionable pop star makes it known she lives an environmentally friendly lifestyle, that announcement will probably be much more influential in shifting consumer habits than it would be if it came from a virtually unknown research scientist. The celebrity perspective also reaches a much wider audience because it is spread across more mainstream channels. An article by Rebecca Carter puts it plainly: “We hear a lot of the same information day in and day out. But sometimes it doesn’t click until you hear it just the right way…that’s why it’s important to hear about the environment on the news, on the blogs, in the grocery store, in a magazine, and yes, even on E!” Although these may be unconventional ways to publicize such information, the bottom line is they are effective.

So while some may choose to focus on the negative aspects of celebrity spokespeople, an assessment that focuses on the bigger picture is best for the environment in the end. No one--not even a celebrity--is perfect, but the positive impact they can have far surpasses any amount of “hypocrisy."