A Better Message
I fear we’ve taken a wrong turn in the effort to raise awareness about global warming. As exemplified by the recent Live Earth concert, significant time and money is being spent to cultivate concern for the threat of climate change, with a heavy reliance on celebrities to deliver the message, but without any courage to communicate the nature of the public’s responsibility for the problem. What exactly did the Live Earth concerts accomplish, other than provide more fodder for critics of Al Gore and the environmental movement? I can’t say that I disagree with them either. Here’s what New York Times critic Alessandra Stanley had to say:
Unlike benefits for world hunger or genocide, celebrity efforts to curb the greenhouse effect backlash into the glass-house effect: People who own Escalades, private jets and McMansions shouldn’t recycle bromides at people who fail to carpool to work. Carbon-offsetting, the newly fashionable practice of compensating for one’s own carbon emissions by paying into a fund to reduce them elsewhere, may be better than nothing, but to some it sounds too much like rich men paying others to take their place in the draft during the Civil War.
Jonah Goldberg of the LA Times was equally harsh:
The avowed point of Live Earth was to … can you guess? That's right: raise awareness about global warming. Considering the energy required to put on the show, the nine Live Earth concerts doubtlessly raised more CO2 than awareness. NBC's three-hour televised version got trounced by "Cops" and "America's Funniest Home Videos." Moreover, surely most of the people who attended or tuned in already knew about global warming before they saw the video tutorial about Ed Begley Jr.'s eco-friendly home and sanctimony-powered go-cart.
The tenor of our current “awareness raising” efforts contains way too much feel-good, business-as-usual blather for an audience so set in their ways that they think flying in an airplane is using mass transit (no joke – a concert attendee who flew to the event in New Jersey claimed “it was mass transit the whole way.”). As a recent Wall Street Journal survey concerning ways to reduce the energy consumption from automobile use highlights, the American public still expects the problem to be solved for them. Three-quarters of respondents think we should increase fuel efficiency and encourage the development of alternative fuels, but only 5% support a tax on driving. I guess the performers at Live Earth were too afraid of being pelted with Starbucks cups and Ethos water bottles to suggest anything so radical as driving our cars less.
I’m certainly no marketing genius. And I recognize the fine line that any message needs to walk to avoid the eye-glazing effect that a hair shirt appeal will have on the American public. But is this the best that we can do? I’m confident that we can communicate the gravity of the situation without raising fears of a return to the Middle Ages. If we’re so intent on using celebrities, why not devise of campaign of print ads and public service announcements that highlight fundamental changes in personal lifestyles, like flying or driving less or purchasing renewable power or improving the energy efficiency of our homes? A repetitive, straight-forward campaign could have the same branding effect as the Got Milk? ads. Each successive ad would build on previous ads and the public trust in the message would grow over time. As I’ve stated before, the role of celebrities should not be to congratulate themselves for their concern for the environment but to lead by example and show how to reduce their environmental impact through gradual but meaningful steps.
A more thoughtful public campaign about climate change should produce another benefit as well: we can see our favorite aging rock stars without having to listen to them talk about how few sheets of toilet paper they use.
Photo Credit: Reuters
Comments
An excellent post. I think this website and blog are at their best when they appeal to not just the sacrifice involved in "fundamental changes in personal lifestyles", but the joy that can be had in bicycling with your family, or walking around in the neighborhood, etc. Like any good sacrifice, we need to highlight the payoffs involved (not just the "hairshirt").
Posted by: Jeff Singer | July 13, 2007 8:20 AM
The critics are too kind.
We need some serious people to take some serious leadership. Try freepublictransit dot org, the beginning of the end of autosprawl.
Posted by: socialscientist | July 15, 2007 3:12 PM
The critics are too kind. We need some serious people to take some serious leadership. Try: freepublictransit dot org.
Posted by: socialscientist | July 15, 2007 3:15 PM
I agree. My biggest problems with Mr. Gore and the celebs are one: Mr. Gore and others pushing the green energy thing have huge amounts of money invested in its use. Nothing wrong with making money, but let everyone know how much he will benefit. Two: Madonna??? Anyone see the entourage she flys around for her shows? I think its a bit ironic that all these celebs are flown in from around the world (the cost of the fuel?) for a global warming awareness thing? I personally believe we should do all we can for the environment however, I don't buy in to the global warming issue. I don't give mankind enough credit to affect a huge change on our world. Last time I heard, we were going to be devastated by Katrina type hurricanes and sunamis for the past two years. I haven't seen anything. I think nature is cyclical. Remember when we were in high school and the experts warned of the impending ice age? Lets move to alternative energy sources as much as possible but not worry so much about an issue that very well could be just a theory. Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Ron | July 25, 2007 5:40 PM