Are celebrities effective in promoting environmental causes?

Question

Which celebrities do you feel have the most credibility? Which ones have the least?

Answer 1

I think celebrities are definitely effective in helping to promote environmental causes. Their face recognition alone is a big draw. Watching a bunch of scientists, no matter how credible, take stage and "preach" the virtues of a green lifestyle, the dangers of Global Warming, or everything else in their message is just a bit too dull to really attract John Q. Public to watch long enough to start to understand the message. Celebrities already have that bit of appeal.

I think the celebrities who have shown that they are actually taking an interest in the issues have the most credibility. I have to disagree with a lot of people that are saying that musicians/actors/celebrities are part of the problem in virtue of having big houses or not having jobs that are "vital to the survival of the species" or "what have they ever done to help?...". These celebrities are trying to use their own fame to try to move the people into making change. Trying to make change isn't about only living for the survival of the species. We still want to live. A life lived solely for the survival of the species is not going to really be a fulfilling life. The number of stars flying around the world at any given time is so massively dwarfed by the general public's flying habits that people need to stop pointing fingers at others and really think about change and how their own lives can be changed. It's going to have to be alot more about individual responsibility as we aren't mandating change (at this point).

Answer 2

they can be if their credibility is not questioned. if there is any appearance that they do not 'walk the walk', or that they benefit commercially from said cause, the skeptics will pounce on that fact, and the supporters will reply in kind by defending the celebrity's actions instead of bringing attention to the cause in question (witness the endless attacks on al gore's carbon footprint.) a celebrity must have both the best of intentions and a real sense of altruism to pull this off effectively, without giving the cause a 'bad name'.

truthfully, i pay little attention to personalities of this stature, other than recognizing that they can be useful tools to help further a cause that might not get the attention it deserves from newcomers no its own. however, i am under the impression that bono does a good and consistent job with the causes he champions,.

Answer 3

I think it does some. Hollywood has influence the US for a long time. From the 1920's to the 1970's or so they influenced the US as far as smoking. Then starting around the 1990's they started influencing the US regarding vegan diets and not eating meat. And for about that long, especially recently they are promoting environmental causes.

Big eco-unfriendly house or not, I think the person that has probably brough about the most change or attention to the issue of the environment here recently is Al Gore followed probably by Arnold Schwarzinegar.

Answer 4

Celebs are typically making complete idiots of themselves. They take environmental talking points and spit them out, but they have not studied enough to answer any questions.

It is kind of like the live 8 concert the other day. You had a bunch of bands making idiots of themselves spewing things that they obviously did not understand, and the crowd who were cheering for the idiots, left so much trash behind that it showed the world that they did not care about littering, let alone the environment.

Answer 5

As a result of his brief interview on Live Earth, Ed Begley Jr. looks like he's actually walking the walk as well as talking the talk. Of course he has the money to buy all of that high cost eco friendly stuff, but thats more than I can say for the rest of those hypocrites.

Like Leo DiCaprio. He's at the high point of his career, and you aren't going to convince me he takes anything but first class air to remote movie shoots.

And in a way, all celebrities are big fat hypocrites because they make their very living at the forefront of some of the most non essential activities imaginable. Is watching movies or football games in person vital to the survival of the species? No, its the first thing people cut from their budget when money is tight.

Answer 6

Amy: you know about of course in which we'd People are
Offical is doing a Environmental Protection for an Special
Foundation with Chairity Fund Raisers where our Green Earth Organization helps as a group Volunteer yes any Actor
or Actress can share Conservation Program"

Answer 7

Celeb's could if they would get the facts. Many of them are not well educated and informed, so they do more harm than good. Many of them have homes and lifestyles that are not good examples for the environment.

I like Ed Begley because he practices what he preaches. He lives in a small house, etc. I like some of Decaprio's recommendations because they are simple and practical things anyone can do. I like celeb's that do not just preach the old conspiracy theories, and get the facts about alternative energy options and costs.

Answer 8

It's hard to imagine any celebrity would ever address the roots of our environmental problems: overpopulation and the industrial/consumerist lifestyle of the modern world.

What has any actor/singer/etc. ever done to really set themselves above "falling victim" to population control.

Where would their money come from if everyone didn't have a movie theater/record store/concert hall/etc. nearby and a car to get to it?

Answer 9

I think that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are amazing for saving those kids from the troubles of Africa. And rock stars are the worst because their concerts are filled with litter and kids drinking and chrashing cars and alot of other things.

Answer 10

It does seem to work here in Oz (esp if you are s ports star) - but best to ask a psychologist in Y!A section under Psychology or Media. :-)