I think it's fine to suggest that we simply ignore celebrities; having ignored TV for a couple decades now I often find that I don't even recognize them and am looking clueless when someone comments about the latest escapade of someone I've never heard of.

But I think we need to be consistent then -- Grist trumpets celebrities all the time, with Top 10 Green bands listings, greenest actors/actresses features, etc.

If we don't want to worry about the hypocrisy of the stars, then let's not, agreed.  But it does seem that ignoring celebrities is a good idea all the time, not just when they are doing environmentally destructive things.

The whole cult of celebrity is bad for the environment in the first place, because it undermines everyday folks who don't have the spotlight shined on them.  The media fascination with celebrity is very functional for Madison Avenue because the very idea of celebrity (Boorstin defined it as "someone who is well known for being well known) carries with it the idea that what these people do is important to know about.  

Humans being the social-imitative animals that we have evolved to be (like all the primates), whenever any knowledge about celebrities takes up space in your head, you are also getting a dose of "here's what you should do."  Since celebrities are all-but-universally sexually attractive, young and/or powerful people, it's very difficult for us to not get an implied "imitate this" message from the celebrity cult.  It's the way we're wired.

So, yes, by all means, let's not worry about celebrities.  But that means that we should see a lot more about folks like Judy Bari and Darryl Cherney here and a lot less about Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

grist.org

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

I think where celebs can make a huge difference in terms of sustainability and animal welfare is in the fashion world, because people do look towards celebs for fashion guidance.  When celebs promote eco-friendly, sweat-shop free, and animal-friendly clothing and publicly shun fur, reptile skins, sweatshop-made clothing, and other irresponsible fashion choices, people take notice.

I read Grist because it's funny, entertaining and informative.  I don't do it to baptize myself as a certified, faithful environmentalist who condemns the rest of the world.

David is right.  Dave is always right.

Aunt Phyllis

I didn't say reading Grist was good for anything, much less the things you suggest.  I was responding to DR's question about why we needed to be consistent--and I think that the answer is because it's easier to live a life of consistency than it is to come up with lengthy rationalizations of why we should care about celebrities in some instances (when they are eschewing animal skins, or animal tested products or whatever) but not in others (when they flit about the globe in private jets, etc.)

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

The ever-excellent JMG makes an excellent point, when he says that celebrities should not be allowed to overshadow other, less celebrated but much more virtuous and impressive folks.

By way of clarification, though, Streisand and other serious performers, who are not only great artists but also have done respectable work in educating themselves in major social, political or environmental issues, such as George Clooney, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, maybe Brad Pitt (to get in some major players from "Thelma and Louise," that feminist classic; I do not know if the fine character actor Harvey Keitel has involved himself in any of these matters), his stunning bride Angelina Jolie of course (whom I find chilly as an actor, though I am looking forward to seeing her movie about Daniel Pearl), Whoopi Goldberg (my favorite person now working, bar none, and probably considered sexually attractive by very few, pace JMG), Bono (I guess; he has been criticized recently on the question of foreign aid; I never much liked his music, FWIW), Leonardo di Caprio and even Cameron Diaz, do not deserve to be dismissed simply as "celebrities," as though they were on the same level with certain overly famous celebrity-bubbleheads such as Paris Hilton.

(Highly recommended as a lesson in US history of the 1930s: "The Cradle Will Rock," directed by Tim Robbins, with Susan Sarandon as an Italian Fascist, Hank Azaria -- of "The Simpsons"! -- as the heroic playwright Marc Blitzstein, John Cusack as Nelson Rockefeller and Ruben Blades as Diego Rivera.)

(I would rather not comment on where in the spectrum of celebrities Lindsey Lohan falls, for whom, it is well known, DR has been carrying a torch for a very long time.)

DR has raised a very interesting subject, one that deserves a more nuanced discussion.  It is a fact of life that Streisand & Co. will find cameras and microphones readily available.  Some people will like that, others will automatically turn them off.  So how do we evaluate this?  Do the good and bad effects of the celebrity's speaking up cancel each other out?  Do they harden and deepen opposing views?  If the more thoughtful and industrious celebrities receive any kind of audience, then they should be encouraged.

As for hypocrisy, that is a more delicate issue.  I want to go along with DR, in ignoring the charge, but I am afraid I cannot.  Surely, flying lots and lots in jets (as Leo di Caprio has most recently been accused of doing), and living in extravagantly big houses (as Al Gore was accused of, earlier this year, and it was discussed a lot in Gristmill), may indeed be justifiable (certainly that is so in Al Gore's case).  But the accusations of hypocrisy should not be lightly waved away.  Those should be "teaching moments," with wise words on such subjects as regret and flexibility.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Cara Zia Fillida, I love DR madly, and agree with him by my calculation 97.527 percent of the time.  But no, he is not always right.

And I doubt JMG was making any kind of serious metaphysical, anthropological or ethical assertion, when he facetiously dashed off "good for the soul."

As for celebrities who involve themselves in animal welfare, in response to AMC: I wonder how well that has worked.  Paul and Linda McCartney, for example, may indeed have drawn some attention to the Canadian slaughter of harp seals, which is good, though hardly decisive.  But their well-intentioned gesture, to accept an invitation to watch videos of the horrendous fur-related slaughter of caged, terrified dogs and cats in China, drowned in boiling water, seems to have gone nowhere.  Amidst a few other issues that are embarrassing the Chinese in advance of the Beijing Olympics, this one seems entirely ignored.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

it's easier to live a life of consistency than it is to come up with lengthy rationalizations of why we should care about celebrities in some instances (when they are eschewing animal skins, or animal tested products or whatever) but not in others (when they flit about the globe in private jets, etc.)

Pretty easy to come up with the rationalization, actually. In the former instances, celebrities are advancing causes I care about -- care about more, even, than my carefully cultivated pose of disdainful superiority vis-a-vis pop culture. In the latter instances, they're not. See? Easy!

grist.org

Celebrities live the American life on steroids.  It is only natural that their exposure to hypocrisy would be that much greater than each of our own.  On a worldwide scale of living standards, each of us is living like royalty, even the most frugal among us.  And each of us has our own degree of hyprocrisy.  

We are all searching for a better way to live a life that will not degrade the planet, to be leavers and not takers.  We certainly don't have all the answers but we have a pretty good idea of what the goals need to be.  The same with many of these celebrities.  And, although I don't think much of the power of elites, if that power is applied wisely for the good of the planet, then we better count them as friends.  

Well the two main progressive/populist/liberal folks of out age, Gore and Edwards, certainly didn't do much good. Before you pop off, I am exactly that far left of center.  It's just that these two "celebs" screwed up explaining the environment for at least 10 years, a feat only a Republican could desire to achieve.  

Oh, they're both selling off insurance, mines, McMansions, and all kinds of stuff to go legit.  What a bunch of fakery and lies.  

Who cares about Barbara S, Gore and Edwards were supposed to lead us through the Global Warming changes.  Barbara didn't fail us any more than Mick Jaeger did.  

Onward through the fog

eh?

The learners didn't learn so the teachers must have sucked, eh?  By your argument, Rush Limbaugh is better than Al Gore because more people listen to Rush . . .

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

In certain circumstances, it should be pointed out, the activity of sucking can be quite pleasurable, for both the suckER and the suckEE; and the conduct of the one who is sucking, the suckER, deserves neither to be condemned, nor to be criticized (unless his teeth are getting in the way, or if he/she breaks off too soon), nor to be mocked.  It is odd, unexpected and unfortunate that the verb "to suck" should have come to mean, at this curious state of the English language, something like "to be very bad, which we can all happily and self-righteously and self-congratulatorily join in stomping on."

Evangelical Christians make a great deal of how our personal salvation depends on our recognizing this man/god, Jesus of Nazareth, as our personal "Saviour."  Well, that is not altogether without merit, within general Christian discourse, though it is theologically pretty piss-poor.

One wonders what those Evangelical Christians do, come Christmas-card-writing time, December before the 25th, the time which Catholics call not Christmas but Advent, with all those Italian Renaissance images of that bare baby sucking away at that Jewish woman's exposed tit.

One wonders also if those Evangelical Christians have any understanding whatsoever, that way back in the Triassic Period of the Mesozoic Era, baby mammal-like synapsid reptiles were already sucking happily away at their warm-blooded mammy's tits.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

I find Grist refreshing and entertaining, from time to time, and I do get the point Dave is trying to make here. I'm not going to start flying in a private jet just because celebrities I don't give a damn about do - in fact, if anything, it inspires me to do the opposite. But the fact is, I find Grist's adoration of celebrities, frankly, pathetic.

I don't give a shit about Streisand's entourage

Well, that's not what you'd say if you were mentioning her on your stupid Grist List. Yes, you should be consistent. Either every action of celebrities should be followed, or they should be ignored. But this hero-worshipping and foot-licking is disgusting.

I no longer find Grist refreshing, with the same tired old jokes, and I no longer find it particularly entertaining. It's not a place where rational people can discuss; and if what the Radar article quotes as your response to them is a literal quote, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

All that this article has done is make me agree with something said by jabailo. So that's what Grist has come to. I don't know if I'll be back.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

This is same crowd that

shouts for the death penalty for drug dealers (yet are addicted to painkillers)
preaches about protecting the children (while trying to diddle a few they seduce on Myspace)
waxes poetic about family values (while cheating on their wives)
hates gays (while working their side jobs as male prostitutes)
screeches about Mexican immigrants (yet hires them as maids and nannies)