Some survivors may have seen a familiar face in coverage of the wildfires that tore through the Los Angeles area this month. High-profile celebrities such as Billy Crystal, Adam Brody and Leighton Meester, and Mel Gibson have had their homes and, in some cases, their livelihoods destroyed. How ordinary Angelenos, as well as the rich and famous, had their lives upended by this natural disaster has become an integral part of media coverage of the fires.
Media reports point to a number of reasons for the fires' intense destructive power, ranging from potential sources to human factors such as increased urban development. There is also a revolution in attribution science, the ability to link climate change to acute extreme weather events. In fact, a new scientific analysis from the University of California, Los Angeles released this week concludes that climate change has intensified devastating wildfires in cities. At the same time, it's unclear whether Americans are making the connection between fire devastation and climate change. A recent poll conducted by Emerson College found that a majority of respondents cited climate change as the leading cause of fires, but CNN reported that Americans' overall concern about climate change is It hasn't moved in the slightest for ten years.
While some members of the public have expressed a degree of schadenfreude about the plight of wealthy Palisades residents, overall, most celebrities have responded to the outpouring of sympathy and sometimes unconventional support. (That was former Hills star Heidi's 2010 album.) Montag rose to the top of the iTunes charts after being evacuated with her husband Spencer Pratt after the fire.
Is the focus on celebrities a very troubling distraction, or does it serve to emphasize that even great wealth and resources cannot protect us from the effects of climate change? Or? Should there be more focus on poor and marginalized victims, like the rural residents of East Tennessee and Western North Carolina who were devastated by Hurricane Helen last year? Should we be talking more about the long-term effects of these events, such as how the fires will exacerbate the ongoing water scarcity problem for all Californians?
The answer may surprise you. In fact, the current focus on celebrities and the wealthiest victims is precisely what we need to deliver the much-needed wake-up call about climate change to those who have traditionally paid less attention. It may be something that exists.
This may be the only time parasocial relationships are a force for good.
Betty Lai, an associate professor of psychology at Boston University who studies the psychological effects of natural disasters and other climate-related impacts, says there are three intertwined factors that influence people's engagement with climate change. He said there are elements. It is the existing beliefs and perceptions about the problem. Consider your own risks and emotional investments.
Lai explained that for many people, climate change is something that is happening somewhere else. “For many people, climate change feels like an abstract concept,” she told Vox. “They don't believe it's an immediate threat.”
“When you can connect with people’s experiences, it makes it feel more real and tangible.”
Who better to connect with than a celebrity with whom we already have a comfortable parasocial relationship? Lai said identifying individual victims of wildfires in this way is likely to increase public awareness of the risks associated with climate change, which should also increase people's emotional investment in the issue. said. “These are people you connect with and you understand who they are,” she said. Additionally, the close ties between Los Angeles and Hollywood, and the outsized influence Los Angeles has on both the national image and cultural heritage, make this disaster more familiar than disasters affecting other parts of California. There is no doubt that it has.
Steve Westlake, a researcher at Cardiff University who studies behavioral changes related to climate change, said large-scale events of raging hell would dissuade people from climate complacency, at least for a while. He argued that it was possible. He also said that the actions of celebrities during and after these disasters can have a huge impact on the public.
As the wildfires raged, many fans were seen deliberately spreading false rumors on social media that Swift had donated $10 million to wildfire relief.
Westlake pointed to a long-debated theory about the credibility of leadership and influential people. His recently published research found that 'visible leadership by example from politicians and celebrities will encourage British people to change their lifestyles to promote sustainability and reduce carbon emissions. It was found that motivation increased significantly.
You can imagine what would happen if you applied this theory to someone influenced by, say, Taylor Swift. In fact, her fans are aware of this to some extent. As the wildfires raged, much of it witnessed on social media, an untrue rumor was intentionally spread that Swift had donated $10 million to wildfire relief.
“If you care about climate change and you believe these people have an impact, and they clearly do have an impact,” Westlake said. “If they change their behavior, it could send a very strong signal.”
He emphasized the importance of high-profile public figures visibly reducing their carbon footprint. This shift could actually help send a message more than just talking about climate change (looking at you, Leonardo DiCaprio) or expressing sympathy for wildfire victims. On the other hand, “unless high-profile celebrities and business leaders change their behavior in the face of the climate crisis,” Westlake said. [idea] That things don't change. ”
Focusing on the long-term recovery period is critical to how we think and discuss climate change
One additional benefit of the media's current coverage of bushfires is that the inclusion of dramatic stories of some of the high-profile victims means the news cycle is not yet out of the woods. That's what I'm doing. As a result, we have a rare opportunity to see a part of the story that rarely makes the headlines: the recovery period.
Lai pointed out that attention to the disaster itself fades over time, and as attention fades, so does financial aid, attention to volunteers, and support from public assistance and social assistance programs. The longer the media focuses on the recovery, the more all that attention will translate into real and significant support. Not only that, but increased media coverage of the aftermath means the public may have a better understanding of the long-term effects of these disasters.
“There is a recognition that everyone is equally likely to be affected by disasters,” Lai said. “There's this idea that this can happen to anyone.” But it's during recovery that this idea begins to crack.
“Recovery could be easier for those with means,” Lai said. “It’s a myth that disasters affect everyone equally, because when you run out of means, it’s hard to get back on track. For example, you don’t have insurance, you don’t have recovery funds, you don’t have emergency funds for childcare. Maybe.”
Moreover, natural disasters and other climate-related disasters have mental, psychological, emotional, and even physical effects on victims. PTSD, anxiety, increased smoking, and increased drinking are all commonly observed effects, and many of these effects are felt more strongly on marginalized populations and those with limited resources than on more affluent survivors. have different impacts.
“Hearing these stories is exhausting,” Lai said. “But it is the accumulation of these stressors that puts people at risk for negative outcomes after a disaster.” Media coverage is less, but the recovery period for victims lasts for years.
Both Westlake and Lai emphasized the need for journalists to clearly label the issue. Lai observed that the research field tends to refer to these events as “man-made disasters” rather than “natural disasters.”
“Sacrifice is a bit of a dirty word in climate change,” Westlake said. “But in our culture, it really shows what we value.”
“One of the important things is to voice the problem,” Westlake said. “The problem is the consumption and burning of fossil fuels. That's the key to including it in the story, if you can. And let's make that connection.”
By identifying the key issue of fossil fuel consumption, it is hoped that there will be increased responsibility to reduce consumption among both consumers and large corporations. This is where the influence of celebrities really comes into play, he emphasized.
“Sacrifice is a bit of a dirty word in climate change,” Westlake said. “But in our culture, it really shows what we value.”
“If we're going to change our consumption experience for a stable climate, a livable planet, it doesn't seem that extreme.” If that change can happen one celebrity at a time, even if it's a small Even better, it's a step-by-step process.
“You don't have to switch off all night,” Westlake says. “It doesn't have to be perfect.”
