Steve Westlake, University of Bath

What’s not to like about an all-female celebrity crew riding a rocket into space? Quite a lot, as it turns out.

Katy Perry and her companions were initially portrayed in the media as breaking down gender barriers. On their return to Earth, the team enthused about protecting the planet and blazing a trail for others. Perry even sang What a Wonderful World during the flight, and kissed the ground on exiting the spacecraft.

But the backlash was swift. Fellow celebrities piled in to highlight the “hypocrisy” of such an energy-intensive endeavour from a former Unicef climate champion. Evidence was quickly presented to dispute the pollution-free claims of the Blue Origin rocket, which is fuelled by oxygen and hydrogen. (In fact, the water vapour and nitrogen oxide emissions it creates add to global heating, on top of the emissions from the programme as a whole.)

But it’s the negative social effects of this kind of display from celebrities (of any gender) that our research sheds light on. I’m part of a team of social scientists researching the powerful effects of politicians, business leaders and celebrities who lead by example on climate change – or don’t.

Social kickback

Space tourism, and other energy-intensive activities by people in the public eye, such as using helicopters and private jets, have a much wider knock-on effect than the direct damage to the climate caused by the activity itself.

We carried out focus groups with members of the public to understand their reactions to the high-carbon behaviour of leaders in politics, culture and business. We also conducted experiments and surveys to test the effects of leaders “walking the talk” on climate change. We found that observing unnecessary high-carbon behaviour demotivates people and reduces the sense of collective effort that is essential for a successful societal response to climate change.

Solving climate change and other environmental crises requires fundamental changes to economies, societies and lifestyles according to climate science. Using much less energy, not just different kinds of energy, can play a big part in halting the damage. And it is the wealthiest people in the richest countries who use the most energy and set the standards and aspirations for the rest of society. That’s why the Blue Origin dream (of space exploration for the unfathomably wealthy) is a nightmare for the climate because it perpetuates an unsustainable culture.

Our findings reveal that when people see public figures behaving like this, they are less willing to make changes to their own lives. “Why should I do my bit for the climate when these celebrities are doing the opposite?” is the question people repeatedly asked in our research.

Many of the changes to behaviour necessary to tackle climate change will require people to accept trade-offs and embrace alternative ways of living. This includes using heat pumps instead of gas boilers, trading in large, fossil-fuelled vehicles (or even avoiding cars altogether) and forgoing flights – because there is no way to decarbonise long-distance flights in time.

When celebrities (or politicians and business leaders, for that matter) ignore the environmental damage of their choices, it sends a powerful signal that they are not really serious about addressing climate change.

Not only does this undermine people’s motivation to make changes, it reduces the credibility of leaders. That in turn makes coordinated climate action less likely, because shifting to a low-carbon society will require public trust in leadership and a sense of collective effort.

Individual choices matter

The widespread aversion to Perry’s space flight contradicts the popular argument that tackling the climate crisis “is not about individual behaviour”.

On the contrary, the response shows that these actions from celebrities and other leaders have much greater symbolic meaning than is captured by the idea of an “individual choice”. People are highly attuned to the behaviour of others because it signals and reinforces the values, morals and norms of our society. As such, few if any choices are truly “individual”.

This message of collective responsibility is one our current economic and political system works hard to suppress by championing unlimited freedom to consume, while ignoring the loss of freedom that such behaviour causes: freedom to live in a stable climate, freedom from pollution, freedom from extreme weather, freedom for future generations.

In fact, research reveals that most people understand the interconnectedness of society and the need for a coordinated response to the climate crisis. Climate assemblies, which convene ordinary citizens to discuss and deliberate a course of climate action, have revealed a willingness to curtail some activities in a fair way.

When it comes to preserving a liveable planet and a stable climate, most people know that space tourism and ultra-high-carbon living are off the agenda. Celebrities have a positive role to play in leading by example. It’s not rocket science.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Steve Westlake, Lecturer, Environmental Psychology, University of Bath

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.