On Sunday, Jan. 5, 2020, the 77th Annual Golden Globes Awards proceeded mostly as one would expect: celebrities won awards for their acting, directing, screenwriting, audio recording, costume designing or other skills in the film and television sectors of the entertainment industry. However, one major change was made that caused a lot of discussion this awards season: the food. For the first time in award show history, the Golden Globes served a completely vegan menu to every guest in attendance.
Public reactions on social media ranged from excited to contentious since the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) President Lorenzo Soria announced the all-vegan menu on Facebook the Thursday before the ceremony, 13,000 people eating vegan for one night is a good first step to addressing environmental concerns. However, it is only a first step and more steps should be taken to follow this one if celebrities or the HFPA actually want to show the public that their lives reflect the major discussions about climate change and reducing emissions that occurred on television on and following the ceremony.
Animal agriculture globally represents about 14.5% of global greenhouse emissions- a sizable portion but certainly not the only action Golden Globes attendees should be taking to ameliorate their environmental impacts. For example, according to a 2019 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, the three largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are transportation (29%), electricity (28%) and industry (22%). These are the three categories where they should make much more of an effort. For example, 13,000 people had to fly to Beverly Hills-for many, by private jet-and arrive at the Beverly Hilton in mostly individual limousines. Flying commercially or even carpooling to the site of the awards ceremony would have been a reverberating statement and released fewer nonessential transportation-related emissions.
Next, when speaking about electricity, it is no surprise that celebrities of the caliber to attend the Golden Globes consume far more than the average individual. For everyone-even some well-known celebrities-living in a modest home more realistic to their actual needs, there are the Tom Cruises, Angelina Jolies and Johnny Depps of the world who own luxury mansions, islands and chateaus devouring heating and air-conditioning, lights and electricity, even as they sit empty and relatively unused. For this reason, it’s hard to feel like eating a vegan meal for one night can really transform some celebrities into environmental activists.
Finally, perhaps one of the most obvious impacts celebrities can make falls into the industry section. Thinking about the heavy materialistic consumption we expect from celebrities, a collection of Lamborghinis, Rolex watches, Hermes bags or what-have-you,changes could certainly be made to limit overconsumption of resources, even just for the night of the Golden Globes. For example, consider how many awards shows and other black-tie events these celebrities attend every year. For each of these, most wear a completely new outfit, jewelry and accessories. Indeed, the fashion industry itself contributes to 8% of global carbon emissions, in part because of our culture where, like the Golden Globes, every major event needs a different outfit for every new photo opportunity and social media posts. Joaquin Phoenix is one of the few celebrities who commented on the wasteful nature of awards show fashion, and on Sunday, Jan. 12, 2020, he wore the same suit for the Critic’s Choice Awards that he did for the Golden Globes. If more celebrities took on this attitude, it might mean less “who wore it better” articles, but it would also result in 13,000 fewer outfits being produced and thrown away after every awards show.
Taking some of these possible actions, aside from revitalizing a commitment to fighting climate change, could have also helped celebrities fight the negative perceptions of self-importance, arrogance or otherwise being out of touch with reality which they are often accused of. Furthermore, they could perhaps encourage the 18.325 million viewers of the Golden Globes to consider a more mindful and sustainable lifestyle approach, one with more carpooling and public transportation emissions, more modest electrical use and overall just less wasteful.
Celebrities, by nature, owe a lot of their success and fame to the materialism and consumption that we expect them to flaunt, so maybe this is the reason why few of them seem able to put their lives where their mouths are and actually engage in a sustainable lifestyle. Overall then, until celebrities and the HFPA can make commitments against climate change more reflective of the means they truly have for making a difference, the burden falls on the shoulders of the common folks: children and teenagers, college students and other activists who manage to make more sustainable choices without the millions of dollars of spending power or the built-in fan base that looks to them as an example. And that’s definitely a shame when one considers the kind of power that celebrities like the Golden Globe attendees could really have if they dedicated themselves more fully to the fight against climate change, even just for one evening in Beverly Hills.
