Katy Perry's latest space trip on a Blue Origin rocket, first marketed as a gender equity and Earth-conscious milestone, has invited scorching criticism for its social and environmental impact. Wherein exaggerated news reports emphasized the all-woman crew and display of solidarity toward planetary protection, popular sentiment and expert commentary alike have largely focused on the hypocrisy of climate action along with space travel's carbon footprint.

Not only environmentalists were criticizing the mission, but also other public personalities and climate-aware audiences, who viewed the mission as an exhibition of climate hypocrisy. Blue Origin rockets, even though utilized liquid hydrogen and oxygen as propellants—neither of which release carbon dioxide—still release nitrogen oxides and water vapor, which are both found to heat up the atmosphere. In addition, the total infrastructure, manufacturing, and operations in space tourism are major contributors to emissions, which offset attempts to mitigate global warming.

However, aside from the environmental impact, the social consequences of celebrities' high-carbon performances have also raised eyebrows. New research by a group of social scientists, including The Conversation's Steve Westlake, indicates that public exhibitions of such behavior can deter collective climate action. Researchers discovered via focus groups, surveys, and behavior research that when public leaders are participating in wasteful high-emitting activities, it discourages the general public from participating in climate-friendly behaviors in their lives. The reason is perception—people believe that their personal sacrifices are negated when leaders don't practice what they preach, or in this case, live by example of the necessary behaviors to save the environment.

Space travel, private plane luxury travel, and high-consumption lifestyles are all typical of an excessive consumption culture fostered by celebrity excess. These behaviors have outsize impacts on social norms when they are performed by leaders or those who are heard and seen. The study points out that this behavior sends mixed messages about the gravity of the climate crisis. It also erodes the trust necessary between citizens and leadership to implement effective climate policy.

The general context of concern is underpinned in climate science to require deep energy reductions, not a transition to cleaner energy. The most energy consumers—mostly affluent people in wealthy countries—are the ones most powerful to shape the values and consumption patterns of society. Their behavior is therefore symbolic in nature. Public response to Perry's flight pointed out a typical reaction: questioning the person's necessity to act on climate when those who have the means to set an example continue with non-sustainable practice.

The effect of such incidents extends beyond pollution. It produces a social ripple effect that inhibits behavior change and policy support. Leaders, if they do not keep the consequences of their environmental decisions in mind, undermine the legitimacy of the entire climate movement. The coordination of people relies on trust, and whenever powerful people send out unclear signals, collective action is fragmented.

The research also discounts the notion that climate responsibility is present only at the systems level. It reminds us that although states and companies have a fundamental role to play, it is human actions—particularly symbolic and public actions—that create social norms. Celebrities, politicians, and business leaders provide salient positions upon which most people tend to follow. Here, backlash is indicated by the growing awareness of co-related duties and evasion from hedonistic activities contrarian to the will of the people to go for the climate targets.

Many of the citizens recognize the necessity for fairness and equitable sacrifice in mitigating climate issues. This has been evident through citizens' assemblies and other democratic platforms where individuals have been open to accepting limitation on high-carbon lifestyles if changes are spread equally. The backlash against Perry's space journey is a proof of social acceptance that such selfish indulgences, particularly when presented as environmentally friendly, are no longer tolerable socially.

Space tourism is a technological advance, but an ethical and environmental advance if measured against the backdrop of a world heating up rapidly. While the world heats up and acts of nature wreak havoc more frequently, climate leadership is all about remaining consistent in deeds and words. Political leaders as public as they are can enable or disable the movement toward sustainable ways of life.

The symbolism of Perry's flight reopened the old arguments about the role of elite behavior in climate consequence. Rather than motivating action on the climate, high-emissions, high-visibility projects have the risk of encouraging cynicism and disconnection. The findings serve to highlight that resolving the climate crisis is less a matter of innovation or spin—it is a matter of visible, collective action from all parts of society, but most especially those who have influence.

Source/Credits:
From Steve Westlake's article, published first on The Conversation. Provided by The Conversation. Credit: CC0 Public Domain