Please keep talking about famous wildfire victims

In the coverage of the wildfires that have torn through the Los Angeles area this month, you may have seen some familiar faces among the survivors. Prominent celebrities, including Billy Crystal, Adam Brody and Leighton Meester, and Mel Gibson, have had their houses and in some cases their sources of livelihood destroyed. How the rich and famous, in addition to regular Angelenos, have had their lives upended by this natural disaster have been an integral part of the media’s coverage of the fires.

Media coverage has pointed to a litany of reasons for the fires’ intense destructivity, ranging from its potential points of origin to manmade factors like increased urban development. There’s also been a revolution in attribution science — the ability to connect climate change to acute extreme-weather events. In fact, a new scientific analysis out of the University of California Los Angeles published this week concluded that climate change intensified the city’s devastating wildfires. At the same time, it’s unclear if Americans are making the connection between the devastation of the fires and climate change: Although a recent poll conducted by Emerson College found that a majority of respondents identified climate change as a major cause of the fires, CNN reported Americans’ overall concern about climate change hasn’t budged in decades.

Some of the public have expressed a certain amount of schadenfreude about the plight of wealthy Palisades residents, but overall, most celebrities have been met with outpourings of sympathy — as well as sometimes unconventional assistance (this is how a 2010 album from former Hills star Heidi Montag reached the top of the iTunes chart after she and husband Spencer Pratt were displaced after the fires).

Is the focus on celebrities a giant messy distraction, or does it help highlight how even enormous wealth and resources cannot shield you from the impact of climate change? Should we be focusing more on the victims who are poor and marginalized, like the rural populations of East Tennessee and Western North Carolina who were battered by Hurricane Helene last year? Should we be talking more about the long-term impacts of these events, such as, for example, how the fires will increase the ongoing problem of water scarcity for all Californians?

The answer may surprise you: In fact, the current focus on celebrities and the wealthiest victims may be exactly what we need to deliver a much-needed wake-up call about climate change to people who haven’t been paying that much attention.

Betty Lai, an associate professor of psychology at Boston College who researches the psychological impacts of natural disasters and other climate-related effects, said that there are three interlocking components that affect people’s engagement on climate change: their existing beliefs on the issue, their perceptions of their own risk, and their emotional investment.

Lai explained that for many people, climate change is something that happens somewhere else. “To many people, climate change feels like an abstract concept,” she told Vox. “They don’t believe it’s an imminent threat.”

“When you can connect to people’s experiences, it makes it feel more real, more tangible.”

Who better than to connect to than a celebrity with whom you may already have a comforting parasocial relationship? This identification with individual victims of the wildfires, Lai said, will likely increase the public’s awareness of the risk around climate change — which should also raise people’s emotional investment in the issue. “These are people that you have connected with and you understand who they are,” she said. Moreover, the close association of Los Angeles with Hollywood, and its huge influence over both our national image and our collective cultural heritage, arguably makes the devastation hit closer to home than a disaster that impacts other regions of California might.

Steve Westlake, a Cardiff University research fellow who studies behavioral shifts related to climate change, argued that a major event — like a raging inferno — can jolt people out of their climate complacency — at least for a while. He also said that the behavior of celebrities during and in the aftermath of these disasters can be hugely consequential for the public.

Westlake pointed to the long-debated theory of credibility in leadership and people with influence; his recently published research found that “visible leading by example from politicians and celebrities significantly increases the willingness of members of the UK public” to change their lifestyles to promote sustainability and reduce carbon emissions.

You can imagine what would happen if you applied that theory to someone with the influence, say, of Taylor Swift. Indeed, her fans recognize this on some level; as the wildfires raged on, many of them were spotted on social media, deliberately spreading the untrue rumor that Swift had donated $10 million to wildfire relief.

“If you care about climate change and you believe these people are influential, and clearly they are,” Westlake said, “then there is the potential there to send a very strong signal if they change their behavior.”

He emphasized the importance of prominent public figures visibly reducing their carbon footprints — a change that may do more to actually send a message than merely talking about climate change (looking at you, Leonardo DiCaprio) or expressing sympathy for victims of the wildfires. On the other hand, “if high-profile celebs and business leaders fail to change their own behavior when confronted by the climate crisis,” Westlake says, “then that cements the [idea] that things won’t change.”

One added benefit of the media’s current coverage of the wildfires is that the inclusion of the dramatic narratives of some high-profile victims means that the news cycle has yet to move away from the crisis. That, in turn, gives us a rare chance to see a part of the story that rarely makes headlines: the recovery period.

Lai pointed out that focused attention on the disaster itself fades over time, and when attention fades, so does financial aid, volunteer attention, and help from the public and social aid programs. The longer the media focus remains on the recovery, the more all of that attention converts to actual, crucial assistance. Not only that, but more media coverage of the aftermath means that the public may gain a better understanding of the long-term impacts of these disasters.

“There’s a perception that everyone has an equal chance of being affected by a disaster,” Lai said. “There’s this idea that this could happen to anyone.” It’s the recovery period, however, where the cracks in this idea begin to show.

“For those with means, recovery can be easier,” Lai said. “It’s a myth that disasters affect all people equally, because when you have fewer means, it’s harder to return to the place you were living. You might not have insurance or recovery funds, or emergency funds for childcare, for instance.”

Additionally, natural disasters and other climate-related disasters impact victims mentally, psychologically, emotionally, and even physically; PTSD, anxiety, increased smoking, and increased drinking are all commonly observed effects — and many of these effects impact marginalized people and those with limited resources differently than they do wealthier survivors.

“There is fatigue from hearing these stories,” Lai said. “But it’s the buildup of these stressors that puts people at risk for negative impacts after a disaster.” Media coverage dies down, but the recovery period will go on for years for the victims.

Both Westlake and Lai emphasized the need for journalists to be clear about naming the problem. Lai observed that there’s a push in the research field to not call these events “natural” disasters but rather “human-related disasters.”

“One of the key things is to say the problem,” Westlake said. “The problem is fossil fuel consumption and burning. That’s the key to include in stories if you can. And make that connection.”

Identifying the primary problem of fossil fuel consumption can hopefully increase the onus to cut down consumption, both among consumers and among larger entities. This, he stressed, is where celebrity influence really comes into play.

“Sacrifice is a bit of a dirty word in climate change,” Westlake said. “But in our culture, it really indicates what we value.”

“If we’re willing to change our consumptive experiences for a stable climate, a livable planet, it doesn’t seem such an extreme thing to do.” If that change can happen one celebrity at a time, so much the better — even if it’s just a small, step-by-step process.

“It doesn’t have to be switched off overnight,” Westlake said. “It doesn’t have to be perfection.”