127
Billie Eilish on how she's making touring less terrible for the planet
(www.nationalgeographic.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
127 points (92.6% liked)
Climate
8599 readers
451 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is all little stuff. The smallest part of the problem.
It's a drop in the bucket compared to water used in desert farming, or energy used in concrete production, or a few dozen other things.
Is it bad to do? No of course not. It'd be great when we're working on cutting the long tail, a few hundredths of a percent at a time. But we still have big major polluters that have an impact on whole percentages of the problem.
Encouraging your fans to use public transit to get to your concert, shouldn't even be a thing. It should be the automatic default for people. The fact that she's even doing it at all, only shows that haven't made a lot of progress on a larger problem.
Like I said this is fine to do. But the article it's self strikes me as some green washing. I only skimmed it quickly, but I didn't see anything about what Billie is doing differently in her own travel, or more importantly that of whole production and crew.
Sure, there are bigger things, but there will always be bigger things. Someone, especially someone with a large audience, coming out and saying that this is important to them is the important part. That's how you begin a movement.
Naysayers pointing out how one thing isn't going to make a difference is part of how capitalism works; it persists by convincing everyone that there is no point in resisting, that nothing will ever make a difference. But she and others aren't doing this because it's going to change everything, they're doing it because they should, and it's part of the world we want. It starts with a few people, and then spreads to everyone else. I myself have managed to convince a non-zero number of people to change their ways just like this. You just have to be persistent, and have a little faith.
I realized I didn't give examples of things I've convinced people of, so I figured I'd elaborate--sorry for the comment length; I'm not trying to pile on you, just hoping to inspire others!
There aren't always bigger things. There's always one at the top. That's where changes can have the biggest impact. And where peoples focus needs to be.
"What's your carbon footprint?" was a marketing slogan from the big oil companies to steer the environmental movement away from them (where substantive change was possible) onto everyone else, so they could dodge responsibility. It worked remarkably well. You still thinking that way is testimony to the fact.
You and I, though, have virtually no say in what goes on at the top, and realistically, we never will. So I don't really see why giving up work elsewhere would accomplish anything. Which isn't to say that we can't do two things at once, of course--you and I can both push for legislation against large industrial polluters, and we both should. Where I take exception to that is in saying that others also shouldn't take action in their own way as well.
It assumes that work on climate change is a very zero-sum game, in that focusing on one type of behavior eliminates work on any other sort of behavior, and that's simply not the case. We can do many things at once. It also helps to build a community that has buy-in from each of its members about how things should be--sustainable and regenerative, instead of exploitative (whether of people, things, the Earth, etc), so that the larger things follow suit. This normalizes the behavior and practices and moves the Overton window away from what the big players are doing.
Thanks for the reminder about the carbon footprint slogan. I don't think it's wrong in itself, however, it's just that it was co-opted to remove pressure from Big Oil instead of being used in tandem with the movement against them.
People going to a concert are not in your whole points.
Maybe instead, she uses her voice, the thing she's known for to discuss how the rich are fucking everyone.
What?
I can't tell what you're trying to say
I can see how that's confusing. Percentage points I mean
And to clarify, I wasn't trying to throw shade at you, I was trying to throw it at her. This reeks of please don't call me out like Taylor Swift
Her and her brother Finneas regularly call out the rich and make political comments. Here's a recent incident.