It is no secret to (most) students at Penn that something must be done about climate change. Information about the climate crisis haunts our “For You” pages, taints our conversations with friends and family, and plagues our everyday lives with an omnipresent awareness of rising tension and temperatures. As the atmospheric carbon concentration mounts, so does our sense of impending doom—until we’re left with nothing but a sickening sense of helplessness and a high level of media fatigue. At times like these, it’s easier to detach from the world. Others choose to completely numb themselves to its chaos: The choice seems to be between Adderall, Van Pelt Library, or crawling back under the covers and never coming out.
Fortunately, all hope is not lost. We still have music. Music is cathartic; it forces us to confront what we feel and reconcile with it, and as a result, it’s tremendously politically effective. When we listen to music, we are influenced by the positive or negative affect of the song, reconnect with our emotional state, and maybe even empathize with the thoughts and feelings of the artist. This vulnerability motivates us to share this feeling with others and engage with it, politically and otherwise. Music allows us to cry in the short term and act in the long run.
No one is more aware of the magic of music than artists themselves. In recent years, an increasing number of artists are using their work to spread messages about politics, and many have explicitly addressed the climate crisis. But, to what end? Are artists living up to their word, or are they merely using environmentalism as another PR campaign?
“Apocalypse pop,” a term coined by Vox in 2022, is a growing genre that attempts to describe Gen–Z panic, frequently referencing climate anxiety. Artists like Billie Eilish, Childish Gambino, and Hozier fall under this umbrella with their depictions of ordinary life in a warming world. Their respective songs “all the good girls go to hell,” “Feels Like Summer,” and “Wasteland, Baby!” are all examples of contemporary pop dealing, directly or indirectly, with the lived realities of the climate crisis. Eilish, in particular, has aligned herself with the environmentalist movement, partnering with REVERB, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization aiming to minimize touring musicians’ carbon footprint. Eilish has also founded her own environmental initiative, “Overheated,” which urges audiences to “think deeply about our place in the fight against climate change.”
All this is fine and dandy. We need musicians with their huge platforms to spread awareness and inspire change. We need musicians with their art to stir emotions, to awaken more people to the danger embedded in this fragile moment.
But awareness alone isn’t enough—we also need them to contribute to the solution. REVERB might be a great start, but the bottom line remains that the music industry is one of the most environmentally harmful sectors of the entertainment industry. Tour buses, private jets, gigantic concert venues, and extravagant stage productions exemplify why popular musicians are among the worst offenders among us when it comes to carbon emissions. It’s easy to forget that these artists are also brands; they are corporate identities in themselves. Corporations, not individuals, are known to be the main drivers behind climate change, so what right do these artists really have to lecture us on the anxieties of our time? Should they even be making their art in the first place if it comes at such a high cost?
Yes and no. Environmentally conscious music is a balancing act: We want artists to spread awareness, but we don’t want them contributing to the problem. As it stands, many “eco–friendly” artists do not dedicate enough of their platform to environmentalism to justify their immense carbon expenditures. This could be solved in one of three ways: Either they increase their output of truly environmental art, they make their practices significantly more green, or they stop pretending to be something they’re not. They don’t deserve the PR clout they get from aligning themselves with these initiatives if they’re not truly contributing to the cause.
Environmental artists are invaluable to environmental activism, and they’re often overlooked for their efforts. Musicians in particular do so much in moving the needle. But if we want temperatures to drop, we need to act now. And one thing is for sure: Advocacy at the cost of our environment is not the solution.
