Fukushima-Style Nuclear Power Plant in Washington Is a Seismic Timebomb
The landscape of eastern Washington State is deceptively tranquil: a pastiche of vineyards, farms, scrub grass, ridges and windmills. But what appears peaceful and settled in the moment has proven restive and violent over geologic time. Beneath the glacial trough of the Puget Lowland, and extending east through the Cascades to the Columbia Basin, lies a hidden landscape of geomorphic rubble—broken basalt, vast shards of continental rock, volcanic ash and layers of ancient sediment. Like a picnic blanket spread over a minefield, the Columbia Basin's flat meadows and rolling hills veil an oft-times explosive past.
Not the best place, you might think, to build a nuclear power plant. Especially a General Electric Mark II "Fukushima-style" boiling water reactor.
The Columbia Generation Station, Washington's only commercial reactor, sits inside the Department of Energy's Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a former nuclear weapons production site. Powered by a General Electric Mark II boiling water reactor, Columbia began operating in Dec. 1984. In 2009, the industry-funded Institute of Nuclear Power Operations ranked Columbia as one of the country's two reactors "most in need of improvement." Of the 75 unplanned shutdowns (or "scrams") that hobbled the U.S. commercial nuclear fleet that year, Columbia accounted for five. Even Brad Sawatzke, the plant's chief nuclear officer, conceded in an April 2011 interview that "our one Northwest nuclear reactor has the worst shutdown history in the country." But, he hastened to add, "most [of the scrams were]… associated with the turbine side of the house and not nuclear."
Today, the reactor has become the focus of a growing debate over the safety of nuclear plants built in seismic trouble spots. The problem stems from the fact that the seismic studies available to the Washington State Public Power System engineers who designed the reactor only ran from 1974 to 1981, and new faults have been discovered since then.
When the atomic plant was still on the drawing boards, there were only two known historic earthquakes that drew concern. In 1872, a magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 quake rumbled through the Cascades, sending massive landslides tumbling into the Columbia River. In 1936, a window-cracking magnitude 5.7 to 6.1 quake opened 200-foot-long fissures in the Walla Walla Valley along the Washington-Oregon border.
After pro-reactor advocates conspired to "locate" the epicenter of the 1872 quake in the North Cascades (180 miles from the proposed Columbia site), the state's engineers only needed to focus on potential impacts of the smaller 1936 quake, whose epicenter was 55 miles southeast of the Hanford Site. This convenient relocation of risk enabled the Nuclear Regulator Commission to green-light the reactor's construction.
In wasn't until after the 1,170MW reactor went operational in 1984 that scientists began to discover that Washington's seemingly placid landscape masked a troubling and rambunctious past. Initially, geologists thought the state's earthquakes were largely confined to the sea-facing portion of Washington, west of the Cascades. They believed the faults beneath the inland ridges of the Columbia Basin were "uncoupled"—short, shallow and unconnected fractures that posed little risk. We now know that much of the Hanford Reservation is transected by several significant faults.
Geologist Bill Bakun offered a dire assessment of Central Washington: "It’s all riddled with faults," he said. "It wouldn’t surprise me to have a magnitude 6.8 quake anywhere in that region, including near Hanford." In 2002, Bakun and several colleagues uncovered evidence that located the 1872 quake's epicenter at the southern end of Lake Chelan, a mere 99 miles from the Columbia plant. Bakun set the quake's magnitude at 6.8—with a margin of error ranging from 6.5 to 7. (Other seismologists rate the quake at magnitude 7.4.)
The Lake Chelan quake rocked at least 151,000 square miles and may have been felt as far north as Alaska. Had the Columbia energy station existed when the quake occurred, it most likely would have sustained moderate to severe damage.
Energy Northwest (as Washington State Public Power System is now known) insists that its reactor—built to withstand a "very strong" to "severe" 6.5 magnitude quake—could handle a "violent" 6.9 magnitude event "based on conservative practices in design, manufacturing, fabrication and installation, plant structures, systems and components." But dealing with a magnitude 7.4 quake—nearly eight times more powerful than a 6.9 quake—would be a different matter.
In 2009, a swarm of more than 1,000 mini-quakes shook the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. While the quakes were no larger than magnitude 3.3, they struck close to the surface and produced a significant "peak ground motion." Casting a worried eye toward the Reservation's shuttered Cold War nuclear weapons facilities and its aging radioactive-waste-storage tanks, seismologist Annie Kammerer observed: "Frankly, it is not a good story for us. The plants were more vulnerable than they realized."
In 2013, the Washington and Oregon chapters of Physicians for Social Responsibility hired geologist Terry L. Tolan to review the available seismic research. Tolan's study confirmed that when Columbia was designed, geologists were only aware of six faults. We now know the region is crossed by 12 major faults. Furthermore, these faults are more numerous, much longer, far deeper and potentially more destructive than previously believed, with the potential to rattle the reactor with forces double those the plant was designed to survive. USGS studies published in 2009 and 2011 revealed that two active faults actually bracket the reactor site, with one running approximately 6.5 miles to the north and another just 2.3 miles south of the nuclear core.
The Yakima Fold and Thrust Belt, which extends east of the Cascade Range to the Hanford site, is now known to be far more seismically active and interconnected than once believed. In the mid-2000s, the USGS discovered that the belt had produced at least seven magnitude-7 earthquakes with ground motions exceeding the Columbia reactor's design limits.
The region's most dangerous surface fault is believed to be the South Whidbey Island Fault. Unlike most faults which parallel coastlines and mountain ranges, the Whidbey fault crosses through the Cascade Range, reaching as far as the Tri-Cities in southeast Washington. The South Whidbey Island Fault is composed of a complex band of fractures, with a greater fault track running 200 miles from Vancouver Island to the Cascade foothills. Geologists have found evidence of four major quakes along the fault during the past 16,000 years.
The Seattle Fault—a 44-mile fracture that underlies metropolitan Seattle—now is understood to be part of the South Whidbey Island Fault. Together, they form a system that extends across the Cascade Range to the Hanford Reservation. A 2011 USGS report traced the Umtanum Ridge fault through the Cascades and linked it with the Seattle and South Whidbey Island Fault fracture zones in the Puget Sound area, nearly doubling its length—from around 77 miles to 124 miles.
"The faults don't just end in Puget Sound," USGS research geophysicist Richard Blakely notes. "Our hypothesis is that many big faults in eastern Washington go through the Cascades." Blakely's research suggests that the active faults west of the Cascades actually extend 250 to 300 miles from the Olympic Peninsula and through the Cascade Range, where they merge with the basalt formations of Eastern Washington, at least as far as Pasco—a town located about 20 miles southeast of the Columbia reactor.
As the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory noted in a 2012 report, larger faults can produce more slippage, which can generate larger quakes and more intense ground motion. "If you have a fault system that's 300 kilometers long and you rupture half or a third of it, that's a big earthquake," says USGS geologist Brian Sherrod. "That's a magnitude 7.5."
Contrary to long-held opinion, the "shallow" faults beneath central Washington were found to extend more than 12 miles below the surface. "The faults that formed the ridges are much more dangerous than anyone realized," Sherrod says. "It's a fundamental rethinking of the seismic risk."
A Geological "Train Wreck"
Even without an earthquake, the Pacific Northwest is in constant motion, moving about a half-inch per year. And, with every creeping millimeter of movement, the pressures continue to mount. It is estimated that since 1700, the Northwest coast has moved more than 25 feet closer to Japan. As USGS scientist Ray Wells puts it: "It's a train wreck on a geological scale."
If it is a train wreck, then the "locomotive" is the Pacific Plate, which continues to chug implacably northward at a rate of two inches per year, pulling much of California along for the ride. Rotating under strain and pushed northward, Oregon presses into Washington. But Washington's northward progress is blocked by the unyielding bedrock beneath British Columbia. Pushed from the south and blocked by the north, Wells explains, the Evergreen State "crumples like a line of box cars slamming into a mountain."
"The Puget Lowlands are being compressed by about a quarter of an inch a year," Wells says. "That adds up to more than 20 feet of crunch since the last time the Seattle Fault fired off ... Inexorably, the pressure is accumulating, loading the Seattle Fault and its associates like springs. The squeeze on the Puget Sound region is enough to produce a magnitude 7 quake every 500 years."
Planning for the "Expected"—Not the "Unexpected"
The Columbia nuclear energy plant was not designed to survive a specific magnitude earthquake. Instead, the facility was designed to shrug off a hypothetical "Safe Shutdown Earthquake" with a ground motion of 0.25g (i.e., one-fourth the force of gravity).
As the NRC explains, when a Safe Shutdown Earthquark strikes, "all structures, systems, and components important to safety are designed to remain functional." (This standard may seem a bit wishful since it seems to presume there will never be such a thing as an "Unsafe Shutdown Earthquake.")
The newly discovered faults notwithstanding, Columbia's ancient Mark II reactor just isn't as safe as its operators proclaim. As Princeton University physicist and former White House national security advisor Frank N. von Hippel told The Los Angeles Times: "These first-generation boiling-water reactors have the least margin of safety of any reactor design."
In 2011, during the Columbia’s relicensing process, the NRC expressed concern that Energy Northwest was still relying on seismic studies from 1994. Despite protests from citizen's watchdog groups (understandably alarmed by the spectacle of three similar GE reactors reduced to radioactive rubble by the Fukushima quake and tsunami), the license-renewal process remained on track.
In April 2011, a coalition of Northwest public interest groups petitioned the NRC to put the Columbia Generating Station's relicensing application on hold pending an assessment of the new seismic findings. The NRC rejected the petition, claiming that it raised "issues that are outside the narrow scope of the NRC's safety review for license renewal." According to the NRC, the only issues of concern during the relicensing process are those "limited to managing the effects of aging on certain passive structures, systems and components." Seismic reviews are part of "the ongoing regulatory oversight process."
Energy Northwest continues to insist there is no significant danger associated with operating a power plant that has undertaken no structural seismic safety improvements for nearly 30 years. A former Columbia employee (who requested anonymity) believes it would be "virtually impossible to upgrade the foundation to meet the standards that we now know the plant should have." Moreover, the former employee confided: "it would be impossible to upgrade the piping."
In 2012, the NRC announced that, as part of the NRC's "Post-Fukushima Daiichi Lessons Learned" response, a nationwide "update to the seismic hazards assessment is in progress." The review and recommendations are to be provided by the plant operators themselves and are not due until March 2015. When nuclear watchdogs asked why the NRC was prepared to wait four years before assessing the Columbia plant’s potential Fukushima problem, the NRC's Lara Uselding explained there was no cause for public concern since "the NRC knows of no significant changes to possible seismic hazards of the region."
It's not as if the NRC doesn't realized the dangers. In an email to colleagues four days after the Fukushima quake, Brian Sheron, head of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, referenced some of the alarming findings about new fault hazards in Central and Eastern Washington. This data, Sheron wrote, demonstrated the NRC "didn't know everything about seismicity…. And isn't there a prediction threat the West Coast is likely to get hit with some huge earthquake in the next 30 years or so? Yet we relicense their [nuclear] plants."
These concerns notwithstanding, on May 22, 2012, the NRC relicensed the nearly 30-year-old reactor to continue operating for another 30 years. The decision came at the same time TV screens were broadcasting images of Fukushima's three smoldering GE reactors.
Fukushima's "Lessons Learned" but Not Applied
Anti-nuclear activists in Japan had repeatedly warned of the specific dangers posed by Fukushima's GE-built reactors. Their complaints eerily foreshadowed the very problems that prompted concerns about the Columbia plant. AiIeen Mioko-Smith, director of Green Action, Japan's leading anti-nuclear organization, noted that the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) was "operating on 1978 earthquake-resistant guidelines" and company officials had ignored recent studies revealing greater-than-imagined seismic dangers. TEPCO's analysis of the earthquake risk was "unscientific and grossly underestimated," Mioko-Smith charged. "The study's main technique considered fault lines as short and separate threats when they were clearly parts of a much larger system."
Unfortunately, the risks posed by the radiation that continues to spill from the damaged Fukushima reactors appears not to have prompted an "excess of caution" from officials at the NRC or Energy Northwest. In Oct. 2013, Dave Swank, Energy Northwest's vice president of engineering, assured the media: "I don't have any concerns." Echoing the NRC, Swank explained there was no cause for alarm because the "odds" of a major quake were low. Swank also quoted from a letter NRC chief Allison Macfarlane's sent to Physicians for Social Responsibility. In her letter, Macfarlane maintained: "the NRC continues to conclude that CGS has been designed, built and operated to safely withstand earthquakes likely to occur in its region."
Macfarlane's stance on Columbia seems out-of-sync with the NRC's concerns for the rest of the country. As The New York Times recently reported, operators at 24 nuclear power sites in the central and eastern U.S. have informed the NRC they could no longer guarantee their facilities could withstand the greater quake risks predicted by newly updated seismic studies: "The new earthquake threat was larger than what they were designed to face."
After a six-month investigation, Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission concluded the disaster "was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO." The official report also confirmed that at least one of the reactors had succumbed to the forces of the earthquake, not to the floodwaters.
Despite the warnings from Japan, the NRC continues to insist "the newest seismic data suggest that, although the potential seismic hazard at some nuclear power plants … may have increased beyond previous estimates, all operating nuclear plants remain safe with no need for immediate action."
Japan's 660-page Fukushima investigation concluded that the crisis was a "profoundly man-made disaster that could and should have been foreseen and prevented."
Let's hope this is never said about the Columbia Generating Station.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
By Brian Bienkowski
Fish exposed to endocrine-disrupting compounds pass on health problems to future generations, including deformities, reduced survival, and reproductive problems, according to a new study.
Low Levels Lead to Generational Impacts<p>Researchers exposed inland silverside fish to bifenthrin, levonorgestrel, ethinylestradiol, and trenbolone to levels currently found in waterways.</p><p>"Our concentrations were actually on the low end" of what is found in the wild, DeCourten said, adding that it was low amounts of chemicals in parts per trillion.</p><p>Bifenthrin is a pesticide; levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol are synthetic hormones used in birth controls; and trenbolone is a synthetic steroid often given to cattle to bulk them up.</p><p>Such endocrine-disruptors have already been linked to a variety of health problems in directly exposed fish including altered growth, reduced survival, lowered egg production, skewed sex ratios, and negative impacts to immune systems. But what remains less clear is how the exposure may impact future generations.</p><p>For their study, DeCourten and colleagues started the exposure when the fish were embryos and continued it for 21 days.</p><p>They then tracked effects on the exposed fish, and the next two generations.</p>
Inherited Problems<p>DeCourten said the altered DNA methylation is one of the plausible ways that future generations would experience health impacts from previous generations' exposure. Hormone-disrupting compounds have been shown to impact DNA methylation, which is an important marker of how an organism will develop.</p><p>"Methyl groups are added to specific sites on the genome, [the exposure] is not changing the genome itself, but rather how the genome is expressed," she said. "And that can be inherited throughout generations."</p><p>In addition, Brander said there are essentially different "tags" that exist on DNA molecules, which tell genes how to turn on and off. She said the exposure to different compounds may be "influencing which methyl tags get taken on or off as you proceed through generations."</p><p>The researchers said the study should prompt future toxics testing to consider impacts on future generations.</p><p>"The results … throw a wrench in the current approach to regulating chemicals, where it's often short-term testing looking at simple things like growth, survival, and maybe gene expression," Brander said.</p><p>"These findings are telling us we really at least need to consider" the next two generations, she added.</p>
- Alarming Levels of Cancer-Causing Chemicals Found in Columbia ... ›
- Microplastics Are Killing Baby Fish, New Study Finds - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern Wins Historic Victory Following Science-Based Leadership on COVID and Climate
- New Zealand's Ardern Pledges 100% Renewable Energy by 2030 if ... ›
- New Zealand Plans to Require Climate Risk Reporting - EcoWatch ›
- New Zealand Will Consider Climate Crisis in All Major Policy ... ›
Poor eating habits, lack of exercise, genetics, and a bunch of other things are known to be behind excessive weight gain. But, did you know that how much sleep you get each night can also determine how much weight you gain or lose?
By Laura Beil
Consumers have long turned to vitamins and herbs to try to protect themselves from disease. This pandemic is no different — especially with headlines that scream "This supplement could save you from coronavirus."
Vitamin D<p><strong>What it is: </strong>Called "the sunshine vitamin" because the body makes it naturally in the presence of ultraviolet light, <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/vitamin-d-supplements-lose-luster" target="_blank">Vitamin D is one of the most heavily studied</a> supplements (<em>SN: 1/27/19</em>). <a href="https://health.gov/our-work/food-nutrition/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines/guidelines/appendix-12/" target="_blank">Certain foods</a>, including fish and fortified milk products, are also high in the vitamin.</p><p><strong>Why it might help: </strong>Vitamin D is a hormone building block that helps strengthen the immune system.</p><p><strong>How it works for other infections:</strong> In 2017, the <em>British Medical Journal</em> published a meta-analysis that suggested a daily vitamin D supplement <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583" target="_blank">might help prevent respiratory infections</a>, particularly in people who are deficient in the vitamin.</p><p>But one key word here is <em>deficient. </em>That risk is highest during dark winters at high latitudes and among people with more color in their skin (melanin, a pigment that's higher in darker skin, inhibits the production of vitamin D).</p><p>"If you have enough vitamin D in your body, the evidence doesn't stack up to say that giving you more will make a real difference," says Susan Lanham-New, head of the Nutritional Sciences Department at the University of Surrey in England.</p><p>And taking too much can create new health problems, stressing certain internal organs and leading to a dangerously high calcium buildup in the blood. The recommended daily allowance for adults is 600 to 800 International Units per day, and the upper limit is considered to be 4,000 IUs per day.</p><p><strong>What we know about Vitamin D and COVID-19:</strong> Few studies have looked directly at whether vitamin D makes a difference in COVID.</p>
Zinc<p><strong>What it is: </strong>Zinc, a mineral found in cells all over the body, is found naturally in certain meats, beans and oysters.</p><p><strong>Why it might help: </strong>It plays several supportive roles in the immune system, which is why zinc lozenges are always hot sellers in cold and flu season. Zinc also helps with cell division and growth.</p><p><strong>How it works for other infections: </strong><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457799/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Studies of using zinc for colds</a> — which are frequently caused by coronaviruses — suggest that using a supplement right after symptoms start might make them go away quicker. That said, a clinical trial from researchers in Finland and the United Kingdom, published in January in <em>BMJ Open</em> <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/1/e031662" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">did not find any value for zinc lozenges</a> for the treatment of colds. Some researchers have theorized that inconsistencies in data for colds may be explained by varying amounts of zinc released in different lozenges.</p><p><strong>What we know about zinc and COVID-19:</strong> The mineral is promising enough that it was added to some early studies of hydroxychloroquine, a drug tested early in the pandemic. (Studies have since shown that <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-19-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-no-evidence-treatment" target="_blank">hydroxychloroquine can't prevent or treat COVID-19</a> (<em>SN: 8/2/20</em>).)</p>
Vitamin C<p><strong>What it is: </strong>Also called L-ascorbic acid, vitamin C has a long list of roles in the body. It's found naturally in fruits and vegetables, especially citrus, peppers and tomatoes.</p><p><strong>Why it might help:</strong> It's a potent antioxidant that's important for a healthy immune system and preventing inflammation.</p><p><strong>How it works for other infections: </strong>Thomas cautions that the data on vitamin C are often contradictory. One review from Chinese researchers, published in February in the <em>Journal of Medical Virolog</em>y, looked at <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25707" target="_blank">what is already known about vitamin C</a> and other supplements that might have a role in COVID-19 treatment. Among other encouraging signs, human studies find a lower incidence of pneumonia among people taking vitamin C, "suggesting that vitamin C might prevent the susceptibility to lower respiratory tract infections under certain conditions."</p><p>But for preventing colds, a 2013 Cochrane review of 29 studies <a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4/full" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">didn't support the idea</a> that vitamin C supplements could help in the general population. However, the authors wrote, given that vitamin C is cheap and safe, "it may be worthwhile for common cold patients to test on an individual basis whether therapeutic vitamin C is beneficial."</p><p><strong>What we know about Vitamin C and COVID-19: </strong>About a dozen studies are under way or planned to examine whether vitamin C added to coronavirus treatment helps with symptoms or survival, including Thomas' study at the Cleveland Clinic.</p><p>In a review published online in July in <em>Nutrition</em>, researchers from KU Leuven in Belgium concluded that the <a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4/full" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">vitamin may help prevent infection</a> and tamp down the dangerous inflammatory reaction that can cause severe symptoms, based on what is known about how the nutrient works in the body.</p><p>Melissa Badowski, a pharmacist who specializes in viral infections at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy and colleague Sarah Michienzi published an extensive look at all supplements that might be useful in the coronavirus epidemic. There's <a href="https://www.drugsincontext.com/can-vitamins-and-or-supplements-provide-hope-against-coronavirus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">still not enough evidence to know whether they are helpful</a>, the pair concluded in July in <em>Drugs in Context</em>. "It's not really clear if it's going to benefit patients," Badowski says.</p><p>And while supplements are generally safe, she adds that nothing is risk free. The best way to avoid infection, she says, is still to follow the advice of epidemiologists and public health experts: "Wash your hands, wear a mask, stay six feet apart."</p>
- 7 Best Vitamins and Supplements to Combat Stress - EcoWatch ›
- The 10 Best Zinc Supplements of 2020 - EcoWatch ›
By Elliot Douglas
In early October, Britain's Prince William teamed up with conservationist David Attenborough to launch the Earthshot Prize, a new award for environmentalist innovation. The Earthshot brands itself the "most prestigious global environment prize in history."
The world-famous wildlife broadcaster and his royal sidekick appear to have played an active role in the prize's inception, and media coverage has focused largely on them as the faces of the campaign.
“Rather than a Moonshot 🌕, we need Earthshots 🌍 for this decade.” Watch Prince William’s @Tedtalks talk in full:… https://t.co/m5NCj6TQzH— The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (@The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge)1602408749.0
But the pair are only the frontmen of a much larger movement which has been in development for several years. In addition to a panel of experts who will decide on the winners, the prize's formation took advice from the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and the Jack Ma Foundation.
With more and more global attention on the climate crisis, celebrity endorsement of environmental causes has become more common. But why do environmental causes recruit famous faces for their campaigns? And what difference can it make?
'Count Me In'
"We need celebrities to reach those people who we cannot reach ourselves," says Sarah Marchildon from the United Nations Climate Change secretariat (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany.
Marchildon is a proponent of the use of celebrities to raise awareness of environmental causes. In addition to promoting a selection of climate ambassadors who represent the UN on sustainability issues, Marchildon's team has produced videos with well-known narrators from the entertainment world: among them, Morgan Freeman and Mark Ruffalo.
"We choose celebrities who have a lifestyle where they are already talking about these issues," Marchildon explains.
"Sometimes they reach out to us themselves, as David Attenborough did recently. And then they can promote the videos on their own social channels which reach more people than we do — for example, if they have 20 million followers and we have 750,000."
Environmental groups focused on their own domestic markets are also taking this approach. One Germany-based organization that uses celebrities in campaigns is the German Zero NGO. Set up in 2019, it advocates for a climate-neutral Germany by 2035.
German Zero produced a video in March 2020 introducing the campaign with "66 celebrities" that supported the campaign, among them Deutschland 83 actor Jonas Nay and former professional footballer Andre Schürrle. They solicit support as well as financial contributions from viewers.
"Count me in," they say, pointing toward the camera. "You too?"
"We are incredibly grateful for the VIPs in our videos," says German Zero spokeswoman Eva-Maria McCormack.
Assessing Success Is Complex
But quantifying the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement of campaigns is not a straightforward process.
"In order to measure effectiveness, first of all you need to define what is meant by success," says Alegria Olmedo, a researcher at the Zoology Department at the University of Oxford.
Olmedo is the author of a study looking at a range of campaigns concerning pangolin consumption, fronted by local and Western celebrities, in Vietnam and China. But she says her biggest stumbling block was knowing how to measure a campaign's success.
"You need a clear theory of change," explains Olmedo. "Have the celebrities actually helped in achieving the campaign's goals? And how do you quantify these goals? Maybe it is increased donations or higher engagement with a cause."
A popular campaign in China in recent years saw famous chefs Zhao Danian and Shu Yi pledge to abstain from cooking endangered wildlife. While the pledge achieved widespread recognition, both Olmedo and Marchildon say it's difficult to know whether it made any difference to people's actions.
"In life we see a thousand messages every day, and it is very hard to pinpoint whether one campaign has actually made a difference in people's behavior," she explains.
Awareness Is Not Enough
Many campaigns that feature celebrities focus on raising awareness rather than on concrete action — which, for researcher Olmedo, raises a further problem in identifying effectiveness.
"Reach should never be a success outcome," she says. "Many campaigns say they reached a certain number of people on social media. But there has been a lot of research that shows that simply giving people information does not mean they are actually going to remember it or act upon it."
But anecdotal evidence from campaigns may suggest reach can make an active difference.
"Our VIP video is by far the most watched on our social media channels," McCormack from German Zero says. "People respond to it very directly. A lot of volunteers of all ages heard about us through that video."
However, some marketing studies have shown that celebrity endorsement of a cause or product can distract from the issue itself, as people only remember the person, not the content of what they were saying.
Choosing the Right Celebrity
Celebrity choice is also very important. Campaigns that use famous faces are often aiming to appeal to members of the public who do not necessarily follow green issues.
For certain campaigns with clear target audiences, choosing a climate scientist or well-known environmentalist rather than a celebrity could be more appealing — Attenborough is a classic example. For others, images and videos involving cute animals may be more likely to get a message heard than attaching a famous face.
"We choose celebrities who have a lifestyle where they are already talking about these issues," says Marchildon from the UN. "You need figures with credibility."
McCormack cites the example of Katharine Hayhoe, an environmental scientist who is also an evangelical Christian. In the southern United States, Hayhoe has become a celebrity in her own right, appealing to an audience that might not normally be interested in the messages of climate scientists.
But as soon as you get a celebrity involved, campaigns also put themselves at risk of the whims of that celebrity. Prince William and younger members of the royal family have come under fire in recent years for alleged hypocrisy for their backing of environmental campaigns while simultaneously using private jets to fly around the world.
But Does It Really Work?
While environmental campaigns hope that endorsement from well-known figures can boost a campaign, there is little research to back this up.
"The biggest finding [from my study] was that we were unable to produce any evidence that shows that celebrity endorsement of environmental causes makes any difference," says Olmedo.
This will come as a blow to many campaigns that have invested time and effort into relationships with celebrity ambassadors. But for many, the personal message that many celebrities offer in videos like that produced by German Zero and campaigns like the Earthshot Prize are what counts.
The research may not prove this conclusively — but if the public believes a person they respect deeply personally cares about an important issue, they are perhaps more likely to care too.
"I personally believe in the power this can have," says Marchildon. "And if having a celebrity involved can get a single 16-year-old future leader thinking about environmentalist issues — that is enough."
Reposted with permission from DW.
- Joaquin Phoenix, Martin Sheen Arrested at Jane Fonda's Final DC ... ›
- A-List Celebs, Politicians Join John Kerry's World War Zero ... ›
- Acquaman Actor Jason Momoa Shaves His Beard to Promote ... ›