Billie Eilish split opinions when she shared her video with Woody Harrelson on 28th September, aptly titled ‘Our House Is On Fire’. Although that phrase was coined by Greta Thunberg, Billie’s video shares the same message; both teenagers want us to act on climate change now and are using their platforms to speak out. Although both Billie and Greta both receive criticism from the media, it is the criticism towards Billie that is perhaps a little fairer. After all, a seventeen-year-old superstar doesn’t have permission to tell us what to do… right?

Well, that’s what people on Twitter think, anyway. Many see Billie’s use of Greta’s iconic catchphrase and her quoting of facts in the video as just a lazy way to gain supporters, rather than any specific measure to stop climate change. Woody Harrelson seems to escape most of the criticism, however, which I’m going to put down to his age and his gender, especially when compared to someone as divisive as Billie Eilish. But are they really just lecturing other people whilst sitting back in their mansions? Do they actually do anything to help climate change?

Whilst I am the first to roll my eyes at celebrities endorsing a campaign to help Syrian children whilst they own billions of dollars and more Lamborghinis than I could ever count, I don’t think we should be pointing our fingers at these people. In fact, both Billie Eilish and Woody Harrelson are vegan, so their plea to “cut out meat and dairy from our diets” is a lot less hypocritical than it sounds when it comes from the mouth of an omnivorous celebrity. On a side note, Woody Harrelson was actually PETA’s Sexiest Vegan all the way back in 2012, so he’s obviously been one for several years. Billie’s 2020 tour is also aiming to be more eco-friendly, as she’s making fans bring their own refillable bottles for water, banning plastic straws and introducing a place called the “Billie Eilish Eco-Village” to each of her events. I don’t know why she thinks her screaming tweenage fans will ever go there, except maybe to be in with a chance to meet their idol, but it’s a nice gesture, at least.

So, maybe these are the wrong targets for the hoards of Twitter zombies to go for. There are plenty of celebrities out there who use their platforms to talk about themselves (thank you Kanye, very cool) and nothing else, after all. Even just the mention of climate change could be seen as a responsible and valuable use of their social media profiles. You could definitely argue that bringing issues like that to people’s attention is worth just as much as a cash injection.

But when you speak out on your platform, you speak to a wide range of people, many of them without the funds to live a completely zero-waste, eco-friendly lifestyle. The top 1% should be doing more with their own money to battle climate change. There is simply no excuse not to, when you have more than enough money to live on and yet preach to the masses about how much you worry about the polar bears. In that case, then yes- I would say that Twitter is right. An eco-friendly tour can’t cancel out the damaging effects of flying by plane, which is one of the most carbon-intensive ways to travel. A classic example of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. She might be one of the more eco-friendly stars on the planet, but I personally can’t see any examples of Eilish actually using her money to help our world.

The masses of Twitter are ultimately wrong, in my opinion, for pushing their grievances with wider celebrity culture onto Billie Eilish, but that doesn’t remove the fact that people with money are the ones who have the means to help our planet. Just telling people to be eco-friendly is not enough anymore. Celebrities can boycott companies damaging the world and convince their followers to do the same, yet they still have enough money left to live on five times over. Speaking isn’t enough. We need action, and we need powerful figures to help push through change.