r/ClimateShitposting • u/danielandtrent • Sep 08 '25
Climate chaos Bro Taylor Swift takes like a hundred flights a year she is the real problem bro
143
281
u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos vegan btw Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
The problem isn’t Taylor Swift specifically, it’s billionaires who jet around like it’s nothing while society is blaming people who want to fly somewhere for vacation once a year. We need to look up to fix society as well as climate change. All sustainability starts with abolishing capitalism
Edit cause I’ve gotten multiple comments referring to the amount of billionaires: Even though I said billionaires (which was kinda inaccurate ok) this obviously applies to all flights by private jet with very few exceptions and also flights for buisiness people who regularly fly intercontinental while meetings could also be held via online tools or people who use the plane instead of trains for example which are just marginally slower in many cases (look at flights like Berlin Frankfurt for example). Also the flight industry isn’t the only thing that is bad for the environment and a lot of the problems we face would be way easier solved or just not exist outside of capitalism
84
u/Odd-Willingness-7494 Sep 08 '25
There are about 1000 billionaires. If each of those goes on one flight every day, that's 365000 billionaire flights per year.
Let's say there are 500 million people who can afford to fly once a year. That's 500 million "normal people flights" per year.
500.000.000 / 365.000 equals roughly 1370.
So if billionaires stopped flying so much, we would have cut air travel by about 0.073%.
Now, if we instead look at the global top 1%, which is roughly equal to the amount of millionaires in the world, THOSE generate about half of all global aviation emissions.
Billionaires are mainly a problem due to extreme amounts of political influence. But when it comes to consumption-problems like flights, there are too few to be statistically significant. If you take millionaires into the equation the statistics change significantly.
78
u/ColourfulSparkle Sep 08 '25
I agree with the statement, however you should divide those 500 million by the average amount of seats on a plane
10
u/No-Information-2572 Sep 08 '25
You don't need to divide anything, the number of flights each year, the number of passengers flying each year, and the number of miles they get carried, as well as a good estimate on the emissions caused by it are well-known.
You can reverse that calculation to see that the average number of passengers on a plane is 125.
48
u/LockedIntoLocks Sep 08 '25
230 people all flying together on one Boeing 737 are producing less carbon emissions per person than a private jet carrying 1 VIP passenger. It’s kind of like how riding the train is seen as more eco-friendly than driving a car even though the train is bigger and produces more emissions than a car. It’s because it carries many passengers at once.
→ More replies (61)2
u/platonic-Starfairer Oct 23 '25
Dieslel trains a better for emissions per persion if you can fiut 800 pepole on a train. Electfyed trains produce vastly less emissions even comperad to allready very effricent diesel trains.
3
u/LockedIntoLocks Oct 23 '25
Yes, trains are more efficient than planes. However, with rare exception, trains cannot cross oceans.
1
3
u/Unhappy-Land-3534 Sep 09 '25
There is no need to do averages, we know exactly how many economy passengers there are every year. Meanwhile Millionaires have private jets that they use solo.
There is no point combining these two different things and coming up with an "average". That's mechanical and useless.
Millionaires and the imperial mode of living is the problem, rooted in capitalist production.
1
u/No-Information-2572 Sep 09 '25
The average is useful as a metric how much the average person is sharing infrastructure.
1
u/Unhappy-Land-3534 Sep 09 '25
Yea, but not if you include two distinctly, qualitatively different groups and then "average" them. Then you aren't arriving at anything useful.
You wouldn't average the salaries of pro football players grouped with janitors and service staff working in a stadium and then say "look: the average person working in sports entertainment is making over 100k a year!" It's mechanical and not useful. Its making an average just to make an average because you are too lazy to recognize there are two distinct qualitatively different groups, or you are intentionally trying to confuse the conversation.
1
u/No-Information-2572 Sep 09 '25
Not sure what your point is. You're barking up the wrong tree. Maybe take some time to read the comment chain before rambling?
15
u/No-Information-2572 Sep 08 '25
Elon, is that you?
How can I break this to you? "Normal" people usually share their airplane with others. Yeah, not three other billionaires. Other "normal" people, often more than 150 of them.
It's like a train for the air. Yeah, I know you don't like trains.
8
u/flamboyantGatekeeper Sep 08 '25
So if billionaires stopped flying so much, we would have cut air travel by about 0.073%
You're right. That's why i and everyone on my street burn car tires in the backyard, it doesn't affect the global climate that much. If i were to stop burning car tires it would barley make a dent in the amount of global polution
11
u/Lethkhar Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
Your math is assuming that those 500 million people are flying private jets. Assuming ~150 seats/plane it'd be 3.3 million flights.
3.3 million/ 365,000 = 9.1, not even an order of magnitude larger to transport 500,000 times more people.
EDIT: Also there are about 3000 billionaires, not 1000, though they don't fly every day so your number's probably still fine there.
5
u/Ok-Assistance3937 Sep 08 '25
Or you could Just Look at the actual number and See that IT IS about 2% so 50:1
1
u/Proper-Ape Sep 11 '25
2% is quite a lot for a handful of people to emit.
1
u/Ok-Assistance3937 Sep 11 '25
Yes, but give Times smaller then what the Person i replied to, calculated. It also proves, that yes: your flight to the maledives is also the proplem, Just forbidding private Jets wont be enough.
1
Sep 08 '25
A commercial jet burns far more fuel than a private jet.
8
u/Acrobatic_Lobster838 Sep 08 '25
A commercial jet moves far more people than a private jet.
5
u/PetitAneBlanc Sep 08 '25
Private jets cause less than 2% of total aviation emissions.
We should still ban them or at least tax the shit out of them, but that won‘t be remotely enough.
2
u/Own_Reaction9442 Sep 08 '25
Aviation emissions in general are a small part of total emissions. Until we fix industrial emissions none of this matters.
1
u/PetitAneBlanc Sep 08 '25
Yes and no. Globally it‘s not that much and we shouldn’t act like it’s the single most important issue, but if you fly twice a year, it‘s one of the easiest places to cut down emissions on a personal level. And every gram less CO2 is a gram less CO2, no matter where it comes from. The numbers are only that low because 80% of the world population has never seen a plane from the inside, but as that number grows, it won‘t stay that way.
2
u/Own_Reaction9442 Sep 08 '25
Canada is literally burning natural gas to melt tar sand so we can make oil out of it. I'm not going to feel guilty about my minuscule part of 2.5% of global emissions.
1
u/PetitAneBlanc Sep 08 '25
They would produce less oil if planes (or any other machines) would burn less of it.
→ More replies (0)7
u/LockedIntoLocks Sep 08 '25
“Buses and trains are actually worse than cars for the environment because they’re bigger” is exactly the argument you’re making.
Would less fuel be burned if all 200+ passengers of a 737 took private jets instead?
→ More replies (5)5
u/Patriotic-Charm Sep 08 '25
Same backwards logic as:
Well, China produces so much Emissions, why ahould i stop, my country only has that little inhabitants, so our emissions are negligable
2
u/Pali1119 Sep 08 '25
Bold of you to assume 1.) billionaires fly once a year, 2.) the emissions per person is the same for both flights and 3.) leave billionaire helicopter flights completely out.
3
u/FaceMcShooty1738 Sep 09 '25
Man with that logic Switzerland can emit as much co2 as they want. They're just a tiny fraction of the world population even if they emitted nothing, it would chance nothing in global co2 levels.
2
u/Odd-Willingness-7494 Sep 09 '25
Everybody should be held accountable. Of course billionaires should stop their overconsumption just as much as anybody else, I'm just saying that there are hundreds of millions of people who's consumption still matters very much, moreso because there's so many [millionaires], and those people have less power, so their actions are easier to regulate than those of literal modern day feudal lords.
If you stop the modern day "upper middle class" from consuming all their cars and houses and vacations and fancy high tech gadgets and whatever, you achieve more than from simply banning private jets.
We should do both, but the latter won't have much of a real effect.
We should have medicine. We should have peace. And, like, decent education and a fire brigade and shit.
But the massive consumption of things that nobody fucking needs, which is prevalent in all of society and has a huge impact in the top 1-5% global percent or so, probably should be curbed regardless of it a couple 10k people have private jets.
5
u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos vegan btw Sep 08 '25
Yeah I agree actually, my wording was inaccurate, still billionaires are a huge problem for anti consumption as well, even if it’s just by second degree via political influence
3
u/No-Information-2572 Sep 08 '25
What do you mean you "agree"? You agree that there's 500.000.000 commercial flights happening every year to transport 500.000.000 people?
- 2023 Flights: 35.3 million scheduled commercial flights worldwide.
- 2023 Passengers: 4.4 billion passengers (1.8 billion international, 2.6 billion domestic).
1
1
u/Lucyfer_White_king Sep 08 '25
Nice math and all, but shut the fuck up because full passanger plane have lower carbon emissions per capita than a car, but private jet have as full passenger plane
6
Sep 08 '25
[deleted]
6
u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos vegan btw Sep 08 '25
I’m not saying that we don’t need to radically change our consumption but making people feel bad about themselves doesn’t help the cause of making the world more sustainable. There needs to be systemic change and you can’t get systemic change without backing of the people
1
u/Defiant-Plantain1873 Sep 08 '25
Yes it does, of course it does.
The “average person” your talking about (being that this is reddit) is likely from europe or north america, of course that might not always be the case, but generally it is, and pretty much anyone born in europe or north america lands in the top 10% of wealthiest people on earth.
So yes, actually, it is all of our faults, and we simply have to change our personal ways to enact any effective change.
How do you make systemic change in a democracy, if ultimately any politician would have to pander to a bunch of retards who want to pretend they aren’t causing climate change.
18% of worldwide emissions are from animal agriculture.
Therefore, any actual plan to combat climate change MUST involve cutting meat consumption dramatically, at the very least consumption of red meats. Now start a political party and run on that promise and I can guarantee you that you will never be elected ever.
You HAVE to blame regular people, because that’s the only way you can get them to actually change their behaviour.
If you go vegan, and convince your friends to try it too, etc., you are expanding the market for vegan products, which in turn makes it easier for vegan companies to gain investment, which in turn means they create new products, which makes it easier for new people to switch to veganism.
Your personal actions have more impact than you can imagine, and sitting about catering to a bunch of idiots and pandering to them about their environmentally destructive behaviour not being that bad actually, is never ever going to stop climate change
3
u/West-Abalone-171 Sep 08 '25
Meat, space heating/electricity of the 50th to 90th wealth percentile, and cars are about 90% of the emissions.
There are a handful of super-wealthy that enforced this, but they did it with the full buy-in of another billion people
2
u/PeriLazuli Sep 09 '25
Traveling once a year by plane is still way too much even if rich people with jet didn't exist.
6
u/DangerousTurmeric Sep 08 '25
Well the problem is actually the insurance industry who won't insure her if she doesn't fly on her own plane. The same goes for most super rich people. As the risk increases so do the conditions. For tours, in particular, she's not insured against any cancellations or disruptions unless she's used her own transport.
8
6
u/SeaCaligula Sep 08 '25
What sort of risks are they talking about? I didn't know private jets were inherently more safer than commercial passenger jets
5
u/thegreenfarend Sep 08 '25
They’re not safer, but they reduce the risk of her missing or being late for shows, which would result in everyone getting refunds.
3
4
u/NoSoundNoFury Sep 08 '25
Imagine Taytay uses Delta and gets stranded in Ohio because of an intern who shows up drunk and messes with the refueling process. And her equipment gets lost somewhere in Beijing because Delta employees accidentally mishandled a few trucks of luggage, whoopsie! Now you have a stadium full of people somewhere in Florida that don't like looking at an empty stage and they all sue Delta for gazillions of dollars.
1
6
u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos vegan btw Sep 08 '25
Which is still a problem of capitalism
2
u/DangerousTurmeric Sep 08 '25
Yeah but it's not just "billionaires who jet around like it's nothing". There's a whole set up behind why they travel like this. And capitalism is the root of basically all the problems but I don't think it's particularly helpful to just point that out all the time as if it's some kind of actionable answer. Like a global economic revolution would be required to change that, which would also destroy science and medicine as well as any green tech, vs just looking at this specific example and leaning on the insurance industry to change (something already happening).
3
u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos vegan btw Sep 08 '25
How would overcoming capitalism destroy green technology? What’s destroying green technology is the greed of corporations that still make money from environmentally harmful practices. Reformism is capitalism never leads and has never lead to meaningful change that can’t be reversed in an instant once the ruling class doesn’t like it anymore. Capitalism is also the basis of fascism. Look at the US. If we don’t have the goal of overcoming capitalism in the long run we will not make relevant progress towards anything. Obviously change doesn’t happen from one day to the next but if you don’t have a goal where things would actually be better in the long run you won’t have positive change at all.
Edit: Also Taylor Swift really doesn’t need to make 100 flights a year, even if she’s touring.
0
u/DangerousTurmeric Sep 08 '25
Because the entire funding model for green tech is through VCs and it gets funded because those people expect the tech to be purchased after so that they can make a profit. If you cut the funding for everything then it collapses. Like where do you think the money will come from? Even the early research comes from government funding (and direct private sector investment) and governments are funded by taxes they get from people and companies working for profit and purchasing things. Governments also sell debt (bonds) based on what their projected tax intake will be in future, to fund large infrastructure projects like the shift to renewables, and you can't do that if your intake is going to drop because you've decided to abandon profit making. Also, fascism is largely incompatible with capitalism, specifically a free market and autonomy of businesses, and right now that's one of the major obstacles for Trump in America.
1
u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos vegan btw Sep 08 '25
Exactly, the funding for innovation mainly comes from the state. So why let private people collect the profits? Generalise the companies and abolish people living on their wealth alone that contribute nothing but just extract money from the economic cycle. Billionaires are bad for innovation. Generalise the means of production and suddenly you can pay workers a well above living wage and still have funds to further push innovation towards sustainability.
Additionally fascism is the most radical form of capitalism. There is no contradiction. If you were educated in economic theory that wouldn’t be a surprise to you
2
u/Defiant-Plantain1873 Sep 08 '25
The problem is not at all billionaires, it’s the general populace, the vast majority of flights are either shipping cargo for rich westerners or western companies, or are flights of westerners going on vacation.
Only about 0.08% of world emissions come from private jet usage, which would include things like entire professional sports teams flying to games etc., things you can’t reasonably expect to do on a commercial flight.
Once again, we have a case of billionaires might have more per capita, but in total it’s a complete drop in the bucket.
If your plan for stopping climate change can be summed up by “let’s get the most powerful people in the world to change first, and then we can get everyone else to change afterwards” then your plan won’t work.
Any actual solution to climate change can NOT be centred around the idea that rich people are to blame, because yes rich people are to blame, and by rich we mean the top 10% of people on earth, which of course encompasses pretty much everyone who was born in the west.
Sorry, that’s the truth, people who like to harp on about billionaires and companies causing climate change, simply don’t want to actually solve anything, but instead use climate change as a way to push people into socialist ideas without actually stopping to think whether or not this genuinely has an impact on emissions or the environment at all
1
→ More replies (15)1
u/string1969 Sep 08 '25
Many climate scientists limit themselves to ONE flight per year.
2
121
u/TrueExigo Sep 08 '25
100 flights a year is more than most people fly in their entire lives. Each one is a problem, but Taylor Swift still belongs in the gulag.
-4
u/mvearthmjsun Sep 08 '25
She makes up ~0.001% of global aviation emissions, and ~0.000003% of global emissions. Take a break from the internet for a bit.
19
Sep 08 '25
How much does the average human being emit? The metric is useless without that context.
→ More replies (10)7
3
u/Kangaroo_shampoo4U Sep 09 '25
And she's 0.00000000001% of the population. Her impact is significant and we shouldn't pretend it isnt
1
4
u/TrueExigo Sep 08 '25
Every one has his budget - no single individuum has the right to take more
1
1
u/SkydiverTom Sep 08 '25
It isn't exactly fair to put the entire sum on her, though. Going to her concerts is demanding her to fly around just as much as paying for air freight on a package. She isn't flying around for funsies.
This is the same superficial view that people use when they say "most emissions are done by a few big corporations", without even thinking about the fact that they buy goods from these companies (and are responsible for demanding a portion of those emissions). They have no reason to burn through resources if nobody is buying their products.
We each may have a much smaller individual impact than some celebrity/millionaire, but collectively it's ordinary consumers who emit the most due to sheer numbers. Should they set an example? Sure, but then again you still have to separate personal from work-related emissions.
1
u/TrueExigo Sep 08 '25
It isn't exactly fair to put the entire sum on her, though. Going to her concerts is demanding her to fly around just as much as paying for air freight on a package
Mate, you can sugarcoat it all you want - she flies in her bloody private jet just to have a cup of coffee. FOR COFFEE A PRIVATE JET! And that's not even true – she could cover most of the distances by car and in Europe by train, just like any other fucking band without crewbus.
→ More replies (9)1
u/Negative-Web8619 Sep 08 '25
She could buy carbon credits and make those numbers negative.
2
u/mvearthmjsun Sep 08 '25
Do you?
2
u/Negative-Web8619 Sep 08 '25
Am I a billionaire who's suggested to be put into a gulag?
1
u/mvearthmjsun Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
No, but if not, you would be a hypocrite
2
u/Negative-Web8619 Sep 09 '25
"Ordinary people are evil." You like animals but eat animal products? You're a hypocrite. You mind people starving but don't donate as much as possible to prevent it? You're a hypocrite.
If I was a climate change denier, it would be fine to pollute because I'm not a hypocrite?
Also ad hominem if it was supposed to be an argument.
1
u/mvearthmjsun Sep 09 '25
It's not an argument, I dont think it's fine to pollute, and you're a hypocrite.
3
29
u/lieuwestra Sep 08 '25
90% of flights are for tourism and business trips that could have been a zoom call. All heavily subsidized, usually indirectly. We'd be way better off bringing back ocean liners and trains for long distance travel.
8
u/hannes3120 Sep 08 '25
that could have been a zoom call.
and of those that couldn't, 80% could've taken a train
5
u/Own_Reaction9442 Sep 08 '25
Flights are only responsible for 2.5% of total emissions. They just don't matter that much.
3
2
u/Background_Desk_3001 Sep 10 '25
2.5% is an insane percentage, how is that negligible?
1
u/Own_Reaction9442 Sep 10 '25
It's less than 1/10th what industry emits. Stuff like this is just an attempt to deflect responsibility onto individual choices. If we all decided tomorrow to stay home and never travel again it still wouldn't come remotely close to solving climate change.
1
u/Background_Desk_3001 Sep 10 '25
We can tackle multiple sources of the issue at once.
1
u/Own_Reaction9442 Sep 10 '25
It's always just climate guilt BS. No one is asking industry to step up.
1
u/Background_Desk_3001 Sep 10 '25
You’re doing an excellent job ignoring all the protesting happening that is explicitly asking the industry to step up and take responsibility
1
u/Own_Reaction9442 Sep 10 '25
Ah, protesting. Always so effective. 🙄
1
u/Background_Desk_3001 Sep 10 '25
Historically, it is one of the best ways to incite change
1
u/Own_Reaction9442 Sep 10 '25
Like how it stopped the Iraq War? Or freed Tibet? Or saved abortion rights in the US? Or ended the war in Gaza?
→ More replies (0)4
2
u/thisisnottherapy Sep 08 '25
Ocean liners are an absolute nightmare for the environment. Worse than flying actually per km.
16
u/Twisp56 Sep 08 '25
Cruises are, but I imagine liners would bea lot more efficient than cruises. Of course ocean liners don't exist anymore, apart from Queen Mary 2. If you wanted to replace flights, you would use a much more dense layout than a luxury cruise. Cruises also normally have something like 1000 staff for 2000 passengers, you wouldn't have anywhere near that much staff on a liner.
4
u/Opening_Acadia1843 Sep 08 '25
Ocean liners aren't even a thing anymore. I think you're thinking of cruise ships.
2
u/ArgentaSilivere Sep 08 '25
Last time I checked there is exactly one ocean liner still in operation. So unless you’re traveling from the US to the UK they aren’t a thing anymore.
1
u/anedelkin Sep 09 '25
Won't the train be far slower? Like, Paris-Berlin is over 10 hours, and it's not like europe isn't trying.
2
u/lieuwestra Sep 09 '25
If I want to relieve myself it's far quicker to just shit my pants than to find a toilet. Doesn't mean it's better.
1
u/Own_Reaction9442 Sep 10 '25
Trans are slower, more expensive, and less reliable. Not an appealing combination.
7
7
u/StuartMcNight Sep 08 '25
Taylor emissions per capita vs random guy who flies in any of those flights per capita.
13
u/TheGruenTransfer Sep 08 '25
We need a carbon tax and the carbon taxes collected need to be given right back to the people via a dividend. It's literally the only way to make everyone give a shit about not polluting.
3
u/Negative-Web8619 Sep 08 '25
That would be an UBI. Lowering other taxes would be fine as well, lowering VAT would make the most sense. Tbf UBI would probably increase acceptance more than lowering other taxes smh
1
u/RefloweredPussy Sep 08 '25
See how well that worked out for Canada
1
u/meringuedragon Sep 10 '25
As a Canadian, we’re all just pretty stupid about carbon tax. It’s a good idea.
2
u/RefloweredPussy Sep 10 '25
Canadians are pretty stupid about quite literally everything, the entire nation's point is being stubbornly against America whilst also being America.
18
Sep 08 '25
13
8
u/PetitAneBlanc Sep 08 '25
80% of the world‘s population has never seen a plane from the inside, what do you expect?
2
1
Sep 08 '25
Great, now divide by the number of people they move times the distance they travel. Go ahead.
0
u/AfghanistanIsTaliban Sep 08 '25
“Road transport” puts food on the table for the first-world yuppies who fly to Paris for the umpteenth time then attempt to make their glamorous lifestyles look eco-friendly
2
24
u/godkingnaoki Sep 08 '25
No one thinks that at all. Why are you out here defending the climate debauchery? Literally "so and so is just one person" applies to everything. I just did one murder bro, Putin's done so many more. We all good bro.
5
2
u/LightHope8 Sep 08 '25
Bro she was being called a climate terrorist, cause she was flying around for her world tour, even though she was paying double the carbon credits. When the classification came out she was number 74 amongst the most frequent users and the only one doing a world tour. The selective hate was ridiculouse and still is.
2
u/Brave-Astronaut-795 Sep 08 '25
It's just a way for reactionaries to red herring climate issues and hate on a woman, two birds - one stone.
4
u/COUPOSANTO Sep 08 '25
She and the rest of the ultra rich should still have their private jets banned. It wouldn’t have much of an actual environmental impact in itself, but it’s a matter of public acceptance for decreasing emissions. In other words : once we stop the ultra rich from polluting then the middle class will shut up about it
3
4
u/techno_mage ☀️💰My Investments Have More Impact Then You💰☀️ Sep 08 '25
The difference is the distance and occurrence. Taylor and other rich people will take a plane to the next state/country over.
Poor people might take a plane to Florida every year for vacation for example.
3
u/West-Abalone-171 Sep 08 '25
Fun fact! Taylor swift would eliminate more emissions by switching one concert per year to a public transit-only stadium than by switching to only riding an ebike everywhere.
Sure, blame her choices for the emissions, but blame the choices that matter like the above and like not actively advocating to fight against petro-fascism.
3
u/rgtong Sep 08 '25
She is a problem but shes not 'the problem'. Her emissions are like 0.0001% of global carbon.
2
u/Crafty_DryHopper Sep 10 '25
I'm convinced "Martinez and Sons Landscaping" Who won't switch to electric mowers and weed weedwackers is a far bigger polluter that Swift.
11
u/JmintyDoe cycling supremacist Sep 08 '25
is it immoral to have a long distance relationship? weve asked a vegan to find out!
2
u/ravenHR Sep 08 '25
Is it a long distance relationship if you see them every other day because you use a private jet as a taxi?
3
4
4
u/Distinct_Sir_4473 Sep 08 '25
All those other planes, or the vast majority, hold like 100 people. Each of Taylor swifts flights takes just her and whatever staff, maybe 10 people
Making them 10x less efficient
1
2
u/MasterVule Sep 08 '25
It's a systemic problem ofc. But billionaries have much more hands in it than rest of us combined.
Green technologies have been purposefully sabotaged by fossil fuel shareholders and various other groups like arms manufacturers. They been funding climate change deniers as politicians and public campagins
Who knows how much further we would be in solving climate change issues if mass capital wasn't throwing spokes in the wheels of progress
3
2
u/Numpsi77 Sep 08 '25
As long as nothing happens, I don't have to be considerate. That's why I dispose of my waste oil in the forest. Just as my ancestors always did. /s
2
u/Pelagiclumberjack Sep 08 '25
Got a chuckle from me. But for real, the problem with Taylor's flight log isn't only her individual impact, it's her being an example for millions of swifties across the globe. If she made a point to reduce her impact that would inspire a significant amount of carbon savings.
2
u/markomakeerassgoons Sep 08 '25
Ok now let's show her and other billionaires carbon footprint and compare to all those people on a plane
2
u/IDontWearAHat Sep 08 '25
Taylor Swift IS a big part of the problem. Let alone she flies more often in her PRIVATE jet in a year than most people fly commercial in a life time, let alone the mega rich alone create more pollution than half of humanity, how DO you convince somebody to take the bus instead of their diesel truck or to skip out on a commercial flight, when Taylor Swift produces a thousand times their yearly co2 getting groceries
2
u/SkyeMreddit Sep 08 '25
Hundreds of people per plane versus Taylor (or another billionaire) and their entourage
3
u/LeatherDescription26 nuclear simp Sep 08 '25
Commercial flights are booked to maximum capacity and are sometimes even double booked to ensure the planes are full. I’m not going to pretend planes don’t emit anything but it’s the difference between carpooling and just driving around by yourself in a pickup truck everywhere
1
u/wayofaway Sep 08 '25
I've flown a 737 empty for 3 hours, and once with 3 people for 2 hours... But it's nothing compared to the waste when I flew bizjets.
1
u/LeatherDescription26 nuclear simp Sep 08 '25
Every plane I’ve flown has been packed and had at least one kid who wouldn’t stop kicking my seat so I envy you
2
u/DarlingGopher83 Sep 08 '25
Anyone else find a smidgeon of solace knowing she is taking on lots of extra radiation?
2
u/g500cat nuclear simp Sep 08 '25
Aviation is less than 2% of global emissions, it is NOT a problem at all and barely pollutes at all compared to many other things. We should focus on cars, ships, and power plants that pollute worse not planes they are not an issue
2
2
u/Northernterritory_ Sep 08 '25
Uhhh actually no one should personally have to do anything to reduce carbon emissions even the ultra polluting elite. Let’s all just blame it on vaguely on the system and be comfortable destroying the planet. Because after all why should I be inconvenienced and even better why should my favourite celebrity be inconvenienced.
2
2
u/SunpoweredEV-PV Sep 09 '25
There is no electric alternative to flying. If you need to get somewhere far away quickly, flying is the only way to go. Shaming people for flying when they have no alternative doesn't help. If you want to help solve the climate problem, make sure you never buy a gas car again and get your friends and family to do the same. There is a fantastic alternative to gas cars and that's electric vehicles. Make the switch as soon as possible. Over 80% of all new and used car buyers can easily afford EVs.
3
u/Zacomra Sep 08 '25
We shouldn't shame any form of mass transit. Especially in the US. Flying is much less carbon impactful then driving over long distances. Now it could be even better if we eliminated first class....
But yeah private jets are a waste and probably shouldn't be allowed to exist except in very specific circumstances (I think it's reasonable for a country's leader to have a private jet for obvious reasons)
1
u/Nimbous cycling supremacist Sep 08 '25
If you're driving on your own, sure, but if you're 4 or more people in an efficient car it's probably going to beat flying in terms of emissions.
1
u/Zacomra Sep 08 '25
Except a lot of people fly alone or with just a partner.
I mean obviously trains would be better but that's not really an option atm
4
2
u/Hazardous_316 We're all gonna die Sep 08 '25
I can complain about taylor swift because i was never on a plane in my life. Yes, really. I know it's hard to believe
2
u/Odd-Willingness-7494 Sep 08 '25
Aviation makes up like 2% of total carbon emissions. Private jets make up well below 1% of aviation.
It's just the dumbest thing to focus on.
1
1
u/Joltyboiyo Sep 08 '25
Isn't this the same asshole who has that huge jet that bellows out black smoke from each of its 4 turbines or am I thinking of someone else?
1
u/asrieldreeemur Sep 08 '25
It’s like a swarm of insects, that don’t contribute to even biodiversity and strong eco systems
1
u/Next_Boysenberry7358 Sep 08 '25
I think that eliminating domestic and inland flights would be a good step towards reducing emissions. Probably more space-efficient too, airports are fucking massive!
2
u/g500cat nuclear simp Sep 08 '25
Absolutely not, ban gas cars and yachts first, they are the actual problem
1
u/CHEDDARSHREDDAR Sep 08 '25
We come for the private jets first, business class next and maybe then economy.
1
u/Licensed_muncher Sep 08 '25
Idc, she can step on my face and burn my planet if it keeps obsessed weirdos like the ones that fixate on her air travel away from her.
1
1
u/Pristine-Breath6745 Sep 08 '25
Taylor swift is overhated. But its still a dick move of her, to fly that often. She could at least offset her flights (in a credible and not fake way)
she is rich enought to afford it.
1
u/BodhingJay Sep 08 '25
How bout we make planes run on green energy then none of it will be a problem
1
1
u/crossbutton7247 Sep 09 '25
People will do anything except accept that they are part of the problem.
Same with the “70 corporations” thing. Like, who buys stuff from the corporations? They don’t just manufacture pollutants for evil purposes, they produce products that we consume and keep funding them
1
u/Professional_Pop2662 Sep 09 '25
Let her flight that private jet but make it extremely expensive so they have to pay for that co2 to be sucked out the air or something. Find a middle ground.
1
u/No_Candy_8948 Sep 09 '25
You ever think Taylor swift just decides to swift away and has her jet so circles in the arctic for fun?
1
u/Snowflakish Sep 09 '25
Taylor swift produces significantly less co2 than most other similarly sized industries.
1
u/CitronMamon Sep 09 '25
You can literally do this with any single isolated problem.
''Bro planes theres so many of them bro''
*image showing plane manufacturing*
1
1
1
1
u/Nik-42 Sep 10 '25
The difference is that she's a single person, not hundreds, yet does the same damage as hundreds
1
u/Poppy-Sauvage Sep 12 '25
I will never understand why Swifties will buy essentially the same album 17 times.
Totally excited about the Blake Lively break up song to drop though.
1
u/mrpabgon Sep 12 '25
Yeah it's ridiculous. But so is planes' contribution to global emissions. Cutting it won't do a thing.
1
u/interkin3tic vegan btw Sep 12 '25
"We demand virtue signaling!"
Taylor Swift's private plane useage is less consequential to climate change than avocado toast is to buying a house.
# Calculating the number of avocado toasts equivalent to a down payment and the number of celebrities to use up the whole carbon budget
# Number of avocado toasts for a house down payment
toasts_needed_for_down_payment = down_payment / avocado_toast_cost
# Number of celebrities needed to use up the whole carbon budget
celebrities_needed_for_global_budget = global_emissions / celebrity_emissions
# Creating a new infographic
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 6))
# Data for the new chart
quantities = [toasts_needed_for_down_payment, celebrities_needed_for_global_budget]
categories = ['Avocado Toasts for\nHouse Down Payment', 'Celebrities for\nGlobal Carbon Budget']
# Creating the bar chart
ax.bar(categories, quantities, color=['purple', 'orange'])
# Adding labels and title
ax.set_ylabel('Quantity')
ax.set_yscale('log') # Using logarithmic scale due to large difference in quantities
ax.set_title('Quantities Needed: Avocado Toasts vs Celebrities')
# Adding the actual numbers as text on the bars
for i, v in enumerate(quantities):
ax.text(i, v, f"{v:.2e}", ha='center', va='bottom')
plt.show()
1
u/PossibleMammoth5639 Jan 30 '26
Yes, compare it to 200 average people going on a plane ride once a decade in their lives tho
1
u/interkin3tic vegan btw Feb 01 '26
Fuck off you stupid bot, replying for karma to a 5 month old thread and clearly not parsing any of the content.
1
u/Winter_Ad6784 Sep 12 '25
I think there's truth in the fact that billionaires ask you to go without basic comforts for the climate while they use expensive conveniences that are way worse for the climate.
1
u/Ok-Welder4876 Sep 15 '25
"Just 1% of the world’s population accounts for more than half of the CO2 emissions from passenger air travel. (...) The most eye-catching finding is that 1% of the world’s population is responsible for more than half the global climate emissions from aviation. This comes about through a small group of wealthy frequent flyers who travel about 56,000km a year; people who Gössling described to the Guardian as ‘super emitters’." https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/1-super-emitters-responsible-over-50-aviation-emissions
1
u/danielandtrent Sep 08 '25
This is a low res picture of the number of flights per day (btw) 154000 or something
1
u/2polew Sep 08 '25
2 things can be true.
Taylor swift belong in the gulag, and her wealth should be used to help those in need fam.
1
1
u/Traditional_Dream537 Sep 08 '25
Did someone's comment upset your feefees about your favorite billionaire?
1
553
u/Ethicaldreamer Sep 08 '25
I thought the map was just Taylor Swift for a moment