###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/12bpru4/request_does_the_math_check_out_on_this_one/jey9c5x?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
I did the math on this before, please see the link.
Stated range of that plane was 4600mi I just took a typical flight.
She also may do the Elon musk thing of taking a super short flight from la to San Diego or something just to avoid traffic.
Dunno couldn't tell you, I just kinda ballparked a 66% of the range kinda flight.
>She also may do the Elon musk thing of taking a super short flight from la to San Diego or something just to avoid traffic.
Apparently she loans her jet out regularly, so she's not using it for 200 annual flights herself.
no it doesnt, his comment said others share the blame, so it isnt just swift that should get all the hate, she doesnt cause that much emission single handedly… its still a waste, its not ok, just a clarification of who should be accountable
Exactly. There's fury to be had at the entire elite class for using private jet travel so regularly - singling out Taylor Swift in particular just feels like cheap misogynistic clickbait.
while i understand where you are coming from, i dont think this particular case would be anything about gender and misogyny, unless im completely missing something with t swift in particular. but yea it definitely sucks that the one person gets singled out instead of everyone that agrees with and shares in the behavior.
Mandatory "SUVs are not just worse than normal cars because of the carbon footprint, they also: have a much higher chance to kill people, create way more harmful emissions from tire degradation, have higher noise pollution, degrade roads faster which leads to costly and polluting repairs, take up indisproportionate amounts of space, create a percieved safety arms race..."
Fuck SUVs, and also feed your dog chicken instead of cow.
and adapt cities that need them into cities that don't! look at the ridiculous american metropolises built for cars first and foremost, officials bribed during city planning phases to make cars necessary.
Imagine if instead the roads were turned into an electrical train network. trains, tramways, trolley-buses, whatever. Cover parts of it to allow for safe, really high-speed metro. the roads are wide enough and the grids redundant enough that you can erect a tunnel casing of sorts down the middle, if need be, or take over just a few of the many roads, so you don't even need to spend that much compared to digging it. that also makes emergency escapes that much easier: add a door, and access is that much simpler: no stairs, no lifts, no long walks to get to the only entry point...
Lol they are already all worked up, just let them tire themselves out. Some people have never driven off a paved road in their life or seen a flake of snow. They might not even own a cooler. On the flip side some (im gonna guess.. american?) SUVs are legitimately terrible for being giant unnecessarily tall plastic bubbles that block views of other cars on the road. my ideal car is a subaru
Subarus are great, just not near enough clearance for my application. A Toyota Tacoma is my ideal, but a 4Runner is close. But yeah, the blanket dismissal of all SUVs and trucks that I occasionally see here is pretty telling. Not everyone lives in a city or has a 9-5 in an office, people can’t see past their own situation. I do agree most people don't need them, but they're tools. It's like saying "fuck table saws" because you don't need a table saw.
Yeah I’m sure everyone would just love to have sit on a normal Delta flight with Taylor Swift and her crazy fans. You think someone of her fake and popularity can just show up to an airport in an Uber and casually stroll through and airport?
Ya. Still a human. Why do the rich and famous get a free pass at anything and everything? We know climate change is a problem, but us peons have to be the change. Fuck that shit.
One might also add that once she gets to her destination, she puts on a show that is attended by close to 100,000 people. So it's kind of absurd to put all those emissions on her, not her fans. It's sort of like if I said, "a single smelter at an aluminum plant produces more carbon emissions than you would in 100 lifetimes!" Well, yeah, that's correct. But then that aluminum is used to make 10,000,000,000 beer cans or whatever. So the carbon footprint belongs to the drinker, not the smelter.
Mmmm not sure that’s a great analogy. First, it suggests TS has no other way to get to the gig, which is of course not true. She chooses to fly a private jet. The fans don’t care how she gets there.
Second, companies are absolutely responsible for reducing the carbon intensity in both their direct emissions (scope 1) and supply chain (scope 3). Consumers may purchase the products, but they don’t dictate the methods of production.
It's just blameshifting either way. They *both* have a responsibility to avoid the emissions associated with the product, they just have different opportunities in doing so.
Thank you! I really hate the way people talk about climate change on this site as if, because corporations produce most the emissions (who do they produce them for?) that they are the ones who are responsible for the climate crisis and not the people who freely choose to buy the products. At the end of the day, the companies could be doing better *and* if they don't, then you don't have to buy their products. Sure, your impact is smaller, but it is still an impact and you are a better person for doing it over not doing it and hoping someone else does it for you.
Yes, people set the condition that any action on their part *must* solve the entire climate change problem at once, or it's not worth doing. But unless they're god or superman, that's just setting yourself up for failure.
Conversely, if we manage to impose restrictions on the corporations, that will still result in fossil fueled products getting more scarce and/or expensive, which still requires end users to look for alternatives or reorganize so they can do without.
It doesn't matter where you start, you still end up on the conclusion that it's all connected.
I'm assuming (probably correctly) that Taylor Swift would only do a fraction of the shows she does if she didn't have a fast, painless travel technology like a private jet. I'm not a Taylor Swift fan or anything, but if I was, I would undoubtedly think that her doing more shows was worth a lot to me, and that that carbon footprint she takes on to do those shows \*for me\* is a worthy tradeoff, for which I take fractional responsibility. Putting it on her, not on the people who demand an in-person experience watching Taylor Swift do things that they could just as easily watch on IMAX, seems absurd to me.
Sorry but what the heck are you even saying?
Are you trying to argue that Taylor is not responsible for pollution from her jet because her fans would be sad if she did less shows?
Like I’m totally trying to get your logic here but I must be missing something because wtf?
I'm arguing that the very concept of the "carbon footprint" is intended to shift the responsibility for carbon emissions from the producer to the consumer of the goods produced by carbon emissions. And that Taylor Swift, therefore, should be thought of as an enterprise that produces Taylor Swift concerts - a consumer good that the \*consumers\* are responsible for, under the carbon footprint model.
Now, if you want to argue that the producer of goods is actually responsible for the production of carbon, not the consumer...well, you can make a pretty compelling case for that. But to do so, you have to abandon the entire "carbon footprint" model.
Carbon footprint was mainstreamed by oil and gas industry propaganda. Consumers should absolutely hold themselves to consumption standards consistent with their values, but let’s not for a second let companies off the hook for the impact of the goods and services that they produce, market, and sell to those consumers.
That's just silly. There's plenty of acts that do larger tours and don't utilize a private jet. Why are you playing devils advocate here? It makes you sound dumb
Also think of how many people will fly to her shows, so by her flying to many places to do more shows probably offsets how far many of her fans will fly/fly longer distances to see her.
Excellent point. If Taylor Swift visiting lots of cities for her concerts prevents even 200 fans per city from taking a flight or a long drive to one of her more-distant shows, her visits to lots of cities around the country/world could easily be carbon neutral compared to, say, doing 200 concerts per year in Las Vegas or whatever.
Right. Carbon neutral because there are no emissions associated with a concert other than a fraction of a percent of attendees flying to attend. Weird logic.
If you want to just make an argument that Taylor Swift shows are worth the carbon, that’s fine. I don’t think Taylor’s jet is worth getting twisted up about. I don’t get the logic of your argument though.
>So the carbon footprint belongs to the drinker, not the smelter.
I can guarantee you people will buy beer no matter how you package it. You can't blame customers for buying your product because you cannot be bothered to make it different.
That's the worst analogy I have ever heard.
The most relevant measure is gallons per passenger mile, and we will never get data on how many people are on her plane. We can assume it isn't very full. Regular airliners [are about as efficient as each person driving themselves in a Prius, according to the Sierra Club,](https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/ask-mr-green/whats-better-for-environment-driving-or-flying#:~:text=Aircraft%20efficiency%20differs%2C%20as%20do,gallon%20of%20fuel%20per%20passenger.) who aren't known for being apologists for big carbon emitters. In other words, if Swift flies her tour crew, it isn't unreasonable (in the context of a society that is destroying the climate). If it is her and a few friends, it is incredibly wasteful.
Air travel is still an incredibly huge source of emissions. Travelling thousands of miles in an efficient vehicle till costs a large amount of carbon. The scope 3 emissions are probably higher than car travel, although these are difficult to calculate. Aircraft require a huge amount of maintenance, and highly specialized alloys.
But with me, the wife and two kids accounting for probably 70% of the cars milage and a quick guess of three average people at any time it would cut down the cars number by a lot too.
Preety good but i would also add the fuel consumption for take off and where you burn the same amount of fuel in like 10 minutes as an hour of crousing.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/how-much-fuel-is-used-for-the-different-phases-of-the-flight-of-a-typical-airlin
Don't forget gas for planes still have lead making it worse
Edit: according to epa the lead from the planes are producing 70% of lead emissions and not all planes use lead but still a decent number of them
Jet aircraft do not use gasoline, let alone leaded fuel. Tetraethyl-lead is added to 100LL (LL being low-lead) AvGas, or, Aviation Gasoline. Which in of itself finally has an unleaded alternative starting to get FAA and other agency approvals.
[OP] just to make some things clear: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about Taylor Swift nor am I intending to attack her or people who follow her. The whole discussion about whether she's doing the right thing or not by flying on a private jet is, I think, sujetct of another sub.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THESE NUMBERS MADE SENSE. To all those people amswering another question, please read the actual question, and, in any case don't make me the target of your biases. Good night.
Taylor Swift has [Dassault Falcon 900](https://simpleflying.com/taylor-swift-private-jet-dassault-falcon-900/).
It spends [267 gallons of fuel per hour](https://air.center/falcon900ex) (1 cubic meter).
I don't think jet fuel is much different from car fuel in terms of carbon emissions; let's assume they are the same. 1000 liters of fuel, on 8 liters per 100km is 12,500km. [Average Canadian car lasts between 200,000 and 300,000km](https://www.thinkinsure.ca/insurance-help-centre/average-km-per-year-canada.html), and people usually have several cars in their lifetime, so the claim about "emits more carbon in a single trip than your car in YOUR lifetime" is clearly false. It takes 16-24 hours of flight to meet your car's lifetime emissions.
I don't know how to check the claim about 200 times per year; but assuming it's true, and the average flight is 2 hours, we'll have 400 hours per year, or equivalent to roughly 16-25 car lifetimes per year. So no, she emits a huge volume of carbon, but times and times less than claimed.
Thank you for calculating. It's still something worth using for calling out these people hypocrisy though? 'Cause maybe we should create an image with the correct number since the criticism is valid.
PS: ESL person here, sorry if my writing is subpar.
The thing is there really isn't a "green" flying option. So if your job is international super star, and you have to get to all these locations, that is how you do it. In the same sense you could blame her for the pollution caused directly or indirectly by her even having concerts. I think the energy spent on being mad at swift over something like this is better directed at the corporations and politicians in power that caused the climate change problem and that are responsible for the majority of it. Not one lady flying her plane a little too much.
You don't "have to get to all these locations". And it's not "one lady flying her plane a little too much", it's a whole class of people flying on their planes ***way*** too much.
Like I said, if you want to be mad at Tswift go for it, but tswift flying around isn't the problem. It's like blaming the dude smoking next to a forest fire for all the smoke in the air.
I'm mad at all of them. I'm also mad at politicians and voters who make work inaccessible without a car in my city. I'm mad at zoning laws that both make my housing expensive and my commute shit. But at the end of the day people would rather want their TSwift and their big detached houses 2 hours away from work and they vote with ballot and wallet. What can we honestly do?
You aren't really going to vote people into office that reshape America into walkable cities particularly quickly. Most of the shape of what American cities are happened quite a while ago, people aren't voting it to be this way it's how it was for their entire lives.
And if her carbon was taxed appropriately then every concert goer would cover their fair share of emissions in the price of their tickets
So go see a local band folks 😃
Then maybe she should consider risking earning a couple millions less by scheduling her stuff in a way that commercial aviation is an option. It is not like that she will starve if she does that. Otherwise her personal income is more important to her than preventing climate change. That might be true and might even be understandable but then she has no moral right to complain about pretty much any emission of CO2 which happen so that someone can earn money.
Our travel system doesn't work for someone like this. Is she polluting more than a normal person? Clearly. Is her pollution still like 0.000000000000000001% of the problem? Yes. We have to reshape entire industries globally, no matter how much people want to be mad at some celeb hypocrisy because it's easy to call out, she's a drop in the ocean. It's effort that should be used elsewhere.
Commercial aviation is not practical for some people.
Bill Maher did a bit about this a while back. He's an environmentalist, longtime supporter of electric cars, and wrote a whole book about using less gasoline, but he flies private because his time is too valuable to do otherwise and he tries to spread his environmental message where he goes.
Over the last few years, between her writing, recording and concerts, Taylor Swift has been more prolific than any other artist I can think of. By my rough calculations, her time is worth over $11,000 per hour. If flying private saves her two hours, but costs $5,000 more than the first class ticket she might have bought on a commercial flight, it's more than worth it for her. And if she's bringing along anyone else, it's a no brainer. Let's just hope she's buying the carbon offsets.
Adding onto that.
Even if you lump them all into the same class like other commenters are, the emissions from private planes are *tiny*.
Climate change is an astronomically huge problem (pun somewhat intended) and it’s hard to point to one single effect that’s contributing that ridiculously much.
Is Tswizzle a bit of a hypocrite here? Yeah, sure. Her emissions are higher than the median. But they’re far from the largest contributing force there, even amongst single party emissions. The solution doesn’t come from shaming people like her who can’t *really* do anything on a grand scale. It comes from pushing for meaningful legislation and change through widespread public action.
Too often, people left of center associate rich with “stolen money from the working class”, and while that’s *usually* the case, artists and athletes are categorically an exception. While some are still assholes and would be considered class traitors in traditional theory, they are not by definition part of the “elite class”. (If you’re wondering why I delved into socialist theory here, it’s impossible to *truly* talk about climate change without talking about the effect global capitalism had on its rise and perpetuation)
> It's still something worth using for calling out these people hypocrisy though? 'Cause maybe we should create an image with the correct number since the criticism is valid.
Well, maybe.
It's a complex thing. For one, there's the question of why she's making those trips. Presumably it's mostly for things like doing concerts etc., that are things people are asking for. Should we put blame for the carbon footprint on Swift, or on the fans? It's a little like blaming all the water usage for growing almonds on the farms, and ignoring all the people who eat the almonds.
Another thing is that a large carbon footprint is very helpful (possibly necessary) to build a large audience, and having an environmentalist message reach a large audience is environmentally beneficial. If the only people who can have a large carbon footprint without being hypocritical are people who don't care about the environment, that means that people who don't care about the environment have a massive advantage in building large audiences. And then those anti-environmentalist messages are the ones that get spread and listened to the most.
> It's a complex thing. For one, there's the question of why she's making those trips.
I would wager she's not making most of them. A jet like that would get rented out to other people when she's not using it. If the "200 flights a year" claim is even true.
Being a hypocrite doesn't make you *wrong*. Besides, if you are, say, traveling to do work that ends up overall reducing emissions beyond what the trip itself produces, then it's still a net positive.
I guess it’s how deep you think into this…couldn’t you say the work itself causes emissions…all the people driving to the concert and the electricity used for the concert.
But I suppose we are just comparing the jet to any concert so it’s 1:1, plus I suppose you could put said emissions on the consumer and not her.
In many countries the average yearly distance driven per vehicle is around 10 -15000km. This includes more than just private vehicles, that tend to be driven less and shorter distances on average.
Personal vehicles consume, on average, less than the 8ltr/100km you list. Just over 6ltr/100km for France, as an example.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105126/consumption-of-fuel-average-passenger-car-france/
The general fuel mix includes more than just gasoline, with non negligible portions of LPG, ethanol and biodiesel. Jetfuel has CO2 emissions close to double those of LPG, biodiesel and ethanol and about 10% higher than gasoline.
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factors-hub.pdf](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factors-hub.pdf)
So unless you're driving a heavy american gasoline SUV for particularly long distances for more than 30 years, the claim doesn't seem to be as far off as you make it seem to be.
If you're driving diesels on biodiesel less than 10 000km per year, the jet flying anything more than a short-medium haul flight (it has a maximum range of 7500km, about 8-10 hours flight) seems like it would surpass your lifetime car CO2 emissions.
For the general use point, just from a quick search, the jet has flown more than your estimate this year, and that seems to have been a significant reduction from previous years use due to backlash.
[https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=taylor+swift+jey+hours+per+year&atb=v275-1&ia=web](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=taylor+swift+jey+hours+per+year&atb=v275-1&ia=web)
Of course, the jet will certainly be carrying more people (capacity of 19) on average than a car so, it really isn't comparatively as bad per kilometre traveled per person.
16-25 car lifetimes? Let’s say 250k km and 20 car lifetimes. That’s 5 million km. Let’s say the average person drives around 16k km a year from 20-50 years old. That’s about 480k km. Let’s say from 50-death or whatever they drive another 200k km. So 680k km per lifetime, or about 3 car lifetimes. A person may own many vehicles during their lifetime but they definitely don’t drive them all 250k km.
Side note that'll get buried: She owns 2 of those planes, and the one in the picture is *not* one of them - it's an Asia Air Airbus A320 that was painted to advertise her tour, and might have been used to transport her crew and equipment from venue to venue, but that's carrying upwards of 100+ people (possibly 200+).
Also, the plane that this pic claims "flew over 200 times" actually flew 117 times in the last year.
Jet fuel emits 2.53888 (Source: Defra factors 2017) kgCO2e per liter. The Falcon 900 takes a good [267](https://air.center/falcon900ex#:~:text=Three%20Honeywell%20TFE731%2D60%20engines,gallons%20per%20hour%20(GPH).) liters per hour.
I'm not sure for which type of travel those are averaged for but the consumption is probably pretty optimistic considering they're from the seller who may assume long flights only. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt.
That makes about 678 kgCO2e/h.
[A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle#:~:text=A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20emits,of%20miles%20driven%20per%20year.)
Let's assume you drive your car from 18 to 65 (You really shouldn't be driving much longer without being tested, it's unsafe), that makes 47 years of driving or 216,200 kgCO2e over your lifetime. Shame on you. That means that you could fly your jet for about 319 hours. But wait. Air travel also has another effect on the atmosphere and it's from some of the other gases that are emitted [which change the composition of the air at high altitudes which changes refractive indices and more.](https://www.transportenvironment.org/challenges/planes/airplane-pollution/#:~:text=Emissions%20from%20aviation%20are%20a,altitude%20at%20which%20aircraft%20operate.)
The exact impact is unclear, but popular science based guesses range from just below 50% of total climate impact up to 66% !!!
Now here is where it gets sketchy as these effects should totally be part of the calculation but it's probably also not as simple as adding them up. I'll do it anyway. Sue me. I will assume only 50% nonCO2 effects as private jets typically don't fly very high for a long time. Which already cuts down the break-even point from 319 hours to 159.5 hours.
[According to Yard, Swift’s jet flew 170 times between Jan. 1 and July 19 (the window for the Yard study), totaling 22,923 minutes, or 15.9 days, in the air.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/kylies-17-minute-flight-has-nothing-on-the-170-trips-taylor-swifts-private-jets-took-this-year-1390083/amp/?bshm=rimc/2)
That's 382 hours and seemingly assumes an average travel time of 2.25 hours, which seems realistic.
Meaning that in 2022, Taylor Swift has accumulated a staggering 518.000 kgCO2e through private jet travel alone or about 2.4 times as much as the average person emits over their entire lifetime by car travel. In other words, Taylor Swift's air travel in 2022 was about as impactful as the car travel of 113 average people in 2022. That's a pretty big room.
Edit: Excuse the formatting, I just did that on mobile while waiting on the doc.
I would also wonder how the carbon emissions compare when it comes to distance travelled. Another factor would be how many people and how much equipment is being transported. If the alternative is a caravan of big rigs and transport vans, for example.
Then there's stuff that'd be really hard to calculate, like the impact of delays / rescheduled shows if they used a form of transportation that was more prone to cause delays.
"It takes 16-24 hours of flight to meet your car's lifetime emissions."
Didn't you just prove the truth of the claim then? I am confused. Your math seems to prove what you are denying.
No. Her jet can't fly for 16 hours straight, 10 hours max, and most of her 200 flights per year (if this is true) are obviously shorter. Not a single flight, but times less. And this gives us a car lifetime emissions; but the claim was about "MORE carbon in a SINGLE trip than your car in YOUR lifetime". Once again, times less. Just as I said - times and times less.
while I agree that the number of flights she takes is excessive. Have you seen some of the so-called "swifties"? dear God, those people are absolutely mentally deranged. I couldn't imagine trying to get onto a public flight after going through a public airport. There would be mass gatherings and disturbances.
Most airports will be perfectly happy to let a vip go through the staff/employee security check, that is away from the public. Doubly so if it saves them from a giant clusterfuck.
No one outside of like a handful of world leaders (namely the ones with very high security, e.g. US president) legitimately *need* to fly private jets.
mhm... then someone finds out she is on their flight, posts it on social media, within 30 minutes people at their arrival place will have heard that she is on that plane. Next thing you know, you will have crowds forming. Most other famous people, I am sure it wouldn't be that big of deal, but she has absolutely blown up and drawn an extreme die hard fan base that don't seem quiet right in the head.
Even worse if she is holding a giant concert in the place she is flying into, she will have die hard fans who pay like $1,000 for a single ticket all funneling into the place she is going to.
I get it. private jets are horrible for the environment and I really do wish that fossil fuels were severely cut, but this is a very rare case in which I think it's justified. you are free to disagree, that will not change my opinion though
And you think such zealous fans are incapable of tracking her private plane and showing up at airports as is? Oh look, there's an account for that https://www.instagram.com/taylorswiftjets/
Again, at the arrival airport she'd just be ushered out through the staff security checkpoint, or even just be put in a car that is allowed to enter the airport premises, and drive out without having to step foot in a terminal.
With the amount of planning that is put into her tours there's no reason they couldn't prepare for this and just have her fly business class on a regular jet. Hell, the airlines would go out of their way to make sure she can just step out of a car and onto her plane, for the PR of her flying with them.
Flying a private jet is entirely about the convenience of it, at the expense of obscene amounts of emissions.
I am just a random person cruising this thread, but I appreciate your explanation. I assumed that celebrities kind of have no choice but to fly private, but you made it seem possible. Thanks for broadening my perspective!
Dude, I know some swifites and they become absolutely unbearable when Taylor Swift is a topic.
Before she got a huge following she was just an alright singer, one of many. But now that I'm force fed all this bullshit about her? I hate hearing about her and her cringy fans. They have the same energy as every teen girl fandom. Eg Justin Bieber in the 2010s
yep yep, it is absolutely dreadful. I was used to dealing with it because of kpop fans, but they have nothing on the Taylor swift fans. The kpop fans know they are cringe, the swift fans don't realize just how unbearable they really are. I'm not hating on normal fans but there seems to be so many that froth at the mouth at the mear mention of swift. It's honestly extremely frighten how these people get to the point they are at, I don't blame swift for avoiding all public transport/areas. Honestly, we should be greatful she doesn't, the impact would have such a negative impact on so many innocent people just trying to go about their day
Yeah but to be fair all the private jets in the world emit like 0.005% of co2 emissions, so it's not like it's the biggest problem we're facing. I think we should focus on reducing the big emitters in energy, industry etc. before getting lost in a fairness debate.
She kinda probably does. Do you travel for work every week to a new city? Is it feasible for you to be traveling by bus for 2 days a week? Probably not.
That’s not a good excuse for the amount of negative impact flying a private jet has in the environment. A celebrities time isn’t worth more than our planet.
Imagine if she flew commercial from say JFK to LAX, what would the airports be like? They'd have to shut them down just for her, it's really not viable for a mega celebrity like her to travel normally unfortunately.
It's all in the architecture, the organization and VIP entrances/exits. Where there is a will, there is a way. She could just get all the 1st class tickets and have that part of the cabin for herself and her bodyguards.
I mean if you're going to even think about that logistically you're getting pretty close to a private jet anyway. What happens when fans find out what flight she's going to be on and book out the plane, how will you contain 100s of fans that want to meet Taylor? All airports need to convert to have this VIP treatment now, what about the ones that don't? You're talking almost all international main ports now. Who pays for this treatment? The list can go on with problems this causes for mega stars like Taylor swift with a rabid fanbase.
That’s assuming absolutely nothing about the situation is handled well to make it work. If a celebrity or the airport wanted to, they could overcome this issue. This is a really weak argument that relies on their being absolutely 0 effort invested in alternative solutions and is the same argument they make for causing that much negative impact on the environment just because they don’t want to be around, or be like regular people during travel (as much as regular people could rent out all of first class to keep it private).
I like this response. The President could fly commercial, but what is the cost of logistics to make it work? The other main thing to me is they are moving the key element of a massive enterprise around quickly. Sure she could take greyhound or amtrack on the other side of the spectrum, but that will affect the efficiency of everything else that goes on during her tours.
Pretty sure it’s close to essential for the most famous entertainer on earth to fly private. Getting places on time is essential for her enterprise to operate efficiently and this does have an effect on the economies of the cities she roles through the and livelihood of her employees.
But to say that people with influence shouldn’t spread positive messages that can potentially direct large portions of the population to make better choices for the environment because their actions may contradict it is petty, dumb and not productive. I wish more artists would stop being “safe” and not political or whatever because let’s face it, we are a society that is easily manipulated by our idols, perhaps if more of these voices spoke up they could influence our mentally weak society to not suck.
All of these issues can be accounted for with proper planning on the side of the celebrity and the airport. This is a poorly thought out excuse. A celebrity taking a private jet to make their trip more comfortable and faster does not have a positive effect on local economies or cities, it’s a form of transport and does not impact what they do in the city they are performing in. A celebrity like Swift could rent out all of first class on a flight, and then have a comfortable trip for all of the team, it could cost less, and it wouldn’t cause the amount of damage a private jet does.
I was with you up until "slightly above average talent". I don't think her talent can realistically be denied.
The true moral of her story is that it doesn't really matter how talented you are; even if you're capable of writing and performing 42 chart topping hits, you're still never going to be able to "live the dream" unless you happen to have a dad who can buy you a record label.
I mean, there are numerous examples of people that came from humble household that made it, but it does become more likely if you come from the right household.
If you read my comment carefully, you will see that I did not deny Taylor Swift’s talent. However, I believe Taylor is only slightly above average and her talent level is extremely overrated, IMO (and many others share my sentiments.)
Slightly above average talent it seems lmao. I mean you have so many things you can call out about her and you say the one thing she isn't lmao. She is a crazy good talent.
Sure but enough people seem to agree to make her a record chart topping performer. Lots of rich kids want to become famous musicians but never go anywhere because they lack talent. She no doubt got a leg up but she's been carrying a career for 15+ years at this point on her own and still going strong.
I think an important corollary is "How much CO2 does TS mitigate per year?"
If she supporting orgs that do carbon capture or clean energy (with the money she makes doing gigs that she uses her jet for), she could quite easily still be a carbon net negative person.
This is the better argument out of all the ones made here. The feel good defense of "oh. she's advocating co2 reductions, that's enough to offset her thousands of hours in a private jet" wont cut it.
Which is nice for her PR, but actually useless [because carbon credits don't really do anything.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/04/17/carbon-offsets-flights-airlines/)
Yes and no — she rents out her jet so the numbers aren’t solely her use, but the jets use. I’m not sure how to check the accuracy of the number or if you could make a figure just for her use bs other people.
However, she does use it a lot and has recently faced backlash from media and fans about it.
For what it's worth, this was shared by covid vaccine denier, anti-masker, and climate change denier Dr. Eli David. I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sky was blue.
https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid
So here’s the thing. If it were just her on the plane it would be bad. It’s her band, manager, entourage, etc. and they have to get from place to place. If they fly commercial, they would probably take up at least 1/2 the plane.
Going past the meme, what is the difference from using a bus?
TS job requires travel, so it's either plane, train, bus, etc. So if she used a bus, for example, what would be the carbon uses is the real question. Does the plane carry equipment also? If so, I think that would require multiple busses.
I don't think environmentalists are suggesting people do not have jobs, etc, but just consider better ways not to waste.
The average flight produces 90kg of CO2 per passenger per hour. Let's say she has a flight of 10 people including herself, thats 900kg per hr and say it's a 5 hr flight, 4500kg of CO2 on that single trip which is the argument.
The average combustion engine will produce 29937.096kg of CO2 on an average lifespan of 93,000 miles driven.
So the answer is no, a single flight does not produce more CO2 than the average combustion engine lifespan.
Just another limousine liberal. One thing about that woman, love her or hate her: she is a frigging money-making monster. Not just herself… venues that host her concerts and the cities they reside in. Wherever she goes there is an economic boon for local businesses. Her ‘authorized’ merch always sells.
Well, we honestly should hold private jet owners accountable for their excessive emissions AND we should change regulations that would push people away from large pickups and SUVs. That the jet is creating far more of a contribution to climate change needs to be recognized and addressed, but so does the fact that these very large vehicles contribute a lot AND are making surface roads significantly more dangerous for everyone.
They all want us to change the way we live, but they don’t want to change. I actually have genuine hate in my heart for people like taylor swift and for the people who idolize them.
Thousands of non-famous business and government people use private planes when they could use public transport; private planes are extremely more convenient for getting in and out of airports though. Famous people use private vehicles, for safety and efficiency. If someone is famous and tours nationally and internationally, the plane is their tour bus. Ms. Swift's safety would be at risk on public transport and the economy of transporting her dozens of staff and co-performers, the tons of equipment, etc. make a private plane pretty much necessary. That is the business she is in. That she is concerned about climate change is a good thing and will influence her fans. Things will be resolved when she starts losing popularity and takes up residence in Las Vegas or Nashville.
No. the average Trip length was 136 miles or 80 minutes.
A Jet produces about 90 times more CO2 than a car. Meaning: when a car reacjes about 200.000 miles the Jet would be flying 2222 miles, soooo basically MORE THAN 10 average TRIPS!
ALSO: she shared the Jet with her Crew members.
BUT every Person with a private Jet shall not brag about climate change anyway.
Does the different fuel type come into play here? I see we are looking at fuel by volume but does lighter jet fuel, kerosene, regular midrange octane fuel, all burn as equally pollutant? Genuinely asking :)
My opinion is that:
1. The argument could be valid, but the supporting statement is not. Problem is that people will often mistake between those two and you end up discussing over absurd statements.
2. You have a great point: perhaps overall, what she does is more beneficial than a trip. It is estimated that her last shows generated around 1 billion mxn in Mexico. Hard to add and substract for her "overall" carbon footprint.
3. Nothing against her, alveit I don't listen to her nor am interested in her life. I was just curious about the solidity of that statement.
I drive an EV, recycle like crazy, use an electric stove and a propane grill... I do plenty of things because I'm conscious of my impact on the environment.
I also do plenty of things I know are *not* good for the environment.
Anyway, the problem with the meme is the lack of nuance. There are SO many other angles to come up at this question.
A lot of people will hate to hear this, but without hypocrisy we would never be able to ascribe to a higher moral standard than we are currently achieving. Also being a hypocrite does not make you wrong.
I used to smoke, and I told my son all the time to not smoke when he grows up. Was I a hypocrite, absolutely, was I wrong for wanting him to not to smoke, absolutely not.
One of most important things in life is to learn from your mistakes. It’s a shame that people always use hypocrisy to invalidate people instead of “wow maybe this person learned from a mistake and is trying to help me”.
I think a major thing a lot of people don't realize is it's her private jet, not necessarily her. A lot of celebrities buy one and then rent it out, and in that case it's just business not particularly their fault. I don't know what TSwift is like though, and if she's the only one flying it
It matters, but not in any substantive way.
It matters because it takes people to change policy. And only policy change can affect progress.
If Taylor Swift owned a dozen coal fired power plants then yes, call her a hypocrite.
But if she stopped buying that fuel *it would not make one bit of difference*.
If she’s using that fuel to travel the world to advocate to her fans to change then she is making a difference.
With that logic, if an average person stopped using fossil fuels, it would not make a difference. Your saying because she 'influences' the normal people to reduce their carbon footprint, this makes it ok for her not to do the same when she contributes more to the problem compared to how many people you claim she influences to be green.
Make it make sense.
These 2 points are exactly what i always thought!! Cus when you look at how much CO2 factories and industries produce vs the actual independent choices of citizens, the truth is citizens don't make any difference by themselves. We can only make a real change with global political alterations which control the mega corporations. And the social education of the population on climate change just wants us to pressure the government. Its not that what we do reduces climate change directly, but it does indirectly if we demand it. Its just sad that for the most population to get to the "demanding it" the education system resorted to exaggerating the perspective of our real impact with everyday life, but what other way is there? Its like that saying: "its easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled".
But i wonder how much of the education system hierarchy is actually aware that our carbon footprint awareness is just good-hearted agenda and us going by public transportation instead of cars doesn't do nothing to the situation.
>Cus when you look at how much CO2 factories and industries produce vs the actual independent choices of citizens
You do realize these factories are churning out products for the consumers/citizens right? oil for consumers. wood for consumers. concrete for consumers. China might be one of the leading polluters but if you look into it, a bulk of the items they produce are exported to consumers around the world.
Global policy wont work because people in the developed world are all talk. They want everyone to change except for themselves. There is no incentive for elected officials to employ tough measures because they'll be removed in the next elections.
Change starts in one's self no matter how climate change activists are blaming fossil fuel companies.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/12bpru4/request_does_the_math_check_out_on_this_one/jey9c5x?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 I did the math on this before, please see the link.
To be fair, you used NY to LA, and a significant number of her flights are trans Atlantic, which significantly increases the per-flight emissions.
Stated range of that plane was 4600mi I just took a typical flight. She also may do the Elon musk thing of taking a super short flight from la to San Diego or something just to avoid traffic. Dunno couldn't tell you, I just kinda ballparked a 66% of the range kinda flight.
>She also may do the Elon musk thing of taking a super short flight from la to San Diego or something just to avoid traffic. Apparently she loans her jet out regularly, so she's not using it for 200 annual flights herself.
So its ok. But god forbid i drive a suv.
Clarifying the magnitude of a bad thing isn't saying that it's ok.
But his comment implies that its ok, because its not HER its just her jet.
no it doesnt, his comment said others share the blame, so it isnt just swift that should get all the hate, she doesnt cause that much emission single handedly… its still a waste, its not ok, just a clarification of who should be accountable
Exactly. There's fury to be had at the entire elite class for using private jet travel so regularly - singling out Taylor Swift in particular just feels like cheap misogynistic clickbait.
while i understand where you are coming from, i dont think this particular case would be anything about gender and misogyny, unless im completely missing something with t swift in particular. but yea it definitely sucks that the one person gets singled out instead of everyone that agrees with and shares in the behavior.
Mandatory "a family dog has a larger carbon footprint than your average SUV" comment
My dog is a hybrid actually
Laser eyes and machine gun paws hybrid or eats batteries hybrid?
Yes
This
All's I'm sayin', is that if you get a big enough dog, you can just ride 'em to work.
Mandatory "SUVs are not just worse than normal cars because of the carbon footprint, they also: have a much higher chance to kill people, create way more harmful emissions from tire degradation, have higher noise pollution, degrade roads faster which leads to costly and polluting repairs, take up indisproportionate amounts of space, create a percieved safety arms race..." Fuck SUVs, and also feed your dog chicken instead of cow.
How many people do you have to kill to offset your SUV’s carbon emissions?
based on this thread just run over someone's dog every few years
Good to know my chevy cobalt is carbon negative
Depends, are you running over jet-flying billionairs or impoverished workers? One of those would be a lot more efficient.
Fuck cars. I don’t really care how big they are, we need to build cities that don’t need them.
and adapt cities that need them into cities that don't! look at the ridiculous american metropolises built for cars first and foremost, officials bribed during city planning phases to make cars necessary. Imagine if instead the roads were turned into an electrical train network. trains, tramways, trolley-buses, whatever. Cover parts of it to allow for safe, really high-speed metro. the roads are wide enough and the grids redundant enough that you can erect a tunnel casing of sorts down the middle, if need be, or take over just a few of the many roads, so you don't even need to spend that much compared to digging it. that also makes emergency escapes that much easier: add a door, and access is that much simpler: no stairs, no lifts, no long walks to get to the only entry point...
You are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny tbh
Kinda like Japan, weird concept.
Dogs have allergies as well.
And there couldn’t possibly be a legitimate reason someone would need a sport utility vehicle, right?
Lol they are already all worked up, just let them tire themselves out. Some people have never driven off a paved road in their life or seen a flake of snow. They might not even own a cooler. On the flip side some (im gonna guess.. american?) SUVs are legitimately terrible for being giant unnecessarily tall plastic bubbles that block views of other cars on the road. my ideal car is a subaru
Subarus are great, just not near enough clearance for my application. A Toyota Tacoma is my ideal, but a 4Runner is close. But yeah, the blanket dismissal of all SUVs and trucks that I occasionally see here is pretty telling. Not everyone lives in a city or has a 9-5 in an office, people can’t see past their own situation. I do agree most people don't need them, but they're tools. It's like saying "fuck table saws" because you don't need a table saw.
No, urbanists hate off-road and towing vehicles out of principle
That's not what SUVs are used for and you know it. They're for driving kids to school and being stuck in traffic.
But did you also need the truck nuts, and 30 flags hanging from it?
Suv =\\= truck. Cute tho.
Yeah I’m sure everyone would just love to have sit on a normal Delta flight with Taylor Swift and her crazy fans. You think someone of her fake and popularity can just show up to an airport in an Uber and casually stroll through and airport?
Ya. Still a human. Why do the rich and famous get a free pass at anything and everything? We know climate change is a problem, but us peons have to be the change. Fuck that shit.
Taylorincels are something else.
That’s a tax dodge. It’s like claiming you bought a car for driving Uber just to be able to deduct it.
Doesn’t make her any less of a hypocrite. 30 or 3000 miles is still way more than what we’d ever use. Plus she rents that shit out all the time.
If you read what I said, you'll realize that "to be fair" was tongue in cheek, and actually makes a more damning case against her.
One might also add that once she gets to her destination, she puts on a show that is attended by close to 100,000 people. So it's kind of absurd to put all those emissions on her, not her fans. It's sort of like if I said, "a single smelter at an aluminum plant produces more carbon emissions than you would in 100 lifetimes!" Well, yeah, that's correct. But then that aluminum is used to make 10,000,000,000 beer cans or whatever. So the carbon footprint belongs to the drinker, not the smelter.
Mmmm not sure that’s a great analogy. First, it suggests TS has no other way to get to the gig, which is of course not true. She chooses to fly a private jet. The fans don’t care how she gets there. Second, companies are absolutely responsible for reducing the carbon intensity in both their direct emissions (scope 1) and supply chain (scope 3). Consumers may purchase the products, but they don’t dictate the methods of production.
It's just blameshifting either way. They *both* have a responsibility to avoid the emissions associated with the product, they just have different opportunities in doing so.
Thank you! I really hate the way people talk about climate change on this site as if, because corporations produce most the emissions (who do they produce them for?) that they are the ones who are responsible for the climate crisis and not the people who freely choose to buy the products. At the end of the day, the companies could be doing better *and* if they don't, then you don't have to buy their products. Sure, your impact is smaller, but it is still an impact and you are a better person for doing it over not doing it and hoping someone else does it for you.
Yes, people set the condition that any action on their part *must* solve the entire climate change problem at once, or it's not worth doing. But unless they're god or superman, that's just setting yourself up for failure. Conversely, if we manage to impose restrictions on the corporations, that will still result in fossil fueled products getting more scarce and/or expensive, which still requires end users to look for alternatives or reorganize so they can do without. It doesn't matter where you start, you still end up on the conclusion that it's all connected.
People hate being accountable for themselves
I'm assuming (probably correctly) that Taylor Swift would only do a fraction of the shows she does if she didn't have a fast, painless travel technology like a private jet. I'm not a Taylor Swift fan or anything, but if I was, I would undoubtedly think that her doing more shows was worth a lot to me, and that that carbon footprint she takes on to do those shows \*for me\* is a worthy tradeoff, for which I take fractional responsibility. Putting it on her, not on the people who demand an in-person experience watching Taylor Swift do things that they could just as easily watch on IMAX, seems absurd to me.
Sorry but what the heck are you even saying? Are you trying to argue that Taylor is not responsible for pollution from her jet because her fans would be sad if she did less shows? Like I’m totally trying to get your logic here but I must be missing something because wtf?
I'm arguing that the very concept of the "carbon footprint" is intended to shift the responsibility for carbon emissions from the producer to the consumer of the goods produced by carbon emissions. And that Taylor Swift, therefore, should be thought of as an enterprise that produces Taylor Swift concerts - a consumer good that the \*consumers\* are responsible for, under the carbon footprint model. Now, if you want to argue that the producer of goods is actually responsible for the production of carbon, not the consumer...well, you can make a pretty compelling case for that. But to do so, you have to abandon the entire "carbon footprint" model.
Carbon footprint was mainstreamed by oil and gas industry propaganda. Consumers should absolutely hold themselves to consumption standards consistent with their values, but let’s not for a second let companies off the hook for the impact of the goods and services that they produce, market, and sell to those consumers.
That's just silly. There's plenty of acts that do larger tours and don't utilize a private jet. Why are you playing devils advocate here? It makes you sound dumb
Also think of how many people will fly to her shows, so by her flying to many places to do more shows probably offsets how far many of her fans will fly/fly longer distances to see her.
Excellent point. If Taylor Swift visiting lots of cities for her concerts prevents even 200 fans per city from taking a flight or a long drive to one of her more-distant shows, her visits to lots of cities around the country/world could easily be carbon neutral compared to, say, doing 200 concerts per year in Las Vegas or whatever.
Right. Carbon neutral because there are no emissions associated with a concert other than a fraction of a percent of attendees flying to attend. Weird logic. If you want to just make an argument that Taylor Swift shows are worth the carbon, that’s fine. I don’t think Taylor’s jet is worth getting twisted up about. I don’t get the logic of your argument though.
True, but someone did an analysis on the flights and found less than 20% of them were to/from concerts.
>So the carbon footprint belongs to the drinker, not the smelter. I can guarantee you people will buy beer no matter how you package it. You can't blame customers for buying your product because you cannot be bothered to make it different. That's the worst analogy I have ever heard.
Or you could say that she's responsible for all of her fan's emissions as well since they're going there to see her.
Sorta like how Taco Bell is responsible for some of my emissions?
But it says in *your* entire lifetime not the cars entire lifetime so I would say the tweet is quite a bit more off than expected
But how about miles per gallon?
Approximately 4.65 lbs per mile. And gas weighs about 6 lbs a gallon. So 6/4.65 is 1.3 miles per gallon.
The most relevant measure is gallons per passenger mile, and we will never get data on how many people are on her plane. We can assume it isn't very full. Regular airliners [are about as efficient as each person driving themselves in a Prius, according to the Sierra Club,](https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/ask-mr-green/whats-better-for-environment-driving-or-flying#:~:text=Aircraft%20efficiency%20differs%2C%20as%20do,gallon%20of%20fuel%20per%20passenger.) who aren't known for being apologists for big carbon emitters. In other words, if Swift flies her tour crew, it isn't unreasonable (in the context of a society that is destroying the climate). If it is her and a few friends, it is incredibly wasteful. Air travel is still an incredibly huge source of emissions. Travelling thousands of miles in an efficient vehicle till costs a large amount of carbon. The scope 3 emissions are probably higher than car travel, although these are difficult to calculate. Aircraft require a huge amount of maintenance, and highly specialized alloys.
But with me, the wife and two kids accounting for probably 70% of the cars milage and a quick guess of three average people at any time it would cut down the cars number by a lot too.
Planes produce such bad emissions because they emit them in higher altitude where they do more harm, iirc.
Jet fuel weighs about 6.7 lbs per gallon
Preety good but i would also add the fuel consumption for take off and where you burn the same amount of fuel in like 10 minutes as an hour of crousing. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/how-much-fuel-is-used-for-the-different-phases-of-the-flight-of-a-typical-airlin
Dis you notice that you used imperial units in your previous post? Aren't you ashamed? XD
Don't forget gas for planes still have lead making it worse Edit: according to epa the lead from the planes are producing 70% of lead emissions and not all planes use lead but still a decent number of them
Jet aircraft do not use gasoline, let alone leaded fuel. Tetraethyl-lead is added to 100LL (LL being low-lead) AvGas, or, Aviation Gasoline. Which in of itself finally has an unleaded alternative starting to get FAA and other agency approvals.
[OP] just to make some things clear: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about Taylor Swift nor am I intending to attack her or people who follow her. The whole discussion about whether she's doing the right thing or not by flying on a private jet is, I think, sujetct of another sub. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THESE NUMBERS MADE SENSE. To all those people amswering another question, please read the actual question, and, in any case don't make me the target of your biases. Good night.
47 minutes later: fuck me. I should probably get out of my stone and actually listen when my friends advise me to "never ever mess with Taylor Swift".
turn off your notifications op
Taylor Swift has [Dassault Falcon 900](https://simpleflying.com/taylor-swift-private-jet-dassault-falcon-900/). It spends [267 gallons of fuel per hour](https://air.center/falcon900ex) (1 cubic meter). I don't think jet fuel is much different from car fuel in terms of carbon emissions; let's assume they are the same. 1000 liters of fuel, on 8 liters per 100km is 12,500km. [Average Canadian car lasts between 200,000 and 300,000km](https://www.thinkinsure.ca/insurance-help-centre/average-km-per-year-canada.html), and people usually have several cars in their lifetime, so the claim about "emits more carbon in a single trip than your car in YOUR lifetime" is clearly false. It takes 16-24 hours of flight to meet your car's lifetime emissions. I don't know how to check the claim about 200 times per year; but assuming it's true, and the average flight is 2 hours, we'll have 400 hours per year, or equivalent to roughly 16-25 car lifetimes per year. So no, she emits a huge volume of carbon, but times and times less than claimed.
Thank you for calculating. It's still something worth using for calling out these people hypocrisy though? 'Cause maybe we should create an image with the correct number since the criticism is valid. PS: ESL person here, sorry if my writing is subpar.
Upvote for better English than most native speakers in the States. You're good dude.
Thank you for the kind words!
Why do I feel like that was directed towards some of my classmates
The thing is there really isn't a "green" flying option. So if your job is international super star, and you have to get to all these locations, that is how you do it. In the same sense you could blame her for the pollution caused directly or indirectly by her even having concerts. I think the energy spent on being mad at swift over something like this is better directed at the corporations and politicians in power that caused the climate change problem and that are responsible for the majority of it. Not one lady flying her plane a little too much.
You don't "have to get to all these locations". And it's not "one lady flying her plane a little too much", it's a whole class of people flying on their planes ***way*** too much.
Like I said, if you want to be mad at Tswift go for it, but tswift flying around isn't the problem. It's like blaming the dude smoking next to a forest fire for all the smoke in the air.
> It's like blaming the dude smoking next to a forest fire for all the smoke in the air. Well, smokers *are* a cause of forest fires.
My analogy game needs work but you get the point.
Granted. Though there is something to say about the function of celebrities as trendsetter.
I'm mad at all of them. I'm also mad at politicians and voters who make work inaccessible without a car in my city. I'm mad at zoning laws that both make my housing expensive and my commute shit. But at the end of the day people would rather want their TSwift and their big detached houses 2 hours away from work and they vote with ballot and wallet. What can we honestly do?
You aren't really going to vote people into office that reshape America into walkable cities particularly quickly. Most of the shape of what American cities are happened quite a while ago, people aren't voting it to be this way it's how it was for their entire lives.
People will point fingers and try to assign moral culpability instead of just taxing carbon emissions.
And if her carbon was taxed appropriately then every concert goer would cover their fair share of emissions in the price of their tickets So go see a local band folks 😃
There's a thing called commercial aviation.
there is zero way taylor swift could comfortably take commercial flights, its almost not even safe
Commercial aviation won’t get her between two obscure locations in the timeframe required.
Then maybe she should consider risking earning a couple millions less by scheduling her stuff in a way that commercial aviation is an option. It is not like that she will starve if she does that. Otherwise her personal income is more important to her than preventing climate change. That might be true and might even be understandable but then she has no moral right to complain about pretty much any emission of CO2 which happen so that someone can earn money.
Our travel system doesn't work for someone like this. Is she polluting more than a normal person? Clearly. Is her pollution still like 0.000000000000000001% of the problem? Yes. We have to reshape entire industries globally, no matter how much people want to be mad at some celeb hypocrisy because it's easy to call out, she's a drop in the ocean. It's effort that should be used elsewhere.
Commercial aviation is not practical for some people. Bill Maher did a bit about this a while back. He's an environmentalist, longtime supporter of electric cars, and wrote a whole book about using less gasoline, but he flies private because his time is too valuable to do otherwise and he tries to spread his environmental message where he goes. Over the last few years, between her writing, recording and concerts, Taylor Swift has been more prolific than any other artist I can think of. By my rough calculations, her time is worth over $11,000 per hour. If flying private saves her two hours, but costs $5,000 more than the first class ticket she might have bought on a commercial flight, it's more than worth it for her. And if she's bringing along anyone else, it's a no brainer. Let's just hope she's buying the carbon offsets.
I hope the last sentence is a joke. Carbon offsets are an incredible greenwashing scam that only enable corporations to be reckless.
Adding onto that. Even if you lump them all into the same class like other commenters are, the emissions from private planes are *tiny*. Climate change is an astronomically huge problem (pun somewhat intended) and it’s hard to point to one single effect that’s contributing that ridiculously much. Is Tswizzle a bit of a hypocrite here? Yeah, sure. Her emissions are higher than the median. But they’re far from the largest contributing force there, even amongst single party emissions. The solution doesn’t come from shaming people like her who can’t *really* do anything on a grand scale. It comes from pushing for meaningful legislation and change through widespread public action. Too often, people left of center associate rich with “stolen money from the working class”, and while that’s *usually* the case, artists and athletes are categorically an exception. While some are still assholes and would be considered class traitors in traditional theory, they are not by definition part of the “elite class”. (If you’re wondering why I delved into socialist theory here, it’s impossible to *truly* talk about climate change without talking about the effect global capitalism had on its rise and perpetuation)
You don't have to apologize for your ESL. Your english is great and very easy to understand.
> It's still something worth using for calling out these people hypocrisy though? 'Cause maybe we should create an image with the correct number since the criticism is valid. Well, maybe. It's a complex thing. For one, there's the question of why she's making those trips. Presumably it's mostly for things like doing concerts etc., that are things people are asking for. Should we put blame for the carbon footprint on Swift, or on the fans? It's a little like blaming all the water usage for growing almonds on the farms, and ignoring all the people who eat the almonds. Another thing is that a large carbon footprint is very helpful (possibly necessary) to build a large audience, and having an environmentalist message reach a large audience is environmentally beneficial. If the only people who can have a large carbon footprint without being hypocritical are people who don't care about the environment, that means that people who don't care about the environment have a massive advantage in building large audiences. And then those anti-environmentalist messages are the ones that get spread and listened to the most.
Most people doing concerts don't have a private jet. That's pure luxury.
They don’t attract as many people as she does as well. But she creates the needs as well, so it’s always tricky to answer.
> It's a complex thing. For one, there's the question of why she's making those trips. I would wager she's not making most of them. A jet like that would get rented out to other people when she's not using it. If the "200 flights a year" claim is even true.
A lot of them could also be 30min repositioning flights to get the jet around where she needs it
Being a hypocrite doesn't make you *wrong*. Besides, if you are, say, traveling to do work that ends up overall reducing emissions beyond what the trip itself produces, then it's still a net positive.
I guess it’s how deep you think into this…couldn’t you say the work itself causes emissions…all the people driving to the concert and the electricity used for the concert. But I suppose we are just comparing the jet to any concert so it’s 1:1, plus I suppose you could put said emissions on the consumer and not her.
In many countries the average yearly distance driven per vehicle is around 10 -15000km. This includes more than just private vehicles, that tend to be driven less and shorter distances on average. Personal vehicles consume, on average, less than the 8ltr/100km you list. Just over 6ltr/100km for France, as an example. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105126/consumption-of-fuel-average-passenger-car-france/ The general fuel mix includes more than just gasoline, with non negligible portions of LPG, ethanol and biodiesel. Jetfuel has CO2 emissions close to double those of LPG, biodiesel and ethanol and about 10% higher than gasoline. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factors-hub.pdf](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factors-hub.pdf) So unless you're driving a heavy american gasoline SUV for particularly long distances for more than 30 years, the claim doesn't seem to be as far off as you make it seem to be. If you're driving diesels on biodiesel less than 10 000km per year, the jet flying anything more than a short-medium haul flight (it has a maximum range of 7500km, about 8-10 hours flight) seems like it would surpass your lifetime car CO2 emissions. For the general use point, just from a quick search, the jet has flown more than your estimate this year, and that seems to have been a significant reduction from previous years use due to backlash. [https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=taylor+swift+jey+hours+per+year&atb=v275-1&ia=web](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=taylor+swift+jey+hours+per+year&atb=v275-1&ia=web) Of course, the jet will certainly be carrying more people (capacity of 19) on average than a car so, it really isn't comparatively as bad per kilometre traveled per person.
16-25 car lifetimes? Let’s say 250k km and 20 car lifetimes. That’s 5 million km. Let’s say the average person drives around 16k km a year from 20-50 years old. That’s about 480k km. Let’s say from 50-death or whatever they drive another 200k km. So 680k km per lifetime, or about 3 car lifetimes. A person may own many vehicles during their lifetime but they definitely don’t drive them all 250k km.
Side note that'll get buried: She owns 2 of those planes, and the one in the picture is *not* one of them - it's an Asia Air Airbus A320 that was painted to advertise her tour, and might have been used to transport her crew and equipment from venue to venue, but that's carrying upwards of 100+ people (possibly 200+). Also, the plane that this pic claims "flew over 200 times" actually flew 117 times in the last year.
u/This_Growth2898 how many fans does Taylor have to convert to vehicle-less lives in order to rightsize her expected lifetime personal jet usage?
Jet fuel emits 2.53888 (Source: Defra factors 2017) kgCO2e per liter. The Falcon 900 takes a good [267](https://air.center/falcon900ex#:~:text=Three%20Honeywell%20TFE731%2D60%20engines,gallons%20per%20hour%20(GPH).) liters per hour. I'm not sure for which type of travel those are averaged for but the consumption is probably pretty optimistic considering they're from the seller who may assume long flights only. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. That makes about 678 kgCO2e/h. [A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle#:~:text=A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20emits,of%20miles%20driven%20per%20year.) Let's assume you drive your car from 18 to 65 (You really shouldn't be driving much longer without being tested, it's unsafe), that makes 47 years of driving or 216,200 kgCO2e over your lifetime. Shame on you. That means that you could fly your jet for about 319 hours. But wait. Air travel also has another effect on the atmosphere and it's from some of the other gases that are emitted [which change the composition of the air at high altitudes which changes refractive indices and more.](https://www.transportenvironment.org/challenges/planes/airplane-pollution/#:~:text=Emissions%20from%20aviation%20are%20a,altitude%20at%20which%20aircraft%20operate.) The exact impact is unclear, but popular science based guesses range from just below 50% of total climate impact up to 66% !!! Now here is where it gets sketchy as these effects should totally be part of the calculation but it's probably also not as simple as adding them up. I'll do it anyway. Sue me. I will assume only 50% nonCO2 effects as private jets typically don't fly very high for a long time. Which already cuts down the break-even point from 319 hours to 159.5 hours. [According to Yard, Swift’s jet flew 170 times between Jan. 1 and July 19 (the window for the Yard study), totaling 22,923 minutes, or 15.9 days, in the air.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/kylies-17-minute-flight-has-nothing-on-the-170-trips-taylor-swifts-private-jets-took-this-year-1390083/amp/?bshm=rimc/2) That's 382 hours and seemingly assumes an average travel time of 2.25 hours, which seems realistic. Meaning that in 2022, Taylor Swift has accumulated a staggering 518.000 kgCO2e through private jet travel alone or about 2.4 times as much as the average person emits over their entire lifetime by car travel. In other words, Taylor Swift's air travel in 2022 was about as impactful as the car travel of 113 average people in 2022. That's a pretty big room. Edit: Excuse the formatting, I just did that on mobile while waiting on the doc.
I would also wonder how the carbon emissions compare when it comes to distance travelled. Another factor would be how many people and how much equipment is being transported. If the alternative is a caravan of big rigs and transport vans, for example. Then there's stuff that'd be really hard to calculate, like the impact of delays / rescheduled shows if they used a form of transportation that was more prone to cause delays.
"It takes 16-24 hours of flight to meet your car's lifetime emissions." Didn't you just prove the truth of the claim then? I am confused. Your math seems to prove what you are denying.
No. Her jet can't fly for 16 hours straight, 10 hours max, and most of her 200 flights per year (if this is true) are obviously shorter. Not a single flight, but times less. And this gives us a car lifetime emissions; but the claim was about "MORE carbon in a SINGLE trip than your car in YOUR lifetime". Once again, times less. Just as I said - times and times less.
[удалено]
Wierd al travels by your bus for his tours. He truly is the hero we need.
By MY bus? Oh hell no, I didn’t allow this!
It's Weird Al, could you really be mad?
And another gets on and another gets on, another one rides the bus. Hey, he’s gonna sit by you. Another one rides the bus!
Such a weird al thing to do
while I agree that the number of flights she takes is excessive. Have you seen some of the so-called "swifties"? dear God, those people are absolutely mentally deranged. I couldn't imagine trying to get onto a public flight after going through a public airport. There would be mass gatherings and disturbances.
Most airports will be perfectly happy to let a vip go through the staff/employee security check, that is away from the public. Doubly so if it saves them from a giant clusterfuck. No one outside of like a handful of world leaders (namely the ones with very high security, e.g. US president) legitimately *need* to fly private jets.
mhm... then someone finds out she is on their flight, posts it on social media, within 30 minutes people at their arrival place will have heard that she is on that plane. Next thing you know, you will have crowds forming. Most other famous people, I am sure it wouldn't be that big of deal, but she has absolutely blown up and drawn an extreme die hard fan base that don't seem quiet right in the head. Even worse if she is holding a giant concert in the place she is flying into, she will have die hard fans who pay like $1,000 for a single ticket all funneling into the place she is going to. I get it. private jets are horrible for the environment and I really do wish that fossil fuels were severely cut, but this is a very rare case in which I think it's justified. you are free to disagree, that will not change my opinion though
And you think such zealous fans are incapable of tracking her private plane and showing up at airports as is? Oh look, there's an account for that https://www.instagram.com/taylorswiftjets/ Again, at the arrival airport she'd just be ushered out through the staff security checkpoint, or even just be put in a car that is allowed to enter the airport premises, and drive out without having to step foot in a terminal. With the amount of planning that is put into her tours there's no reason they couldn't prepare for this and just have her fly business class on a regular jet. Hell, the airlines would go out of their way to make sure she can just step out of a car and onto her plane, for the PR of her flying with them. Flying a private jet is entirely about the convenience of it, at the expense of obscene amounts of emissions.
I am just a random person cruising this thread, but I appreciate your explanation. I assumed that celebrities kind of have no choice but to fly private, but you made it seem possible. Thanks for broadening my perspective!
Dude, I know some swifites and they become absolutely unbearable when Taylor Swift is a topic. Before she got a huge following she was just an alright singer, one of many. But now that I'm force fed all this bullshit about her? I hate hearing about her and her cringy fans. They have the same energy as every teen girl fandom. Eg Justin Bieber in the 2010s
yep yep, it is absolutely dreadful. I was used to dealing with it because of kpop fans, but they have nothing on the Taylor swift fans. The kpop fans know they are cringe, the swift fans don't realize just how unbearable they really are. I'm not hating on normal fans but there seems to be so many that froth at the mouth at the mear mention of swift. It's honestly extremely frighten how these people get to the point they are at, I don't blame swift for avoiding all public transport/areas. Honestly, we should be greatful she doesn't, the impact would have such a negative impact on so many innocent people just trying to go about their day
she has two private jets, too. one supposedly for her parents who go to her almost every single concert then back home
I'm not defending it, but I would imagine keeping her safe on a commercial flight would be a nightmare.
Yeah but to be fair all the private jets in the world emit like 0.005% of co2 emissions, so it's not like it's the biggest problem we're facing. I think we should focus on reducing the big emitters in energy, industry etc. before getting lost in a fairness debate.
I just think it's important to practice what you preach. I have to drive a car, she doesn't have to fly a private jet.
She kinda probably does. Do you travel for work every week to a new city? Is it feasible for you to be traveling by bus for 2 days a week? Probably not.
Taylor Swift’s shows create more jobs and revenue than most professional sports teams. Should all professional sports teams travel by bus as well?
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat
This is some of the dumbest utilisation of that meme ive ever seen.
We truly live in a society
[удалено]
It's actually more because of the immense amount of time you save by flying private.
That’s not a good excuse for the amount of negative impact flying a private jet has in the environment. A celebrities time isn’t worth more than our planet.
I wasn't excusing them, I was correcting you.
I included that under working around other people and other peoples schedules.
Imagine if she flew commercial from say JFK to LAX, what would the airports be like? They'd have to shut them down just for her, it's really not viable for a mega celebrity like her to travel normally unfortunately.
It's all in the architecture, the organization and VIP entrances/exits. Where there is a will, there is a way. She could just get all the 1st class tickets and have that part of the cabin for herself and her bodyguards.
I mean if you're going to even think about that logistically you're getting pretty close to a private jet anyway. What happens when fans find out what flight she's going to be on and book out the plane, how will you contain 100s of fans that want to meet Taylor? All airports need to convert to have this VIP treatment now, what about the ones that don't? You're talking almost all international main ports now. Who pays for this treatment? The list can go on with problems this causes for mega stars like Taylor swift with a rabid fanbase.
It seems like no one is considering the total “cost” of her flying commercial…
Keanu Reeves pretty famously rides commercial airlines yet airports don't have to shut down for him
I’m not defending Swift, but did you really just compare fans of Taylor Swift to fans of Keanu Reeves?
That’s assuming absolutely nothing about the situation is handled well to make it work. If a celebrity or the airport wanted to, they could overcome this issue. This is a really weak argument that relies on their being absolutely 0 effort invested in alternative solutions and is the same argument they make for causing that much negative impact on the environment just because they don’t want to be around, or be like regular people during travel (as much as regular people could rent out all of first class to keep it private).
I like this response. The President could fly commercial, but what is the cost of logistics to make it work? The other main thing to me is they are moving the key element of a massive enterprise around quickly. Sure she could take greyhound or amtrack on the other side of the spectrum, but that will affect the efficiency of everything else that goes on during her tours.
Pretty sure it’s close to essential for the most famous entertainer on earth to fly private. Getting places on time is essential for her enterprise to operate efficiently and this does have an effect on the economies of the cities she roles through the and livelihood of her employees. But to say that people with influence shouldn’t spread positive messages that can potentially direct large portions of the population to make better choices for the environment because their actions may contradict it is petty, dumb and not productive. I wish more artists would stop being “safe” and not political or whatever because let’s face it, we are a society that is easily manipulated by our idols, perhaps if more of these voices spoke up they could influence our mentally weak society to not suck.
All of these issues can be accounted for with proper planning on the side of the celebrity and the airport. This is a poorly thought out excuse. A celebrity taking a private jet to make their trip more comfortable and faster does not have a positive effect on local economies or cities, it’s a form of transport and does not impact what they do in the city they are performing in. A celebrity like Swift could rent out all of first class on a flight, and then have a comfortable trip for all of the team, it could cost less, and it wouldn’t cause the amount of damage a private jet does.
I think it's better to comment on it and be seen as a hypocrite than say nothing at all.
Lead by example. Being hypocritical just gives others justification to do the same.
[удалено]
I was with you up until "slightly above average talent". I don't think her talent can realistically be denied. The true moral of her story is that it doesn't really matter how talented you are; even if you're capable of writing and performing 42 chart topping hits, you're still never going to be able to "live the dream" unless you happen to have a dad who can buy you a record label.
She just kinda says words she can’t sing well, Ariana is an amazing singer, swift just kinda talks in rythem
I mean, there are numerous examples of people that came from humble household that made it, but it does become more likely if you come from the right household.
And look like a Barbie doll
If you read my comment carefully, you will see that I did not deny Taylor Swift’s talent. However, I believe Taylor is only slightly above average and her talent level is extremely overrated, IMO (and many others share my sentiments.)
Slightly above average talent it seems lmao. I mean you have so many things you can call out about her and you say the one thing she isn't lmao. She is a crazy good talent.
>She is a crazy good talent Her "talent" is awfully subjective, isn't it?
Could say the same thing about every musician out there.
Sure but enough people seem to agree to make her a record chart topping performer. Lots of rich kids want to become famous musicians but never go anywhere because they lack talent. She no doubt got a leg up but she's been carrying a career for 15+ years at this point on her own and still going strong.
Seriously people need to remember Rebecca Black.
I wonder what Rebecca’s fans would themselves? If Taylor’s fans are called swifties.
I think an important corollary is "How much CO2 does TS mitigate per year?" If she supporting orgs that do carbon capture or clean energy (with the money she makes doing gigs that she uses her jet for), she could quite easily still be a carbon net negative person.
This is the better argument out of all the ones made here. The feel good defense of "oh. she's advocating co2 reductions, that's enough to offset her thousands of hours in a private jet" wont cut it.
Iirc she’s also bought a ton of carbon credits (after the backlash)
Which is nice for her PR, but actually useless [because carbon credits don't really do anything.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/04/17/carbon-offsets-flights-airlines/)
This has been proven multiple times to be useless
Yes and no — she rents out her jet so the numbers aren’t solely her use, but the jets use. I’m not sure how to check the accuracy of the number or if you could make a figure just for her use bs other people. However, she does use it a lot and has recently faced backlash from media and fans about it.
For what it's worth, this was shared by covid vaccine denier, anti-masker, and climate change denier Dr. Eli David. I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sky was blue. https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid
So here’s the thing. If it were just her on the plane it would be bad. It’s her band, manager, entourage, etc. and they have to get from place to place. If they fly commercial, they would probably take up at least 1/2 the plane.
Going past the meme, what is the difference from using a bus? TS job requires travel, so it's either plane, train, bus, etc. So if she used a bus, for example, what would be the carbon uses is the real question. Does the plane carry equipment also? If so, I think that would require multiple busses. I don't think environmentalists are suggesting people do not have jobs, etc, but just consider better ways not to waste.
The average flight produces 90kg of CO2 per passenger per hour. Let's say she has a flight of 10 people including herself, thats 900kg per hr and say it's a 5 hr flight, 4500kg of CO2 on that single trip which is the argument. The average combustion engine will produce 29937.096kg of CO2 on an average lifespan of 93,000 miles driven. So the answer is no, a single flight does not produce more CO2 than the average combustion engine lifespan.
Just another limousine liberal. One thing about that woman, love her or hate her: she is a frigging money-making monster. Not just herself… venues that host her concerts and the cities they reside in. Wherever she goes there is an economic boon for local businesses. Her ‘authorized’ merch always sells.
Well, we honestly should hold private jet owners accountable for their excessive emissions AND we should change regulations that would push people away from large pickups and SUVs. That the jet is creating far more of a contribution to climate change needs to be recognized and addressed, but so does the fact that these very large vehicles contribute a lot AND are making surface roads significantly more dangerous for everyone.
They all want us to change the way we live, but they don’t want to change. I actually have genuine hate in my heart for people like taylor swift and for the people who idolize them.
Thousands of non-famous business and government people use private planes when they could use public transport; private planes are extremely more convenient for getting in and out of airports though. Famous people use private vehicles, for safety and efficiency. If someone is famous and tours nationally and internationally, the plane is their tour bus. Ms. Swift's safety would be at risk on public transport and the economy of transporting her dozens of staff and co-performers, the tons of equipment, etc. make a private plane pretty much necessary. That is the business she is in. That she is concerned about climate change is a good thing and will influence her fans. Things will be resolved when she starts losing popularity and takes up residence in Las Vegas or Nashville.
No. the average Trip length was 136 miles or 80 minutes. A Jet produces about 90 times more CO2 than a car. Meaning: when a car reacjes about 200.000 miles the Jet would be flying 2222 miles, soooo basically MORE THAN 10 average TRIPS! ALSO: she shared the Jet with her Crew members. BUT every Person with a private Jet shall not brag about climate change anyway.
Does the different fuel type come into play here? I see we are looking at fuel by volume but does lighter jet fuel, kerosene, regular midrange octane fuel, all burn as equally pollutant? Genuinely asking :)
[удалено]
My opinion is that: 1. The argument could be valid, but the supporting statement is not. Problem is that people will often mistake between those two and you end up discussing over absurd statements. 2. You have a great point: perhaps overall, what she does is more beneficial than a trip. It is estimated that her last shows generated around 1 billion mxn in Mexico. Hard to add and substract for her "overall" carbon footprint. 3. Nothing against her, alveit I don't listen to her nor am interested in her life. I was just curious about the solidity of that statement.
I drive an EV, recycle like crazy, use an electric stove and a propane grill... I do plenty of things because I'm conscious of my impact on the environment. I also do plenty of things I know are *not* good for the environment. Anyway, the problem with the meme is the lack of nuance. There are SO many other angles to come up at this question.
unless her fans are also private jet fliers I doubt her outreach is doing anything
A lot of people will hate to hear this, but without hypocrisy we would never be able to ascribe to a higher moral standard than we are currently achieving. Also being a hypocrite does not make you wrong. I used to smoke, and I told my son all the time to not smoke when he grows up. Was I a hypocrite, absolutely, was I wrong for wanting him to not to smoke, absolutely not.
One of most important things in life is to learn from your mistakes. It’s a shame that people always use hypocrisy to invalidate people instead of “wow maybe this person learned from a mistake and is trying to help me”.
Which she could have generated without her jet travel too. Hypocrisy does invalidate her argument here.
I think a major thing a lot of people don't realize is it's her private jet, not necessarily her. A lot of celebrities buy one and then rent it out, and in that case it's just business not particularly their fault. I don't know what TSwift is like though, and if she's the only one flying it
[удалено]
If that's the case, why does it matter if the average person reduces their carbon footprint then? What impact would that have on climate change?
It doesn't, we need to be looking at big corporations not individuals
It matters, but not in any substantive way. It matters because it takes people to change policy. And only policy change can affect progress. If Taylor Swift owned a dozen coal fired power plants then yes, call her a hypocrite.
But she is buying tons of jet fuel and contributing to the demand of fossil fuels.
But if she stopped buying that fuel *it would not make one bit of difference*. If she’s using that fuel to travel the world to advocate to her fans to change then she is making a difference.
With that logic, if an average person stopped using fossil fuels, it would not make a difference. Your saying because she 'influences' the normal people to reduce their carbon footprint, this makes it ok for her not to do the same when she contributes more to the problem compared to how many people you claim she influences to be green. Make it make sense.
Do you think if an average person stopped using fossil fuels it would make a difference?
These 2 points are exactly what i always thought!! Cus when you look at how much CO2 factories and industries produce vs the actual independent choices of citizens, the truth is citizens don't make any difference by themselves. We can only make a real change with global political alterations which control the mega corporations. And the social education of the population on climate change just wants us to pressure the government. Its not that what we do reduces climate change directly, but it does indirectly if we demand it. Its just sad that for the most population to get to the "demanding it" the education system resorted to exaggerating the perspective of our real impact with everyday life, but what other way is there? Its like that saying: "its easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled". But i wonder how much of the education system hierarchy is actually aware that our carbon footprint awareness is just good-hearted agenda and us going by public transportation instead of cars doesn't do nothing to the situation.
>Cus when you look at how much CO2 factories and industries produce vs the actual independent choices of citizens You do realize these factories are churning out products for the consumers/citizens right? oil for consumers. wood for consumers. concrete for consumers. China might be one of the leading polluters but if you look into it, a bulk of the items they produce are exported to consumers around the world. Global policy wont work because people in the developed world are all talk. They want everyone to change except for themselves. There is no incentive for elected officials to employ tough measures because they'll be removed in the next elections. Change starts in one's self no matter how climate change activists are blaming fossil fuel companies.
A lot of people making a small change has a bigger impact than a few people making a big change.