• Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    115
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    For those unaware

    From 2022:

    Taylor Swift’s plane was identified by the report as the “biggest celebrity CO2e polluter this year so far,” racking up 170 flights since January with emissions totaling more than 8,293 metric tons.

    A report published last year by Transport & Environment, a major European clean transport campaign group, found that a single private jet can emit 2 metric tons of CO2 in just an hour. To put that in context, the average person in the E.U. produces about 8.2 tons of emissions over the course of an entire year, according to the report.

    https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021_05_private_jets_FINAL.pdf

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        67
        ·
        11 months ago

        Swift’s flights were responsible for a thousand times more C02e than an average EU citizen. One has a comma, the other has a dot

        • brbposting
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          11 months ago

          How much more economic activity than the average citizen?

          Anyway I suppose flying commercial and accordingly taking on a less aggressive tour schedule would help her reduce her footprint. I only know a few her hits (mostly that are more club friendly) personally but acknowledge she’s going to be responsible for more of everything in the aggregate. Way more environmental damage. Way more endorphins.

          So back to “how can she reduce her footprint” while still doing her Swiftie thing? Sure there are plenty of ways.

          • Hiro8811@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            She might do more economic activity but for who? Organizers? Herself? Scalpers? If she has that much money to be considered a billionaire maybe she could do something to cover her footprint. Plant some trees or donate to some organization that occupy with saving the planet.

          • Ookami38
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Fly commercial. Drive as much as possible. I assume she rents it out when she’s not actively using it. Stop doing that.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Mistaking a comma for a decimal point isn’t really what I’d call ‘math’.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Also in some countries the comma, not the dot, is the decimal separator, so I can see how somebody from such a nation who has also been exposed to the use of the dot as decimal separator, might thinl they both can be used like that and mean the same and not be aware that in English-speaking countries the comma is never used as decimal separator.

      • Ookami38
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        No, a single person is responsible for 8.2 tons and Swift’s JET ALONE did 8.293. That’s not counting all of the OTHER carbon footprint that swift undoubtedly has.

        Edit:uah, even worse. It’s 8 THOUSAND tons for her jet, and 8 tons for the regular person.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Right. Her jet alone released the same carbon as 1,000 people. Of course, she’s far from the only wealthy person doing this.

    • Lauchs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      49
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Edit: A lot of people seem to have no idea what carbon offsets are. Here’s a reasonably quick rundown:

      https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/carbon-offsets#:~:text=Carbon offsets fund specific projects,and waste and landfill management.

      Basically though, they are tge best market solution we have thus far yo the climate crisis. We need government to do better but in that absence, this is the closest we hve to a free market solution. While appealing, solutions like “bitching online that people should just go back to pre industrial era lives” or “hoping everyone will just vote correctly next time” are definitely fun solutions, carbon offsets have the effect of actually doing stuff in the meantime.

      If we’re crucifying people for things they are expected to have, are you pure evil because the phone youbhad undoubtedly used cobalt mined by children who occasionally lose their arns mining it?

      A cursory google search showed that she paid double her carbon offsets for the current tour. While imperfect, carbon offsets, and people voluntarily paying into them is how we move through and past our current carbon intensive lifestyle.

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Going to bat for a rich popstar is a little weird.

          Reality should be reality, regardless of the subject.

          Edit: At least 9 people disagree but so far, the closest to a substantive reply is essentially “she’s rich, why do you care?”

            • Lauchs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              11 months ago

              I dunno, read again?

              I explained things pretty well in my original post. If you have questions or trouble understanding, I’d be happy to explain.

                • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  18
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I listened to her music voluntarily for the first time earlier this year, not my style.

                  That being said, paying into a carbon offset is the best way to advance a regime that actually transitions us to a green economy.

                  Are you a vegan who doesn’t have a car and won’t have children? That’s the best way to reduce your emissions. If not, are you as similarly unethical? And if it’s a scale issue, given the fact she makes so many people happy as evidenced by their willingness to pay seemingly infinite dollars to see her, well, I’m curious as to whether you feel you think you make a fraction of as many people happy?

                  It’s easy to pile upon the rich but compared to most of the world, you are the Taylor Swift of the world. So these “no no, she costs a thousand times more!” Arguments don’t really hold, medium income westerner is responsible for a boatload more emissions than a poor third worlder, so why shouldn’t you be held to a similar nonsensical standard? At least Swift is contributing to the things that help us, what similar contributions have you made?

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        11 months ago

        carbon offsets

        they are tge best market solution we have thus far yo the climate crisis

        Bullshit. Carbon offsets is mostly a scam where polluters “offset” real emissions with potential if not purely theoretical mitigation. The reforestation that companies claim offset their emissions would fill more land than there is on earth in total.

        Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, to name the worst problem humanity has, is emitting MORE than ever while using the Carbon Offsets scam to greenwash their killing millions of people a year while being the main cause of climate change.

        The best solution is, has always been and always will be to emit less pollutants.

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          11 months ago

          Literally all your complaints call for better regulation rather than abandonment of the carbon offset program… Such regulation being enabled by, you guessed it, high profile folks buying in!

          Yes, no emissions would be better but until we’re willing to chastise everyone for not eating vegan, it seems pretty silly to get annoyed for someone who contributes less to climate change than say, a mcdonalds.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Enough with the “your point is only valid if it’s 100% and mine’s valid if it’s 0.1%” bullshit.

            You just want to pretend that the scam is working and will work more if it’s expanded rather than do what every single scientist with expertise in relevant areas and without tons of conflicts of interest say is the only real solution.

            • Lauchs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Which one of your complaints wasn’t about how a carbon offset system should be implemented rather than the notion itself is bad?

              To say that it carbon offsets can be gamed and thus the entire system is awful is a little silly. It’s sort of like saying “too many people cheat on their taxes, we shouldn’t have taxes!” Instead of, y’know, better regulation and enforcement.

              In this case, you have one of the most PR savvy people on Earth, I’d be surprised if her team didn’t find a legit carbon offset (which is exactly how we say, compensate farmers for not burning the amazon for the lucrative farmland etc.)

              As for the only real solution, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll note most of those scientists have for years suggested a carbon tax as a way to transition to net zero. Well, in the face of government inaction, carbon offsets are the free market filling the gap in the meantime. Are they imperfect? Absolutely! But are programs like this how we fund and develop the transition to net zero? Also absolutely!

              • SeducingCamel@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                The system is designed to be gamed, it’s working as intended. It’s a complete bullshit sham that isn’t doing a single thing for the climate

      • PostingPenguin@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well if you really start looking into it, carbon offsets are mostly a scam.

        For instance just declaring: “I will cut down this forest” without ever having the intention to do so, and then not doing it counts as a carbon offset. This is what abgreat part of companies are doing. Just saving forests that nobody wanted to cut down in the first place from being cut down. This they then sell to the consumer as a carbon offset.

        John Oliver had a great segment on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ahhhh, the John Oliver effect. I knew there was a reason people were furious without quite being able to articulate well!

          If you pay attention, you’ll note that Oliver’s problem with carbon offsets is that the system is too easy to game, which is fair!

          But to say that means the entire notion of carbon offsets is nonsense is a little silly. It’s sort of like saying “too many people cheat on their taxes, we shouldn’t have taxes!” Instead of, y’know, better regulation and enforcement.

          In this case, you have one of the most PR savvy people on Earth, I’d be surprised if her team didn’t find a legit carbon offset (which is exactly how we say, compensate farmers for not burning the amazon for the lucrative farmland etc.)

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I didn’t know you could pay money to reverse the damage you have personally caused to the climate crisis

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          You can’t. But in the real world, we aren’t going to stop using planes, cars and heaters in the next few months.

          The best thing that aids a transition are carbon offsets that help subsidize the very technology upon which a Green revolution depends.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Ironically inconvenient truths for the armchair environmentalists.

            Besides, I suspect if one gave them all a winning lottery ticket we could observe how quickly their attitudes change.

            Nevertheless I could think of probably hundreds of individuals far less ethical and far more responsible for global catastrophe in this day than Swift. So as far as billionaires go, she’s not all that bad. Let’s perhaps focus more on Musk, Bezos, the Waltons, etc…?

            • Lauchs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              hundreds of individuals far less ethical and far more responsible for global catastrophe in this day than Swift

              Yeah but hating on those folks wouldn’t be as cool as hating on someone the normies like!

              …/s

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                I wouldn’t be surprised if this outrage is astrotrufing from righties because they’re scared how powerful Swift is in mobilizing Voter registration for the left.

                • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Someone else pointed out there was a John Oliver segment about carbon offsets (in which he pointed out that they aren’t well regulated and are subject to abuse.) I think people forgot the specifics and just remember OFFSETS = BAD, rather than the appropriate albeit more nuanced “like most things, these are vulnerable to abuse and should probably be better regulated.”

                  Combine that with hating mainstream pop culture with a chance to condescend and you have a perfect storm of toxicity.

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          As are the childlike “I refuse to acknowledge how to actually make things better but complaining on the internet is free and easy!” Levels.