A full breakdown of the top 10 celebrity CO2e offenders:

  1. Taylor Swift: 8,293.54 tonnes (per year), or 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions.

  2. Floyd Mayweather: 7,076.8 tCO2e (tonnes of CO2 emitted, per year)

  3. Jay-Z: 6,981.3 tCO2e

  4. A-Rod ( J-Lo’s ex-fiance and baseball player) : 5,342.7 tCO2e

  5. Blake Shelton: 4495 tCO2e

  6. Steven Spielberg: 4,465 tCO2e

  7. Kim Kardashian: 4268.5 tCO2e

  8. Mark Wahlberg: 3772.85 tCO2e

  9. Oprah Winfrey: 3,493.17 tCO2e

  10. Travis Scott (Kylie Jenner’s Beau) : 3033.3 tCO2e

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
    251·
    11 months ago

    The addendum is interesting:

    … this finding broadly assumes that all celebrities were using the same grade of private jet, whereas, in reality, there are some jets on the list which emit far more emissions than others. Therefore, revisiting calculations, taking into account the specific jets being used, rather than use a broad estimate of CO2e, we have the consumption of jet fuel during each of these trips, and then identified the CO2e per gallon of jet fuel.

    Interestingly [with] these different calculations, we see that the jet owned by Drake uses an average of 1,722 gallons of jet fuel per hour, whereas Taylor Swift’s jet uses a much lower 347 gallons per hour.

    taytay’s jet is 5x more efficient than Drake’s, which makes Drake look like an irresponsible fuckhead (surprising no one). His plane is basically rolling coal. Even with the adjustments, Swift still tops the list:

    • 1 Taylor Swift 2,971.50
    • 2 Drake 2,904.25
    • 3 Floyd Mayweather 2,205.22
    • 4 Puma/Jay-Z 2,107.72
    • 5 Kim Kardashian 1,752.51
    • 6 A-Rod 1,731.10
    • 7 Steven Spielberg 1,485.69
    • 8 Mark Wahlberg* 1,443.27
    • 9 Blake Shelton 1,357.85
    • 10 Jack Nicklaus 1,129.66

    Which means she’s flying a lot more miles than everyone else.

    • Cosmicomical@kbin.social
      12·
      11 months ago

      When are we going to introduce tokens to handle externalities like this? It shouldn’t be possible or at least easy to abuse resources like this.

        • Cosmicomical@kbin.social
          4·
          11 months ago

          That’s not what i’m suggesting, and the limits and costs associated with externalities could be tuned so that the life of a normal person would not be altered if not in the sense that you would get additional tokens that you can keep or sell depending on your needs and personal values. I can elaborate if it’s unclear.

          The real change would be that if a billionaire wants to live that kind of lifestyle, they would have to gather enough tokens from the market. This would really enable some sort of trickle down because they would have to buy the tokens from you and you would always be able to tell them “no” and keep them from polluting.

          • Cosmicomical@kbin.social
            4·
            11 months ago

            To clarify, these tokens would be in addition to money, not a replacement for them. It’s a concept more similar to the carbon markets but they would be at the level of the citizen.

            • Maëlys@slrpnk.netOP
              21·
              11 months ago

              sure, since its not a single person planet: everyone should have a say on someone’s behaviour toward the climate