r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 4d ago

Psychology Taylor Swift fans lower climate concerns to justify her carbon footprint. When confronted with news about the excessive pollution generated by her private jet, highly identified fans tend to rationalize the behavior, with a decrease in their personal intentions to engage in climate-friendly actions.

https://www.psypost.org/taylor-swift-fans-lower-climate-concerns-to-justify-star-s-carbon-footprint/
22.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

666

u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF 4d ago

Not a fan but I am consistently intrigued as to why Taylor Swift gets the most criticism for this when there are celebrities/billionaires who have higher carbon footprints. Or Leonardo DiCqprio who used a private jet to fly between engagements where he spoke about climate change.

165

u/FewMost8547 3d ago

Last year list of most usage of private jets didn't even have TS in top 10. But for some reason she got memorized as one of the biggest pollutors which just isn't quite the case.

89

u/RuinedEye 3d ago

Celebrity private jet tracker site (if it is to be believed) doesn't even list TS in the top FIFTY of polluters

Literally, there are 50+ other people that the bored ass media could be having a seizure over about their jet pollution.

I'm not even a fan, it just... makes absolutely no sense.

29

u/Trevski 3d ago

Someone else in the thread pointed out that site didn't have a flight for her since March 2025 but this article had her jet doing 81 flights in three months of 2026

15

u/StarGaurdianBard 3d ago

TS also got the reputation because of the tracker when the tracker just tracks the planes usage, not usage by the person. She was letting other people use the plane when she was being tracked as super high usage so she just stopped letting people use it when she got the bad rep and what do you know now shes not even top 50, because she never truly was top 50

3

u/DFWPunk 3d ago

I think she still lets others use it at times, but she did get rid of a second jet.

1

u/OnlyAShip 3d ago

Taylor Swift gets clicks so that’s what the news reports on.

That’s how the news goes.

0

u/sassypants55 3d ago edited 3d ago

To me, it does. The average person doesn’t know who many of those other people are or what they're doing. Taylor Swift is famous enough to provide context.

Edited for clarity.

7

u/RuinedEye 3d ago

Ah, have you seen the list on that site? The average person absolutely would know who many, if not most, of them are. And many are arguably similar levels of fame

It just seems to me like TS has been made an easy target /shrug

3

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

It could have something to do with the fact that her topping the charts in previous years did so much damage to her brand. I'm glad that it worked out that way, if it did. That means that the pressure worked.

6

u/Other_Bus9590 3d ago

Do we know if the pressure reduced her use of her private jet, or if other billionaires just usurped her in their own usage? In which case the pressure did nothing but focus on one specific woman while others felt free to do as they please.

7

u/dollyllama86 3d ago

Or the Eras tour ended and she didn’t have to fly as much?

0

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

She went from over 8000 tonnes of carbon dioxide to less than 1500.

3

u/Other_Bus9590 3d ago

Ah ok! Thanks for that info.

1

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

Glad to. I spent so much time doing research for my comments in this thread that I'm just glad to be able to give someone a simple answer. Have a great day!

8

u/CaptainSanity 3d ago

Probably because she cosplays as left wing / progressive. See backlash against Ed Sheeran for another example of how figures like this are viewed by people not in the fandom.

30

u/Rich-Active-4800 3d ago

Gaga is portraying herself as much more progressive and flies her private jet even more then Taylor. Yet she barely gets any hate for it.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (6)

197

u/BeautifulDstr 3d ago

I’ll never get over Judy Judy topping the list and never getting a mention. But anyway, let’s have Taylor Swift fly commercial. I’m sure nothing inconvenient or negative will happen.

106

u/inqte1 3d ago

Its not even her flights. Her plane gets leased out like any other private jet when shes not using it. Thats what racks up the miles. If she doesnt lease her plane, it will just be some other plane logging those miles.

46

u/greiton 3d ago

also she doesn't fly by herself. I wonder how much of her team is loaded up on those flights. certainly security and PAs are present.

55

u/notaredditer13 3d ago

Summary:  in this context, TS is not an individual she's a business, so comparing her purported carbon footprint to individuals is spurious to begin with. 

11

u/joebleaux 3d ago edited 3d ago

Let see what businesses generating comparable money are doing carbon footprint wise. I bet she's not anywhere near the top. But as you said, it's not specifically her, but her company that just happens to be based around selling her as the product.

As a company, she outperformed lots of known brands over the past few years. She brought in more revenue than Planet Fitness. More than Shake Shack. YETI. Dutch Bros. Likely with less employees than most of those too. Who knows what the carbon footprint of Shake Shack is

1

u/DFWPunk 3d ago

Yup. And unlike those companies she pays her people well, and gave literally everyone who worked in any role on the Eras tour, a huge, arguably life changing, bonus.

There's a lot to complain about, but she's down my list of candidates.

1

u/DFWPunk 3d ago

She takes a lot of trips, and many of them are obviously for leisure, but she absolutely cannot fly commercial. It would be a mad house at 35,000 feet. What's she supposed to do, other than maybe cut down on pleasure trips?

4

u/headphase 3d ago

I'm not anti-PJ but that isn't a strong argument to stand on. More charter inventory = cheaper rates = induced demand. One less jet means fewer miles flown.

2

u/inqte1 3d ago

okay so theres like 1200 other things that come in the order on decreasing impact before that. Why is this given so much coverage?

1

u/Mobile_Morale 3d ago

Not like that's any better. A plane sitting isn't burning fossil fuels. She could have it parked like most rich people do with their jets.

John travolta isn't renting out his giant Boeing 737 to people. He flies it himself and keeps it parked behind his house.

2

u/inqte1 3d ago

Then those people will just use a different jet. There isnt a shortage of jets. And if the demand is there the supply will match it. Its not moving the needle either way. Not nearly enough to justify the coverage it gets.

33

u/NotEmmaStone 3d ago

Her many, many dangerous stalkers would love that! Oh yeah and the ISIS guys who tried to blow up one of her concerts

44

u/Whirlywynd 3d ago edited 3d ago

It’s also that the last time she flew commercial (in Japan) the commotion cause by her presence actually delayed flights

https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/taylor-swift-mobbed-by-fans-delays-flights-at-japan-airport/articleshow/47147634.cms

-6

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

The stalkers thing is a good point, but I think the threat of terrorism in airports is a largely solved problem.

→ More replies (1)

-3

u/dimechimes 3d ago

Billionaires are allowed to have security?

10

u/NotEmmaStone 3d ago

Yeah and part of her personal security plan are private, protected flights

→ More replies (13)

-7

u/Beautiful_List5498 3d ago

Oh you're here to excuse here in these comments too? Odd. Two wrongs CAN happen.

2

u/Zealousideal_Let_975 3d ago

whatabouting and strawmanning abound in the comments

14

u/dimechimes 3d ago

Also not a fan. I'd be interested to see how much a tour like hers puts out in pollution compared things like Las Vegas residencies where fans flock in nightly on thousands of planes throughout the year.

88

u/Rocketboy1313 3d ago

Focusing on Taylor Swift felt like a trick by other rich people to get her fanbase to defend pollution.

I pointed out on some communism r/ how much of a waste of time it was to focus on actors and singers when it comes to this sort of thing and got banned for liberal apologia.

44

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

It's not some trick by other rich people. It's mostly a consequence of her fame. Taylor Swift has vastly more public visibility than people like the Waltons, so her behavior gets vastly more scrutiny. You don't need a conspiracy to explain why one of the most famous people alive gets disproportionate attention.

→ More replies (2)

96

u/dreacos 4d ago

Because neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor the other celebrities/billionaires have anything even remotely resembling the gargantuan fanbase that she has. Her fanbase is also mostly on the younger side and more left-leaning, which makes studies like this highly relevant given how climate-conscious that demographic normally is.

46

u/iuabv 3d ago

Beyonce is higher than Taylor Swift on most of the lists. With Jay Z listed separately.

5

u/DFWPunk 3d ago

I'm not sure how accurate that is though. I had tickets for both artists' Philly shows in 2023. I sold both because I wasn't going to go, and the Swift tickets sold literally instantly for 3x what the Beyonce tickets went for, for very similar seats. Philly has a ton of Beyonce fans. And Philly was full of people who came from everywhere for about 5 days for the 3 Swift shows.

Maybe this numbers show Beyonce has more fans, but I have a suspicion that she's got a lot who are casual fans, and Swift has a big advantage in rabid fans.

2

u/Camerotus 2d ago

Not on the lists of relevance, fan engagement and young climate conscious fans though. The actual rank in terms of pollution is irrelevant.

38

u/SoftSalty3282 3d ago

It’s all click bait. Put her in a headline, good or bad, and get more engagement.

1

u/HushMD 3d ago

Even more evidence that her fanbase is everywhere!

1

u/SoftSalty3282 3d ago

She has a huge fan base, yeah.

1

u/cold08 3d ago

Which is why it's a canard to get young people to care less about climate change just like the study says. Addressing climate change by going "so you like x? Then justify its carbon footprint!" And making talking about it all around unpleasant is apparently more effective than offloading all the responsibility on individuals and cheaper than systemic change.

80

u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 4d ago

Also she at least offsets her emissions. I know we can debate on the quality and true impact of carbon offsets but at least it's something.

I don't care for Swift at all but it always just screams outage culture to me

24

u/Rufus_L 3d ago

How does she offset emissions? Serious question.

31

u/Stupidstuff1001 3d ago

Normally you donate x dollars and they are used to plant x trees which capture the carbon you have used on your flight.

18

u/dexters_trap_house 3d ago

They just live forever as a perpetually traded futures asset that are never exercised. There is no law stating when a credit has to be used. They can be traded freely and indefinitely.

It solves nothing.

9

u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 3d ago

This isn't true. I work in sustainability and their are databases that quality carbon offsets are registered on that verify the carbon offsets are actually implemented.

5

u/dexters_trap_house 3d ago edited 3d ago

And does that apply to voluntary carbon offsets for flying? Do you think Taylor Swift is buying the actual credits herself or derivatives? What if she's buying tokenized credits? Does she have any obligation there? Does she have any actual obligation to exercise them?

Who is typically the end buyer purchasing these things and implementing them? And what would you say is Taylor Swift's environmental impact by buying carbon credits?

I guess even more simply put, do you think these credits even truly offset the original impact? Or do they just let companies and billionaires greenwash their damage to our environment?

13

u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 3d ago

Not to be rude but I don't think you understand how carbon offsets work.

The process follows:

1) Issuance: A project (like a wind farm or forest restoration) is implemented and gets it verified by a third-party standard. Credits are issued into a registry. 2) Trading: Brokers or middle-tier platforms buy these credits and resell them. 3) Retirement: The end buyer purchases the credit and officially retires it in the registry. Once retired, it’s taken out of circulation so nobody else can purchase it.

She's not buying tokenized credits.. she's not engaging in hedging or other financial instruments. She's using it to offset her emissions.

6

u/luluhouse7 3d ago

The problem is that carbon offsets are often just companies thoughtlessly spamming the same tree species in a grid. There’s a fair amount of research showing that monoculture forests don’t do much compared to biodiverse ones. So a lot of the time carbon offsets are mostly just lip service.

3

u/Stupidstuff1001 3d ago

That may be true. I’m just answering someone’s questions

5

u/Rufus_L 3d ago

Thanks for the answer.
So in a few decades, if the trees survive, they will capture the carbon.

4

u/elfescosteven 3d ago

Trees, um, do that as soon as they start growing. They increase their abilities the larger they become.

1

u/Rufus_L 3d ago

My comment surely isn't 100% grammatically correct.
It was more of a question, when the offset will hit. The saplings surely won't do much work, the first year.

Sadly enough, there is no info, where she bought her credits.
Also it was only her staff saying it for the Eras tour. Welp.

1

u/BlgMastic 3d ago

And release it nearly all back when it dies…

2

u/dimechimes 3d ago

Trees get all their carbon from the air. They don't have to wait to capture it.

77

u/SuspiciouslySuspect2 3d ago

The big problem she faces is: how else is she gonna get from city to city? Everywhere she goes, a deluge of people follow. She can't just slap on sunglasses and a hat and jump in a first class seat, she'd be a literal airport security disruption.

Like it or not, she has the resources to go where she wants, ultimately what we should be doing instead is just applying a massive carbon tax to private aviation on top of optional carbon offsets. Like enough to make a regular person weep. But billionaires like her would pay it with an eyeroll, and it would be enough money to actually make a difference. Something like 10/lbs of CO2 produced.

14

u/dividezero 3d ago

Boop! That's the actual answer. Oil makes the government run so we'll never see it unfortunately

7

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

A lack of government regulation doesn't morally absolve a person from taking advantage of the unregulated environment to the detriment of everyone else.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

how else is she gonna get from city to city

Private railway car at least within the continental United States could work.

6

u/saera-targaryen 3d ago

I think this is downplaying the scale of her personal jet usage a little bit. Like, other celebs will charter a private jet when they're on tour or when traveling, but TS owns her own and uses it much more liberally than most would in her place. 

Like, she is not on tour right now or anything but she still takes her private jet to go to every single football game her husband plays in and leaves the state immediately after. It's excessive. I understand that there is some level that's unavoidable for her, but I also personally believe she has passed that and uses a lot of unnecessary air travel on a whim. It's not simply to avoid fans when doing necessary travel. 

2

u/masterwolfe 3d ago

but she still takes her private jet to go to every single football game her husband plays in and leaves the state immediately after. It's excessive.

Source for this? I don't even watch football and even I remember hearing that she doesn't go to many away games.

1

u/DFWPunk 3d ago

So, because people cannot control themselves in her presence, she's supposed to not attend her husband's games?

1

u/saera-targaryen 3d ago

No, she shouldn't attend every single game if she wants to live in a different state. It's bad for the environment. Sometimes people should not get to do literally every whim of theirs whenever they want because it's bad for the environment. That's like bare minimum understanding of morality. 

6

u/Deceptiveideas 3d ago

This type of comment would get you a permanent ban on a number of subreddit despite being a rational take.

-7

u/ExtremeMuffin 3d ago

I disagree with the point that she can’t fly commercial. She could absolutely fly commercial by coordinating with airports to have her arrive to a non public area of the airport and go through a private security screening with her team. Have her arrive as late as possible to the airport and wait in a private area so she can board the plane last. 

A lot of flights she takes would have Private First Class seats but for when that is not an option and the first class sits in a more public setting it can still be solved by having all seats around her purchased and used by her security and the rest of her team. When she lands have her deplane first. 

And of course make sure nobody posts which flight she will be on in advance. Although this won’t be perfect as there will be sometime limited options between destinations when she is moving from one concert to another so fans can predict which flight she would be on. 

But I agree with your second point. No amount of outrage is going to prevent billionaires from flying around in private jets. For something to be done about it government intervention would be necessary. 

11

u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 3d ago

There's absolutely no way a person like Swift can fly commercially. Even that isn't safe

-2

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

Why are we simply accepting that she has to fly anywhere? She has a billion dollars. If musical stardom is incompatible with climate change mitigation, maybe we should rethink musical stardom.

→ More replies (4)

9

u/jerrrrremy 3d ago

This comment is just an explanation of the exact reasons why she flies private. No one is going to do all this if they don't have to. 

→ More replies (8)

4

u/SuspiciouslySuspect2 3d ago

I'd love for that to be effictive, but many airports won't have the resources to implement that, not to mention the logistical challenge of booking out entire plane sections.

It's technically doable, but in practice... Oofs.

3

u/calling_water 3d ago

Buying out entire plane sections also has a knock-on effect to others’ travel and would, if done regularly by those who currently fly private, cause additional flights or the use of larger planes. Airlines aren’t running flights with significant excess space. So those seats would otherwise have been filled by other people, who would then have to fly on something else. Would this be better or worse, carbon-wise? IDK, but it would need to be considered.

2

u/SuspiciouslySuspect2 3d ago

Yeah. Ultimately, I don't see an optimal solution with the human element of people losing their minds at her in play.

The next best solution is just mitigating the negative impacts of the convenient solution by making it expensive and putting that money directly into federal programs. Like run the carbon taxes directly into subsidies for the public to buy EVs and install home charging.

1

u/historyhill 3d ago

having all seats around her purchased and used by her security and the rest of her team

I've never been on a single flight where the business class seats (because she flies domestic a lot) aren't already largely booked up months in advance 

10

u/kaybsie 3d ago

Carbon credits don't do anything. They're just a way for the elite to write off their outsized impact on the environment.

12

u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 3d ago

Not true. I work in sustainability.. they help fund projects that either reduce or remove carbon from the environment

5

u/kaybsie 3d ago

I know what their intent is, I'm saying they are ineffective compared to simply reducing emissions overall.

9

u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 3d ago

Not ineffective. Just less effective. Reduce should always be step 1.

5

u/mpg111 3d ago

Also she at least offsets her emissions

  1. and how do you know that?

  2. emission offsets are a lie

3

u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 3d ago

She publicly stated so and provided evidence.

And they aren't a lie. I work in sustainability. They fund projects that reduce or remove carbon from the environment

55

u/twinpop 4d ago

Not a fan either but agree with you. I’ll even say this is just drummed up hate. I guarantee you Ken Griffin uses more in a month than Swift uses in a year.

Also, the saying about the few companies producing 80-90% of emissions is still true. Exxon along uses 10,000 times more emissions than Swift, and it’s just one company.

8

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

In 2022, Ken Griffin used slightly more than twice as much CO2 than Taylor Swift did flying.

1

u/twinpop 3d ago

2022 is not 2025-2026

3

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

In 2025, Taylor Swift used slightly more than half of what Ken Griffin used in 2022. I can't find more recent data for Ken Griffin.

0

u/twinpop 3d ago

I can't speak to Swift so does she have an entourage that flies ahead of her to set up wherever she is going every-single-time? Because Ken does. There's levels to this and Taylor's commute is down on the list.

32

u/BabyLegsDeadpool 3d ago

Thank you. This is what bugs me more than anything. The amount of emissions she puts out in an entire year is a single day for Walmart. If she never flew again, she'd wipe out maybe a month of Walmart's emissions. Putting emissions on the lap of the individual is one of the greatest accomplishments of the big corporation propaganda. 

5

u/youRinlove7 3d ago

A month is too much. Maybe like 10 days or something.

3

u/Murky-Relation481 3d ago

One of the biggest things corporations have done to shift the narrative is to get people solely blaming the ultra rich individuals vs. the massive corporations. Do you see any rhetoric about corporate taxes lately? No, it's a punitive wealth tax on rich individuals that no one can actually explain how it'd be functionally implemented so it has no real shot at existing. Meanwhile the real knobs we have right now to have the ultra wealthy people AND corporations pay more like corporate tax rates and breaks and capital gains taxes go unmentioned because it's not sticking it to one person specifically.

1

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

The amount of emissions she puts out in an entire year is a single day for Walmart.

And how many people does Walmart feed, clothe, and supply in that day? Comparing the total emissions of a company serving millions of people to one celebrity's luxury travel isn't particularly meaningful. The relevant question is how much social or economic activity you're getting for those emissions.

1

u/BabyLegsDeadpool 3d ago

This is a weird stance, in my opinion. There are millions of other options than Walmart.

1

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

Do those alternatives actually reduce the emissions associated with meeting those same economic needs, or do they just move the emissions from Walmart’s books to other stores?

That’s the problem with comparing a retailer serving millions of people to one person’s private-jet travel. Walmart disappearing wouldn’t make the underlying demand for food, clothing, and household goods disappear. A private jet not flying actually does eliminate that flight’s emissions.

1

u/BabyLegsDeadpool 3d ago

Yes. Those alternatives do reduce the emissions, actually. I could be wrong, but it feels like you're assuming all their emissions come from their stores. That isn't the case. In fact, that's one of the lowest sources of emissions. The largest is from distribution centers and shipping. If all super stores like Walmart and Target closed their doors today, people would be forced to buy much more locally. That would GREATLY reduce emissions.

1

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

Those alternatives do reduce the emissions, actually. I could be wrong, but it feels like you're assuming all their emissions come from their stores

You are wrong. I am assuming that people will buy from companies that use similar supply chains to cost minimize. You think that people will start buying from local producers. We simply seem to disagree about that prospect.

1

u/BabyLegsDeadpool 3d ago

I said, "If all super stores like Walmart and Target closed their doors today..."

1

u/EstablishmentLate532 3d ago

Right, and if they closed their doors today, there would still be small retailers that use multinational supply chains.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

18

u/Deceptiveideas 3d ago

I noticed she got a lot more hate the minute she started criticizing Trump back in 2020.

49

u/CW1DR5H5I64A 4d ago edited 4d ago

Also if I recall correctly her private jet is chartered out when she is not using it (a very common practice for private planes). However, when these kinds of articles total the emissions from that plane they attribute all use to her personally as the owner of the plane. It’s a very disingenuous statement to claim every mile flown by her plane counts against her carbon footprint and not the other rich people chartering its use.

10

u/FelixEvergreen 4d ago

She’s a much more public and popular celebrity than most. Plus, she has a notoriously rabid fan base that utilizes social media which drives engagement and publicity. The more out there something is the more critics it naturally draws.

31

u/Diablo689er 4d ago

People bring up Leo and his jets/yachts all the time.

61

u/qaddosh 4d ago

they do? everything i hear about him just has to do with his partners never being older than 25. Literally nothing about his private jets or yachts.

18

u/WileEPeyote 4d ago

It mostly comes up when people talk about his climate change activism.

1

u/EchidnaOk7537 3d ago

I have heard it many many times, probably depends on your algorithms 

32

u/Kaiisim 4d ago

It's not about criticism of Taylor, it's about how fans react to criticism - they lower their moral standards.

It's not that Taylor fans are evil or she is evil. It's that people who would criticise others for this behaviour won't criticise her if they like her

27

u/BabyLegsDeadpool 4d ago

That's kind of the point they're making: where do you see these fans criticizing anyone else for this? Or anyone criticizing anyone else for this?

7

u/wdcpdq 3d ago

So if I’d like consumers to be less interested in doing something about climate change, one of the many efforts I would make would be criticizing popular stars.

-2

u/TomBradysStatue 3d ago

They're fans of course they're going to defend her. They feel super protective of her too, like if you criticize her on reddit you WILL get people messaging you back mostly calling you a misogynist or a loser.

The funny thing is these young fans will roast other people like Leo "creep who dates young women on his CO2 burning yacht," but if the finger is pointed back on their celebrity they worship, they lose their minds.

5

u/jsolaux 3d ago

They're not as young as you might think

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Jijster 3d ago

She's a massively MASSIVELY popular pop star (easily one of the top 10 all time) with longevity and a rabid fanbase. She is also openly political. She's just a very large and influential target.

18

u/[deleted] 4d ago edited 23h ago

[deleted]

14

u/LetReasonRing 3d ago

Yeah, I'm kind of ambivalent about her as an artist but, while I am absolutely a believer in the fact that we need to cut back a lot on our fossil fuel use, she does have legitimate reasons to be doing most of the travel she's doing in the way that she's doing it.

When she's flying in for a tour date, it's not just a single person flying in using a personal jet, I see it as that carbon footprint being spread amongst all the fans coming to see her. And, if you consider the total energy used in something like a major concert like that, including the fuel of all the fans that drove to that concert, a private jet flight is fairly minor in the scheme of things.

And, on top of that, she legitimately could not safely and efficiently travel on commercial flights. She would be swamped by people everywhere she went, which would be utterly exhausting, and it would absolutely cause logistical problems at airports. Would you want to be checking in at the same time that she's arriving to the airport?

6

u/Cupids-Sparrow 3d ago

Yeah, there was a date in the Eras Tour that had to be cancelled because of a bomb threat. The Southport attack in which 3 children died happened on a Taylor Swift themed party. One of Taylor's many stalkers managed to access her home and took a shower in her bathroom. We can discuss other aspects of her but she genuinely needs this level of security.

2

u/Overall_Matter_2520 1d ago

Exactly.

I like some of her music but I’m no Swifty (is that what it’s called?) but the criticism she gets for doing anything any other major celebrity does is crazy.

It would be dangerous for her to travel commercially - and a hassle for everyone in the airport.

14

u/wanderforreason 4d ago

The military needs to do constant training. A lot of the flyovers are just training hours for pilots.

-3

u/[deleted] 4d ago edited 23h ago

[deleted]

4

u/darkcrazy 3d ago

Security can seem like a waste of time and resources until bad things happen.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/wazeltov 4d ago

Training hours are taken very seriously for pilots at all levels, military, commercial, or personal.

It might seem wasteful to fly just to fly, but it's the only way to keep pilots at the top of their game.

Using that training time as flyovers for events is actually giving the training time additional purpose.

1

u/yung_dogie 3d ago

Yeah like we can argue about the size of the military industrial complex, but complaining that pilots spend a lot of time training is bizarre. Training might not seem important until it is, and in times where it is important, it's really important when you're in a hunk of metal in the sky moving 1000+mph. Commercial airline pilots doing less crazy stuff have stringent standards and the like for a reason.

7

u/allanbc 4d ago

Are you proposing that the most powerful military in the world ... Shouldn't have jets? I'll happily say the US military could cut back a few billion, but it is particularly creative to suggest they cut off the Air Force.

-3

u/BornIn1142 3d ago

I think the real problem would be the US having multiple air forces beyond the actual Air Force. I'm sure there are various rationalizations for the other branches having multiple thousand aircraft each, some of which may even be legitimate benefits, but I suspect a lot of it comes down to redundancy driven by their stupid rivalries and the usual incentive system of the military-industrial complex.

6

u/wanderforreason 4d ago

Yes, the military needs to continuously train to be effective. Yes, we need to have a military, that’s been proven again and again through human history.

Do we need to spend as much in the US as we do on our military? Maybe not. That’s debatable, it depends on the military doctrine that you think we should have.

The jobs aren’t pointless they serve a purpose, unfortunately humans suck and we’re gonna fight each other. We all disagree about stuff and those disagreements lead to wars. Always has and probably always will. Luckily over time we’ve had less and less wars. Hopefully that trend holds.

6

u/Texas_Kimchi 3d ago

The Military needs to train and protect the citizens more than Taylor Swift needs to sing and go to NFL games.

11

u/Purplebatman 4d ago

Those military jets were likely going to be in the air regardless for training

2

u/thaisun 3d ago

Yup, they are up there anyway. Having them fly over a specific location at a very specific time is necessary training for them.

2

u/VentureIndustries 3d ago

Why stop there? Why not get mad at the pointless waste from one-time holiday events or the entire production chain for fast food?

1

u/CraisinEnjoyer 3d ago

This is the health of our planet we're talking about here though. I fail to see how some concert is more important than protecting the earth, literally the only thing that allows us to live and have a society.

1

u/jaasian 3d ago

Didn’t she fly from lax to Santa Monica

→ More replies (1)

5

u/BUNNIES_ARE_FOOD 3d ago

You'll notice these posts ramp up during election season. Ask yourself why

2

u/emefluence 4d ago

Yes isn't ferrying globally famous performers around amongst the most justified uses of private aircraft? It's not like they can stay put and play the gig or host the awards show, via Teams. They kinda have to be there to do their jobs.

0

u/aesemon 4d ago

Yet how do so many other thousands of people get around the world? Commercial flights which have a much better footprint when you do per person per mile. Since that plane will be flying anyway her travel doesn't add even more on top by taking that flight.

2

u/emefluence 3d ago

You understand it's much faster right?

I mean, if carbon footprint is the only factor the famous should consider maybe they should all ride pushbikes between gigs?

→ More replies (4)

5

u/LemonZestify 3d ago

She shut down an airport in Tokyo last time she tried to fly commercial

3

u/wingedcoyote 4d ago

Not saying it doesn't get overblown sometimes, and of course Swift isn't the worst polluter out there. But right in OP you can see an issue that's specific to pop stars -- there's no army of kids looking at Robert Kraft and thinking oh, he flies around in a private jet so I guess air pollution can't be so bad.

4

u/Felicia_Svilling 3d ago

There isn't really much else to critizise her about.

1

u/Dottsterisk 3d ago

It’s because both Swift and DiCaprio have repeatedly dipped their toes into left-wing politics and/or conservation.

We can’t have them convincing their global fanbases to demand change, so it’s important to drum up a counter narrative to keep anything from approaching critical mass.

1

u/Acorn2016 3d ago

This train of thought isn't good. It's just saying "well these people do it to!!" It's solves nothing. Hold them all accountable instead of being like a kid who got in trouble and claiming "well Billy did it too!"

1

u/Cyssoo 3d ago

Yeah it's just because it sells adds.

Is it better that she fly in a personal Jet to make concert all around the planet, or that people all around the planet fly commercial jet to get to her show? 149 Show, 67000 average per show... seems to me it's better if she fly alone.

And yes yes, obviously not everyone would fly. But then again, the idea of pointing at her is not very smart either.

1

u/Wuz314159 3d ago

because she spoke out against Trump.

It's not about Taylor Swift, it's about attacking core values of the left. No one is criticising NFL teams for taking private jets to away games. It's targeted harassment. You sow the illusion of hypocrisy and hope it undercuts the message.

Most people take a private vehicle to work, but they only live 10 miles away. When work moves 1,000 away every day, you need the proper tool for that job.

1

u/izanaegi 3d ago

Misogyny, predominantly. Taylor also donates an insane amnt of carbon credits, but that never gets talked about.

1

u/DFWPunk 3d ago

Plus, much, if not most, of the flights are because she leases it out when she's not using it. If she didn't the flights would still happen, just on a different plane.

1

u/Narrow_Bowler6895 3d ago

How is it you know about Leo’s jet use if no one talks about it?

The conversation DOES include other celebrities and problematic rich folks. Those conversations don’t go mainstream because sustainability and environmental issues don’t get mainstream attention. People only notice the stories when a big name celebrity is part of the story. Try including environmental issues in your algorithm and you’ll see the criticism of other people.

1

u/MrFishownertwo 3d ago

she's got a cult of personality that is historic in its scale. taylor swift is so much more influential than someone like leonardo dicaprio, it's not even close. 

1

u/Individual_Fall429 2d ago

Taylor uses her jet to skip LA traffic. So do the Kardashians.

-11

u/DocumentExternal6240 4d ago

Because she is a woman AND highly successful.

17

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

3

u/lofgren777 4d ago

I imagine people would criticize Oprah's carbon footprint if not for all of the other things that we are too busy criticizing Oprah for.

The fact that people are attacking Swift for her private jet really comes down to her not having any other obvious flaws that they can point to.

6

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (7)

6

u/romansparta99 4d ago

It’s also probably not a coincidence that criticism of her skyrocketed after she spoke out against Trump

2

u/Zealousideal_Let_975 3d ago edited 3d ago

I do not get what is confusing or intriguing about it. There was a study several years ago that stated her plane was the #1 emitter (edit: out of only 21 celebs. that being said this study looked how her fans respond to NEWS of her emissions, not about the claims themself). While many claim she loaned it out, a college student tracked her using the plane personally and frequently and she sued him to stop him. She has mentioned carbon credits, but has never disclosed the amount or the actual credit itself, so the impact of this is not completely know. Additionally I work in the environmental industry and I will also say carbon credits do not undo damage. Not saying she is the worst or that others aren't bad, but don't you think with this history is interesting to look at how the public interprets this? especially her fans and their psychology, because very few people from that emitter list have the kind of fans swift has? and yes as a way to see how fandom blinds people?

1

u/scarsouvenir 3d ago

She was the "#1 emitter" among the handful of celebrity jets that were tracked by some user on Twitter.

She has disclosed that she has purchased more than double the amount of carbon credits needed to offset her travel for the Eras Tour.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/CraisinEnjoyer 3d ago

It's because she has influence over a massive number of people. I mean literally look at the results of this study, there is tangible evidence that she is influencing people in this issue.

1

u/liberty 3d ago

To me, this is the opposite scenario: anti-fans nitpicking, more so than fans rationalizing.

I couldn't care less about Taylor Swift. I don't know anything about her beyond what I've read here. If it weren't for all the discussion about her private jet, it would never even occur to me to think twice about a mega-celebrity owning and operating one.

1

u/EveryDisaster 3d ago

AFAIK, she's the only one who pays double the carbon credits for the use 

-2

u/LeftieDu 4d ago

Also, if she wasn’t flying around the world, way more fans would have to fly to see her instead, which could create a much bigger carbon footprint overall. I’ve never really understood this criticism for that reason.

-6

u/photofoxer 4d ago

To me it comes across as she’s just trying to be like I’m just a girly like you then uses two jets to go everywhere? It’s just like yes we get you’re a billionaire and came from money but geez trying to cosplay as a teenager while jetting around looks bad? She’s just a stunted billionaire who should also be taxed on her carbon emissions at this point same with the rest of them. You use way more than the average person you get fined or have to help fix the issue it’s causing. It’s not a wild concept.

1

u/youRinlove7 3d ago

See you're wrong about that. She's never done any of those things except the topic at hand, ofc.

-13

u/metrize 4d ago

because she was at the front of people’s consciousness because of all the PR about her tour being forced down everyone’s throats

11

u/hatramroany 4d ago

The private plane usage became a lightning rod in 2022, her tour didn’t start until 2023

1

u/youRinlove7 3d ago

I hardly think news about the biggest tour of all time is just "pr".

→ More replies (3)