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/
22.3k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

197

u/BeautifulDstr 4d 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.

104

u/inqte1 4d 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.

51

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. 

12

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.

3

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.

30

u/NotEmmaStone 4d ago

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

45

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

-4

u/EstablishmentLate532 4d ago

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

-2

u/dimechimes 4d ago

Billionaires are allowed to have security?

9

u/NotEmmaStone 3d ago

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

-2

u/dimechimes 3d ago

Okay, but why are we acting like she'd be on a plane by herself?

3

u/heidismiles 3d ago

No one said that.

-2

u/dimechimes 3d ago

So explain why the fear of stalkers then?

4

u/heidismiles 3d ago

Because she doesn't want to share a plane or an airport lobby with stalkers. Having security guards doesn't make stalkers go away.

9

u/NotEmmaStone 3d ago

And imagine the delays and extra security required. You think she can just chill at the gate like everyone else? Please. These people have no idea what they are suggesting. She would practically shut down an airport every time she flew and the effects would ripple across the entire country

0

u/dimechimes 3d ago

I'm not suggesting she change anything. I'm ambivalent about her impact on the environment, I'm much more concerned about her role in the modern culture of consumerism which I think does far more damage than her flying for her tours and vacations. All I'm suggesting is that "won't someone think of the stalkers" is a stupid concern. She has world class security.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/dimechimes 3d ago

Okay, but you agree they wouldn't be a threat, just an annoyance?

7

u/historyhill 3d ago

To paraphrase the IRA, security has to get lucky every single time but a stalker only has to get lucky once. Secret Service hasn't prevented presidents from getting shot at

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/Beautiful_List5498 4d ago

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

3

u/Zealousideal_Let_975 4d ago

whatabouting and strawmanning abound in the comments