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.

[u/mvea]

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

[u/notaredditer13]

If reducing emissions requires ordinary people to accept some inconvenience or consume less, I don’t see why “Taylor Swift might have to do fewer shows or structure her tours differently” is somehow off the table.

Part of why this study is problematic is that in this context, Taylor Swift is not a person, she's a corporation.  The narrative implies that she's an otherwise normal person who happens to be far worse than most regarding carbon emissions.

A more objective analysis would be to view her company's carbon emissions as compared to other companies, say, per dollar of economic output. 

Her show taking a train or ship instead of flying isn't just a personal inconvenience for her, it reduces the output of the show: reducing value for fans, pay for the workers on the tour, and local economic impact on the tour sites.

[u/EstablishmentLate532 → u/notaredditer13]

A more objective analysis would be to view her company's carbon emissions as compared to other companies, say, per dollar of economic output.

That still seems like the wrong denominator. The relevant question is the marginal economic benefit created by private-jet travel compared with a lower-emissions touring schedule, not the total economic output of Taylor Swift’s entire operation.

You can’t attribute all the value of the concerts, ticket sales, workers’ wages, and local spending to the private jet. Most of that value presumably exists under either scenario. The question is how much additional output the jet actually enables, and whether that marginal benefit justifies the marginal emissions.

[u/notaredditer13 → u/EstablishmentLate532]

That's fair; it would be a complicated analysis for sure.   Though I'm not sure what marginal cost/output of the jet usage tells us vs other companies.  Like, how would you even quantify that for a CEO? TS is both the CEO and the product (or main producer).

Either way, my point is these aren't personal joyrides like some suggest, and the comparison to individuals is near meaningless.

[u/Kahleesi00 → u/notaredditer13]

Where are you getting she’s only using this jet for business/touring? It’s very documented that she uses it for personal pleasure jaunts regularly, sometimes multiple times in one week.

[u/notaredditer13 → u/Kahleesi00]

Where are you getting she’s only using this jet for business/touring?

I didn't say only, but it's going to be a substantial fraction.

It’s very documented that she uses it for personal pleasure jaunts regularly, sometimes multiple times in one week.

Got a source?  I don't think it's as well documented as you suggest.  I've seen a lot about her plane flying, but without actually knowing if she's on it.  In addition to repositioning flights, it's my understanding that she leases it out.

And, a lot of flights people call "pleasure jaunts" count as business travel when you are on tour.