here are some hyper-polluting individuals:
- the Rolling Stones’ Boeing 767 (5,046 tonnes of CO2)
- Lawrence Stroll (1,512 flights)
- Thirty-nine jets linked to 30 Russian oligarchs – (30,701 tonnes of CO2)
relevant quote:
But I will say this, a movement can't get along without a devil, and across the whole political spectrum there is a misogynistic tendency to choose a female devil, whether it's Anita Bryant, Hillary Clinton, Marie Antoinette, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or J.K. Rowling [or Taylor Swift]. And there's always gonna be people who seize on any opportunity to be misogynistic. So I would advise trans people and our allies [or environmentalists] to keep in mind, that J.K. Rowling [Taylor Swift] is not the final boss of transphobia [anti-environmentalism]. She's not our devil. The devil is the Republican Party, the Conservative Party.
—Natalie Wynn (emphasis and bracket text mine)
edit: if you can’t respond to this without using the c*nt expletive it is not helping your case lmao. mods are we okay with this? in any case, please don’t feed the trolls.
edit 2/FAQ: “but why did she threaten legal action against that college kid though?” still shitty, but refer to this comment for a good explanation of the context behind that decision.
She only threatened legal action since those memes started before when her flight movements got the attention of the right in an attempt to make her less credible of a voice speaking out against trump. And knowing how batshit insane trump cultists can be and how she’s basically the single most hated person of his base I’m not surprised that she feared for her security. Those records were public for years but the legal action only happened after someone created that meme and even fox news suddenly cared about plane emissions…
[…] For Swift, this is legitimate fear. I don't know if you've ever experienced actual fear for your life, but it's crippling, and it effects your psyche. To experience that on a daily basis because of an app? You bet your goddamn ass I'm going to talk to my lawyers about what my options are.
sources/timeline for the above:
- mid 2022, the media begins scrutinizing Swift for her flying patterns
- in response, Swift’s jet drops from 19 to just over 2 flights per month
- her flights pick up slightly with the start of her massive Eras tour but still significantly less than pre-July 2022
- December 6, 2023, Swift embroiled in election conspiracy theory, basically making her MAGA’s enemy number one.
- January 30, 2024, Taylor Swift gets rid of one private jet
- February 6, 2024, news outlets first report on the cease and desist.
I'm really of two minds on the private jet thing, because she undeniably was doing it way too much and for way too short distances, but for longer distances, I can see someone of her level of fame needing to fly privately for security reasons. I doubt Taylor Swift walking through an airport and getting on a Delta flight would be especially safe for her.
I do not like the idea of celebrities traveling in private jets overall, but when you're at Beatles-level fame? The Beatles chartered private flights too. Maybe she should charter, but I can see why flying commercial is a bad plan.
Let the mass downvoting commence.
Maybe we all need to stop subsidizing the airline industry so that these rich assholes who want to fly around all the time for their convenience can pay the entire price themselves. Airlines and airports are publicly funded and utterly unsustainable without massive infusions of government cash and protection at every step along the way.
The fact that we pretend these airline companies and airports are in any way actual businesses Is just a way for the wealthy who get to fly all the time (private jets or not) to offload the cost of their convenient transportation onto the American people.
I'm fine with government-run airlines, but I don't think that would change the security issue I'm talking about.
I think the security issue is a non-issue, and there's no way to "solve" it without creating greater problems and degrading other people's rights.
The truth is, she doesn't give a flying fuck about the consequences of her wealth getting. In some ways she is opposed to the right wing noise machine, but she is still acting as though she's entitled to special treatment from the government including extra rights just because she's rich.
She only decreased the number of private jet flights she was taking, and decrease the number of private jets she owned because of the public pressure. Her security is not more important than the environment.
She volunteered to take the heat off of Elon. I don't know why she would do that, but she definitely volunteered for a lot of negative attention when she decided to target a private citizen doing something they are legally entitled to do and use her money to intimidate them out of exercising their rights.
That's who she is deep down inside, entitled.
A non-issue? You think she doesn't get mobbed wherever she goes? I'd call that a huge issue. Unless you think it's okay for fans to paw at her, tear at her clothes, etc. That is what they do.
Exactly, she's a victim. A victim of the life she chose and worked really hard to achieve. I bet she cries herself to sleep every night on her Scrooge McDuck style piles of cash.
No, she's not a victim, she's a security risk. Are you not reading what I'm writing? Do you think she would be the only one hurt if there were a riot?
I think Paul McCartney is/was a much bigger star than taytay and has been taking busses his entire career
I'm pretty sure he can't take a bus from London to New York. And I would be very surprised if he flies commercial when he crosses the ocean.
Obviously if she can get there without being so wasteful, she should. That was not my point. In fact, I specifically referenced The Beatles flying on a private plane when they first came to America. That would include Paul McCartney.
Idk how any of that is relevant. If Paul, at the height of his fame, could ride a bus without being mobbed then Taylor Swift can fly commercial with an entire airport's worth of security watching her back
I think her getting mobbed is not my problem.
She's rich enough that she can afford private security. She's a private citizen who can decide where she goes and where she does not go.
Nothing about anything you've described justifies stripping other people of their rights.
If she's being assaulted in public, that's an actual crime, and she should invoke the legal system then.
The legal system does not entitle her to silence people sharing publicly available information. The person who shared the movement of her private jet is not to blame for her lack of security when she gets where she's going. No one's mobbing her on the tarmac, no one's crowding into the airport past security without a ticket.
She is not special. She's just an American, she's entitled to absolutely nothing extra. Her attempt to use the law as a weapon of intimidation simply because she has money to push it around is exactly why she deserves negative attention right now.
I didn't say anything about her trying to silence people. This is purely about keeping her and others safe. Her presence in a public airport could literally cause a riot. You must know that.
Yeah I'm not really sure what your point is in all of this. It's entirely reasonable to resent publicly funding this private luxury.
Maybe we publicly should not be subsidizing the private jet industry, private jet infrastructure, and teeny tiny little airports for ultra wealthy people.
If she wants to fly private then she has to accept what goes along with that. It is a very inefficient, environmentally harmful, selfish way to travel. Private jet flights are another great example of wealthy people leaching off the public.
When did I say it should be publicly funded? Please quote me.
It currently is. It's currently publicly funded. That's how private jet flights work.
That's the entire context of all of my comments. It's why the majority of the words in my comments here have been on the specific subject of the public expense attached to private jet ownership and infrastructure.
Her private jet costs taxpayers, most of whom can't pay their own bills without government assistance, tremendous amounts of money.
It is reasonable for people to resent her, a billionaire, for allowing the public to pick up the tab for her outlandishly luxuriant lifestyle.
Just like when people did this to Elon Musk, tracking private jet flights is a piece of accountability. There's nothing wrong with tracking their flights, and there is definitely something wrong with them trying to use the their money to force the legal system to silence people who are tracking their flights.
Yes, and I don't disagree with what you have been saying.
It's just that my point had nothing to do with any of it.
I think I made it pretty clear that if she's willing to pay the actual cost of her transportation then we would all have fewer reasons to resent her behavior.
Flying private jets is exclusively the purview of people wealthy enough to value their time more than yours. There's no moral or ethical way to use that infrastructure as long as it's being publicly funded by people who can't afford to go to the fucking doctor.
The right thing for her to do is opt out.
Because she is so wealthy, because she is so famous, because she is so influential, she has a greater obligation to actually find some fucking convictions and stick by them.
If her traveling around makes people unsafe then maybe she should stay put. That's what any other regular person would have to do. It wouldn't be fair, but it would be what they had to do because the system is not going to bend over backwards to accommodate them.
Taylor Swift is not special.
She is special in that her presence in a public airport would cause a riot.
Hence her being a security risk.
Hence it making sense for her to fly on private planes when she does things like cross the ocean.
Does that justify anything else? No. Why would it? She doesn't even have to own the plane. I said in my very first post that she could charter it.
I really don't understand why you're being so aggressive with me or acting like I'm saying every criticism of her is wrong.
I completely agree that she should be using chartered resources. That alone dramatically reduces the amount of selfish waste involved in her jet setting.
If her presence in a public airport would cause a riot, then it seems like the law and security are ill-prepared to deal with her presence. That seems to indicate that she has inadequate security AND that law enforcement is not handling the crowd with the same sincerity they would any other kind of riot.
I think the disconnect between you and me comes from what we think the most important issues here are. I think in your estimation she is a security risk to the public in the form of 'potentially inspiring a riot' and that justifies (or even obligates) her use of private plane travel. Where in my estimation there is no ethical or moral use case for a publicly subsidized luxury not available to the public.
I think she's morally obligated to opt out of a system that is immoral to begin with. I think she's ethically required to speak out as an activist against this kind of luxury being publicly funded. I think she should be going out of her way to make sure that all of the public expense associated with her lifestyle is offset by her directly.
I don't really think we disagree I think we just have different things that we think are important sources of criticism.
If that were true, there'd be a riot every time a very famous person goes outside for any reason.
I'm sure she'd be approached and photographed and her privacy violated as much as people can get to her in a private lounge, but unless they were to advertise she is going to a certain airport at a specific time, it's incredibly unlikely she'd be mobbed. Ironically, flying publicly would make her movements harder to follow.
She can certainly afford to pay for 10 extra first class tickets for her staff, it'd most likely be much cheaper than owning her own jet. I'm sure the airports would also be thrilled to offer a private entrance and area for her/other famous people to be able to avoid even walking to her VIP lounge. Maybe they could help subsidize the airports instead of average people's taxes paying for their private airports in part.
wait, airline subsidies also go toward private jets? TIL if true.
i would love a source for further reading if you have one :)
Airports and the entire airline infrastructure is dependent upon government subsidy and protection. You're paying for other people to fly whether or not you ever fly, and private jets benefit more from this per seat and per flight than anyone else while paying the least to support it.
there's a high public cost to private jets
holy shit thank you 🫨