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 just... I can't bring myself to give a shit about Taylor Swift's airplanes when BP and Shell still exist and capitalism is still the dominant economic system.
I can give a shit about both and more.
Imagine if we could only give a shit about one threat to our existence at a time. We’d be ignoring a billion others.
I mean, kudos to you for having the energy to get so far down the list of things that actually matter about climate change that you reach the one person and a few private jets section of the list, but I'd rather use that brain space to play a board game or something.
Yet you have the energy to complain about me doing it.
All energy use is equal! Also, nuance does not exist, and actually, it never did!
Imagine replying to a comment that is clearly about relative impacts, and twisting it so that it sounds like the person you are replying to has some sort of fundamental deficiency in how they perceive the world.
How wonderfully ironic!
Taylor Swift isn't a threat to our existence, her plane emits 8000 tons of CO2 a year, roughly equivalent to the emissions of two thousand cows. At least she pays for carbon offsets.
BP and Shell only have that much power exacly because people buy fossil fuels from them. If demand would drop, their profits and political power would drop accordingly. As long as we don't even hold the biggest financiers of these companies responsible, how can anything change? Demand drives supply.
It's like saying "As long as hitmans exist, I won't give a shit about the people who pay hitmans, all consumption under capitalism is unethical anyways so anything goes." As long as we ignore those who actually fund the problem, we won't be able to fix anything.
No they have so much power because decades of lobbying have made it impossible to get anywhere without traveling on a road in a car— Which uses gas. This is not a problem citizens can feasibly solve, this sort if problem can only be fixed with government intervention.
Maybe this time we can solve our problems by simply just hating a powerful, successful woman though.
*By simply hating a billionaire.
Some of the criticism levied against Taylor Swift is definitely rooted in sexism, misogyny, and political bias: but not all of it.
To lump everyone criticizing Taylor Swift into the same group as the misogynists and sexists is disingenuous. She deserves criticism and is not free of it just because she's a woman.
She's also one of the most famous people in the world. So of course she's going to get more flack from her visibility alone.
Thus the following can be true: Taylor Swift isn't the only one that deserves criticism from her private jet usage. And there are those that would criticize her in bad faith because of her political alignments/because she's a woman. But even then the criticism she has received is still completely valid.
No billionaire deserves or needs special treatment.
I mean yeah definitely fair, i don’t disagree billionaires shouldn’t exist.
I appreciate the reply. I feel like a lot of people in this thread are failing to articulate themselves properly. Though there are clearly some commenters that have (very) misogynistic views that need to be checked.
My comment has nothing to do with Taylor Swift. In fact, I’m a fan of hers. I’m entirely talking about the companies, BP and Shell.
Call me weird but when I condemn an action, I do it equally without regard for what’s between the person’s legs.
I agree that many urban areas need a lot more and better public transport, which is a systemic solution.
In rural regions it's not practical to build enough infrastructure to replace private transport though. Electric cars are a good solution there and will also get more affordable in the next years (over the lifetime they are already roughly as cheap as gas cars).
based