Taylor Swift

539 readers

15 users here now

General Taylor Swift discussion. Welcome all Swifties!

Bring your clown hats, your wild theories, and your hype, this community is for you.

Some basic guidelines:

Posts should be about Taylor Swift
- "Shoehorned" articles about Taylor are considered not relevant.
Criticism of Taylor is fine, but open trolling or low effort posts like "Her music sux" will be removed.
Downvote trolling is actively monitored. Downvotes are enabled and welcome, but if all that you do is downvote, it will result in bans. Join the discourse, if you don't like this community feel free to block it. Admins have the ability to see votes by user, and we use that ability here.
General "Don't be a dick" rules apply, no trolling, no being a jerk
No NSFW. This is a fun Swiftie community. NSFW is banned here.
Use the "spoiler" tag generously when it comes to Tour spoilers. Pictures and outfits are fine, but streams/setlists should be marked. (Remember while the US tour is winding down, our global Swifties are just ramping up)
- Add [Spoiler] to your title
- Use the spoiler text for any spoilers in comments/description (the triangle with the exclamation point)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

160

Taylor Swift Threatens Legal Action Against Social Media Account That Tracks Her Private Jet (www.billboard.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm a huge swiftie. That's not a lie. However Taylor's number one issue in my book is her absolute non-caring for the damage she's done to the planet.

This isn't a coincidence. It's not about stalking. Last week she was caught taking a 40 minute flight, releasing more carbon by herself then most of us do in an entire year.

I love Taylor, but it's shameful that she continues to do this. When she dated Joe the tracker showed she flew back and forth between England and New York on average 3 times a week. A week.

And she doesn't even bother to at least buy offsets or something. She could buy massive swaths of rainforest to preserve to make up for it and it'd barely make a dent. She could replant entire forests.

I love Taylor, but I'm ashamed she's hurting the planet so much without seemingly a care - and now trying to sue the people who expose her for it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I have yet to find a legitimate case of carbon offsets. You can't just plant trees. You have to bury trees and then replant them while taking into account the fuel you're using to do so.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, this has always been my thought as well. I suppose it's better than nothing, but in a lot of cases planting the trees where they weren't present before can destroy ecosystems as well. The real solution is to stop using fossil fuels and other "dirty" fuel, but we all know how well the companies take that idea...

If ya ask me, we should install solar panels on the tops of all the skyscrapers / houses, invest a ton more into electric vehicles of all kinds (especially focusing on improving towing capacity), create non-polluting public transportation (especially talking from a US perspective), add some wind farms in the mountains and try desperately to find some solution to our ever-growing mountains of plastic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

That's my thing. It's the bare minimum, the laziest possible solution. You're just throwing money at the problem and not even checking to see if it's doing something.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

The problem with carbon offsets in a paradigm where everyone needs to get to zero is that the only way the offset makes sense is if it is priced according to the last ton of CO2 to be accounted for, which necessarily means they are going to be incredibly expensive.

But they are instead priced to match the lowest-hanging fruit, and even then are mostly scams.

There's two offset markets, by and large. One is kind of private and the other is based on national economies. A lot lot lot of the offsets double-dip by 'selling'/listing on both markets, which makes objectively no sense.

Mostly, celebrities and businesses are dealing with the private market. There's no there there. Just invest in green technologies and brag about it -- which is indeed what real corpos trying to "go green" are increasingly doing.

For the national market, it truly makes no sense. They usually flow from the poorest nations to the richest, the offsets. Which basically means the poorest nations are letting the richest take advantage of their cheap, easy-to-hit tons of CO2 that they will have to make up at the end of the day with the last few, hardest-to-capture ones. It clearly doesn't make sense; these countries are selling a false promise that they will not and CANNOT make good on at the end of the day.

If it's some $500/ton DAC facility selling offsets, then sure. Fine. Economically inefficient way of achieving the goal that no smart business would pursue, but at least it actually is based on sound principles. That's the system working in a way that makes sense. Other than that, fuck right off with all these credits.