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.
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.
I think you know there's a big difference between going outside and being in a crowded airport.
And, again, she doesn't have to own the jet. She could charter one. Anyone can charter a short flight for a couple of thousand dollars.
Yes, an airport limits the amount of people, has a very high coverage of surveillance and a high ratio of security staff as well as an entry barrier and dedicated VIP areas. A generic place outside has none of that. Although feel free to elaborate on how an airport is worse for security than just being on a street, anywhere.
To your second point, sure she doesn't need to own them like nobody else does, but the issue (for me) is not primarily that she (or anyone) owns one, but that they [private jets and private airports] exist, and they're subsidized by us as it was pointed out above. If anything, they should be priced outrageously so using them would come down last resort or emergency situations, and the money from that could help balance the cost of the "public" infrastructure. This is a failure of the government, but equally so of the rich who choose to continue using them for their luxury.
I still don't see what the difference between a chartered flight and a limousine is other than one is in the air and the other is on the road.
As mentioned above, airport and airlines are heavily subsidized, this includes private airports and jets. For a limo, taxes pay for the road - but everyone can drive on it, so it'd exist with or without them. Maybe a better comparison would be if she had a bus that she travelled in alone, compared to the average person that'd be equally ridiculous.
The emissions of a limo is pretty much in line with the emissions of a family car. Most people wouldn't have a small car and a family car for when they're alone, so even if someone is alone on a limo, they're probably not doing much more harm than the average person.
A private jet's emissions are significantly more per passenger than a commercial plane. Even if a private jet always flies at max capacity - which I'd bet rarely happens - it'll cause significantly more emissions per person than a commercial plane (it's difficult to link a source here as I've not found an exact number. The estimates I've found range between 10 to 43x. Even assuming just 10x that's quite a difference)
How many more times? There is a difference between a private jet and a chartered flight.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, your answers lack detail or arguments to respond to. What difference does chartered Vs private make for emissions? It's the same types of jets, just changes who actually owns them. It also makes no difference to the entire tax subsidized argument either.
As to "how many times", as I said above I haven't found a clear answer, but different sources claim between 10x and ~40x, even assuming the very low end of 10x, that's a big difference. I assume the per passenger emission is hard to measure since the number of passengers on a plane make a big difference.
Either way, I believe I made my points in detail several times now, and as I said your responses don't really raise points or include much detail to further things, so I'm going to leave it here.
Yes, you have made your point that we should never do charter flights including medical charters and charters where it is the only practical way in and out of indigenous communities.
I have been convinced. Let people die and fuck the Indians.
You mean, besides the massive reason people are criticizing her for private flights in the first place? If we just forget about the multiple magnitudes of difference between fuel usage of a car vs a plane?
Do you understand the difference between a chartered flight and a private jet?
Also, I already said that it doesn't mean she should fly as much as she does.
Do you know what an airport is?
Please answer my question: Do you know the difference between a chartered flight and a private jet?
Because I am talking about chartered flights and you are talking about private jets.
Chartered flights are still tracked and followed.
As shown by your link you keep spamming
No... that link was to a private jet being tracked.
Charter flights can be tracked, but you can't tell who has chartered them.
Which you would know if you understood that, yet again, chartered flights are not the same as private jets.
Unless Im reading the article wrong, Im pretty sure that was a chartered japanese service