.png)
By Josephus Joby
Taylor Swift is a world-renowned singer and performer of the 21st century. A personality known for many iconic songs like, “ME!”, “Blank Space” and “Love Story”, extravagant shows and her cult-like followers, Swift is by far one of the most influential people on this earth. However, she is also known for her extensive flight logs - something that has been garnering attention, slowly and steadily. Being a celebrity of such elevated status, it isn’t unnatural for them to own a private jet and take leisurely flights now and then; but it seems Taylor is doing a tad bit more than what might be considered “necessary”.
GlobeAir reports that in the year 2023, she took over 100 flights. I repeat, 100 FLIGHTS! Of course, the argument of her being on tour could be made, but it is important to note that in 2023, Swift had shows in 20 US cities and about 3 International shows. Can a total of 23 shows result in a whopping 100 flights? A number that’s a little more than quadruple the number of shows she’s doing.
I mean, we all get homesick, and I get it—my parents live in an entirely different country. But even if I had all the money in the world, I wouldn’t want to destroy the ozone layer because I wanted to eat ‘mom’s spaghetti’. Whatever the reason, it's highly unreasonable to fly this many times, bringing about the entire need for this discussion and article.
Fun fact: Swift has taken a private jet to fly 6 kilometres, marking it as a record for the shortest flight ever flown. For 6 kilometres, it should be safe to assume there are far more sustainable alternatives to travel than chartering a plane. If this was to avoid the traffic, it should be noted that the CO2 emissions created are equal to an EU citizen's annual footprint. With that much damage to the environment, can we really justify this 40-second flight for the matter of “inconvenience”?
Let us have a look at this picture below that shows her flight path for 2023:
Taylor’s 2 private jets flew 178,000 miles in 2023, a distance that is equivalent to flying around the Earth seven times. Approximately 1,200 tons of CO2 was emitted in the process which is 81 times the average American’s emissions. Literally, no average person in their lifetime will have a footprint as huge as this.
We try to get on flights a few times a year (it is another reason that as a college student, I should save my money, but my point remains, flight travel is minimised). Therefore, you won’t see us taking a private jet like celebrities. 10 times out of 10, we will be on commercial flights, economy or business. And there is also to consider the fact that those flights will take off with or without you because it is built to take a large number of people with it.
This isn’t the case for private jets; they are entirely dependent on the person/boss and chartered according to their convenience and no one else’s except the flight crew. They have the choice between first class and private jet. Why don’t they fly premium instead? And even if they do prefer private jets, maybe they shouldn't consider them for 6 kilometres?
In a world where people with wealth and social status have free reign over all accessible needs, shouldn’t they follow a viable, sustainable option? Especially considering the example they could set since global warming won’t solve itself if I suddenly switch to paper straws and stop buying plastic items. As long as there are people who will take flights to and from an area just so they can sleep in the comfort of their bed rather than a hotel bed, or even skip traffic by a few minutes - the Earth will not have any time to heal from this ever-growing stench of pollution choking each and everyone in this modern dystopia.
Another strangely funny situation was when Taylor Swift tried to deflect the private jet situation by going to a Jets (American Football Team) game. It's incredibly amusing to see that a celebrity of such status would need to use a weirdly meandering technique just to divert the Google search to her attending the Jets game rather than her private jet trackings.
We should also keep in mind that Taylor Swift isn’t the only one contributing to global warming to such levels. Celebrities such as Travis Scott are notorious for this too. Forbes lists many athletes and celebrities, such as Travis, who often travel on private jets that fly due to high carbon emissions (Forbes, 2023). Celebrity hype can distract everyone from a bigger issue: and that fact is that so many celebrities are leading carbon-free lifestyles, like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck and Meryl Streep.
In 1998, Leonardo DiCaprio’s new movie “Titanic” had just sunk nearly every other movie that had the same release date. He had a fair share of bonuses for that film which he used to fund his new organisation “Leonardo Dicaprio Foundation” which ensures the protection of wildlife and forms a sustainable future. Commendable work for him at the age of 24.
While she may have also contributed to flood relief, animal rescue and COVID - all very important issues that Taylor has donated to and brought awareness about, it has never really made up for her emissions.
Even when it comes to fighting climate change; Swift has invested in carbon offsets — where you pay someone else to (supposedly) reduce their emissions or plant enough trees to balance your emissions, so the impact of your harmful output is seemingly minimised. A spokesperson explained that Taylor bought twice as many carbon credits “needed to offset all tour travel.” Even if her heart is in the right place, Taylor Swift has fallen for the shameless greenwashing that offsets sailed in on.
If one may compare, then I wonder if Leo has repeatedly used his fame to promote awareness of climate change (such as using his Oscar acceptance speech time for the 2015 movie ‘The Revenant’ to talk about climate concerns), what stops a celebrity of similar status from acting responsibly as well?
Companies that support renewable energy sources are important in the fight against climate change. However, high-intensity behaviours such as frequent flights and long-distance travel reduce the effectiveness of these activities. The actions of individuals, such as those of celebrities, can have an impact, even if they appear to be relatively small in international literature. According to the International Energy Agency, all businesses must reduce their carbon footprint for the major consequences of climate change.
This is not meant as a direct attack on anyone but rather a reminder that we as the public, just mustn't excuse such behaviour. We need to act on global warming since being short-minded has not helped us so far nor will it in the future.
Personally, I believe celebrities like Swift must understand that the whole world is watching and learning and repeating. With a status level and popularity like theirs, they mustn't abuse their privilege of accessibility to resources and instead set a positive example that could inspire others and the world to follow suit. They must learn to use sustainable methods because my paper straw isn’t going to do much compared to the abundant greenhouse gases certain celebrities' lifestyles are emitting into the atmosphere.
Is it wrong to ask, as humans living on the same planet, to care for and nurture the environment? Is it the responsibility of a few and a mere guideline for the others? When other celebrities can make an effort to reduce their footprint, why can’t we expect the same here? It is not wrong to ask. We should expect everyone, especially those in power, to make an effort. This is a social obligation that should be fulfilled regardless of the status of a person (and sometimes, because of it); not another affair that the PR team must make efforts to hide.
Comments