SHARE

Private aircraft have had a difficult summer, as have the super-rich who depend on them. Both reality star Kylie Jenner and music artist Taylor Swift were the subjects of intense internet criticism regarding their travel habits and the environmental impact of their ostentatious journeys and CO2 emissions.

Taylor deserves credit for at least trying to defend her lavish lifestyle and significant carbon imprint.

Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson countered that the actress was frequently lending her jet to pals and wasn’t making all those trips by herself. Taylor deserves credit for at least trying to defend her lavish lifestyle and significant carbon imprint.

The carbon hypocrites, like Bill Gates, who tour the world preaching about climate change while racking up hundreds of thousands of air miles in their private jets, stand out, despite the fact that celebrities are undoubtedly contributing to the global issue.

The overwhelming majority of the super-rich, including many celebrities and public figures, release far more greenhouse emissions than their fair share due to their use of private aircraft, superyachts, numerous homes, and mobile lifestyles, according to all available evidence. Additionally, buying carbon offsets does not stop the emissions. The large and disproportionate effects of celebrity private plane travel should therefore be highlighted, even though it may seem unjust to some to single out any particular star for criticism.

Because we were interested in researching the environmental effects of wealth and rising inequality, we published an article about the carbon footprint of billionaires last year. We estimated the 2018 carbon footprint of 20 wealthy individuals from different countries (mainly Americans), known for leading opulent lifestyles. Because many details were hidden from view, we had to be very conservative with our measurements, but we nevertheless discovered that the billionaires each released 8,194 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, compared to the average person’s less than 5 metric tons..

In 2018, the average billionaire contaminated the atmosphere 1,714 times more than the ordinary individual, according to this statistic. The high emissions from the more than 300,000 individuals classified by Wealth-X as Ultra-High-Net-Worth, each with more than $30 million in assets, are more harmful than the 3,300-plus billionaires and pertinent to the current backlash. More than many large countries, this global elite is in large part to blame for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the globe.

This disparity is unreasonable, especially because the rest of the populace is being shamed and made to feel bad for driving an SUV or recycling improperly. Even worse, while leaving enormous carbon footprints, the super-rich are able to avoid the negative effects of the consequent climate change thanks to their money. They can board a private plane to flee from hurricanes or floods, yet all they see from the windows of their armored limos are famine and destitution.

Celebrities also set a negative example for the rest of us with their extravagant, carbon-intensive lifestyles, which are continuously covered by the media and their enormous online fan bases. It makes sense to question why we should alter our personal lifestyles in an effort to preserve the planet when a billionaire emits more carbon dioxide in a single day than we do in a whole year. Why should I forgo my beach vacation so Kylie Jenner may fly in style to shop?

It makes sense to question why we should alter our personal lifestyles in an effort to preserve the planet when a billionaire emits more carbon dioxide in a single day than we do in a whole year.

A significant portion of the carbon footprints of the wealthy is caused by transportation. However, because they inject pollution at a high altitude, aviation’s contribution to global warming is closer to 3.5% than the estimated 2.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions. And just 1% of people are responsible for 50% of global aviation emissions.

There are several less-polluting options for short flights, although flying privately can cost up to Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson0 as much as a commercial plane, according to the current celebrity miles issue. For instance, Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson1 results in Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson2. In a year of driving 11,000 miles, a standard vehicle on the road would produce about that much pollution. Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson3, which has a capacity of more than 300 passengers, and Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson4, or has it fly without passengers, will pick him up.

One approach is what we call “carbon shaming,” which involves exposing the superpolluters to the public and encouraging individuals to publicly promise to reduce their air travel and disclose their carbon footprints. The concept has extended to numerous other European nations. The Swedes refer to this as Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson5 (flight shame). As anthropologists, we are aware of how potent shame can be and how many societies rely on it to regulate antisocial conduct rather than using the police and courts. The 2014–2015 drought in California resulted in widespread drought-shaming as residents used drones to scan neighborhoods for overwatered lawns and newspapers to publish lists of the biggest water consumers. At least a few famous people (most notably Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson6) replied by draping drought-resistant Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson7 over their lawns.

Public awareness has undoubtedly increased as a result of recent media attention on celebrities like Kylie Jenner, Drake, Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift, and the many others who boast (or modestly boast) about their private aircraft. Overall, this is a positive thing. We need to act quickly and collaboratively because the climate is in an emergency, according to Amid the backlash, Swifts spokesperson8. Maybe celebrities will care about their reputations if they don’t care about the environment.

POPULAR POSTS

SHARE