celeb news Taylor Swift faces scrutiny over producing 138 tons of CO2 to see Travis Kelce

[Carry My Heart]

47 minutes ago, LOTF said:

This will keep haunting her like the tax evasion to Shakira 💀

As if she cares 

 

Taylor's jet usage has been a point of discourse since mid-2022 when a big outlet first spoke about it. Her career has only skyrocketed since.

[Communion]

16 minutes ago, Bonicap said:

I'm more worried about taxation and stupid "environmental" measures making commercial flights more expensive and harder for working class people to travel abroad. 

Taylor is American. The vast majority of Americans have not traveled outside of North America, let alone working class Americans. People currently flying are not normally poor people. Travel and flying is largely a commodity and behavior of the affluent.

 

Americans probably would benefit more from having access to socialized medicine than ensuring continued market growth for commercial foreign tourism. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Communion

[Bubble Tea]

99.9% of wealthy people don't give a sh*t about the planet, we been knew. All our faves are wicked.

[galomika]

she's literally taking our breath away...

[flashfox]

Is scrutiny in the room with us?

[JBJT2786]

6 minutes ago, Tistotal said:

She is a billionare, the people you are talking about is her.

She doesn't care and we know it, she is just having her new teenage romance at 34 age. 

I also said have the same energy towards other billionaires not just her, isolating issues to just one person ( IF you really care and not just want to use it for ridiculous stan wars) isn't gonna solve said issue.

 

You clearly saw from my post that I'm not clearing her from any liability but I find it hilarious that it's just pointed at her cuz you can actually track her flights

 

[Off The Wall]

To the people trying to defend Taylor by comparing the likes of Jay Z also using private jets. Whilst both are bad, there’s a big difference in that Jay and others clearly know how to be more responsible about it. Taylor using it to fly from point A to B to C back to A to C to A to D to A is what’s ridiculous. And then when you factor in that the reason is so that she can see her boyfriend play football, so it’s completely non-essential…

[Bonicap]

Just now, Communion said:

Taylor is American. The vast majority of Americans have not traveled outside of North America, let alone working class Americans. People currently flying are not normally poor people.

United States is one of the countries where more people have traveled abroad at least once, but the number should be even higher. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation about the main sources of global emissions and governments are using this to tax flights, destroy low cost airlines and prevent working class people to enjoy international tourism. This is the trampling we should be fighting against.

[Watson!]

1 minute ago, Bonicap said:

United States is one of the countries where more people have traveled abroad at least once, but the number should be even higher. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation about the main sources of global emissions and governments are using this to tax flights, destroy low cost airlines and prevent working class people to enjoy international tourism. This is the trampling we should be fighting against.

if you can book an international trip, you can afford to pay 20% more to offset the emissions. it's not a huge deal

[Bonicap]

Just now, Watson! said:

if you can book an international trip, you can afford to pay 20% more to offset the emissions. it's not a huge deal

I can book an international trip from my country to Germany, for example, because until the pandemic you could fly for 60€ round trip. Right now you can't fly for less than 180€ and new taxation measures are coming. Only the rich will be able to travel abroad to "protect the environment" when flights make up for 2% of the global carbon emissions and the vast majority is coming from cargo flights, not passengers.

[Taemira]

She and her fans have been so harmful to the society and the planet earth.

[Popboi.]

She can (and maybe should) chill a bit about traveling for 2 days to see Travis, going back and forth between Kansas and NYC. But for the tour it's understandable she's doing this. The absolute chaos and mayhem she could produce at an airport / plane is not safe for her or for everyone else on board. No celeb of that kind of status flights commercial, but most rent a jet (like Taylor's friends rent her's).

[Off The Wall]

1 minute ago, Taemira said:

She and her fans have been so harmful to the society and the planet earth.

This is so true. Her fans buying 38 copies of the same album, that will eventually end up in landfill in decades to come polluting the earth even further.

[GraceRandolph]

6 minutes ago, Off The Wall said:

This is so true. Her fans buying 38 copies of the same album, that will eventually end up in landfill in decades to come polluting the earth even further.

But she’s an ethical billionaire 

[Mr.X]

34 minutes ago, Bonicap said:

I would fly even more if I had the money. Keep going 

 

PS: I'm more worried about taxation and stupid "environmental" measures making commercial flights more expensive and harder for working class people to travel abroad. Plane tickets should be accessible, tourism should be encouraged and if you have an issue with global warming force China to stop generating 30% of the world carbon emissions.

 

Nope, sorry. This is absolutely a class issue, but more mass tourism and more flying isnt the answer. The main issues of climate change actually have to do with the levels of mass industrial production, mass travel and shipping of cargo around the world, plus the 1% (you know, those pesky billionairs and almost-billionairs) do generate more than the rest of the world combined.

 

 

We do absolutely need to produce more and consume more locally than shipping from the Global South to the Global North. Put it this way: most of the flowers you buy in your local shops are mass produced in Global South countries, then shipped across the world to be sold at Tescos so you can have those flowers in your kitchen for a week at a time. We don't need that, at all. Similar with food consumtions. Have and produce locally: more work for local economies, less Global South exploitation, less impact on climate change.

 

Oh and yeah, the USA is actually the biggest pollutor per capita actually. Not only in terms of emissions it produces in its country, but the levels of mass destructions and wars it sponsors and the billionaires it produces. Not defending China here (though they do have the worlds' biggest population so of course even if they produce less will always be perceived as having more impact!), but you can't really compare.

 

From Reuters:

 

The United States and China are right at the top for both historic and current absolute emissions, but China drops down the rankings if you look at per capita emissions, according to figures from Our World in Data.

Who has polluted the most since the industrial revolution?

The United States tops the list of countries that have emitted the biggest amount of carbon dioxide in total since the industrial revolution. China’s tally of emissions since then only comes to about half that of the United States.

[Proseductice]

Being the most popular celebrity of the time comes with being called out and criticized, especially over something that can be adjusted that is actively harming the planet.

 

Pay attention to her awards, titles, and records, but not her wrongdoings I suppose. 

[West Coast]

her sales say otherwise

[Communion]

1 minute ago, Bonicap said:

United States is one of the countries where more people have traveled abroad at least once

Abroad largely being to the nation that directly borders it to the south or directly borders it to the north. I'm not sure you even read the article, ironically titled: "Most Americans have traveled abroad, although differences among demographic groups are large". This is literally in the article you linked to:

 

 

That this correlation between affluence and air travel not only exists within America's own income inequality but also then exists globally in the inequality between rich nations and poor nations reiterates - not disproves - the notion that air travel is *already* more often than not a commodity enjoyed by those within rich nations that has yet to show evidence that its benefits outweigh the harms from it.

 

No one is trying to shame you for taking a flight. The point is normalizing discussions about humans accepting the natural limitations of the physical world around them. 

 

The edit done to your original post shows you're being a bit trollish about any of this. The average Chinese person has less than *half* of the carbon emissions as your average American due to the difference in consumption between both, marked by the difference in wealth of each nation's average citizen. 

[OnlyManInTheWorld]

She's so evil

[Bonicap]

10 minutes ago, Mr.X said:

 

Nope, sorry. This is absolutely a class issue, but more mass tourism and more flying isnt the answer. The main issues of climate change actually have to do with the levels of mass industrial production, mass travel and shipping of cargo around the world, plus the 1% (you know, those pesky billionairs and almost-billionairs) do generate more than the rest of the world combined.

 

 

We do absolutely need to produce more and consume more locally than shipping from the Global South to the Global North. Put it this way: most of the flowers you buy in your local shops are mass produced in Global South countries, then shipped across the world to be sold at Tescos so you can have those flowers in your kitchen for a week at a time. We don't need that, at all. Similar with food consumtions. Have and produce locally: more work for local economies, less Global South exploitation, less impact on climate change.

 

Oh and yeah, the USA is actually the biggest pollutor per capita actually. Not only in terms of emissions it produces in its country, but the levels of mass destructions and wars it sponsors and the billionaires it produces. Not defending China here (though they do have the worlds' biggest population so of course even if they produce less will always be perceived as having more impact!), but you can't really compare.

 

From Reuters:

 

The United States and China are right at the top for both historic and current absolute emissions, but China drops down the rankings if you look at per capita emissions, according to figures from Our World in Data.

Who has polluted the most since the industrial revolution?

The United States tops the list of countries that have emitted the biggest amount of carbon dioxide in total since the industrial revolution. China’s tally of emissions since then only comes to about half that of the United States.

And this analysis about why local economies need to be promoted and the environmental issues of globalization is exactly why shifting the blame to passenger flights is a manipulative effort to keep middle and low class people from traveling abroad and secure that privilege only for wealthy people. Private jets and passenger flights are irrelevant for the future of the environment, yet the governments target this issues for populistic reasons while they do nothing to solve the core of the problem. And we are the ones paying the price. The people that can buy private planes should use them as much as they want and the people who can use commercial flights should do it as well, there is no issue apart from the fearmongering the governments use to shift the focus from the real issue (the one you have explained here)

[Bonicap]

13 minutes ago, Communion said:

Abroad largely being to the nation that directly borders it to the south or directly borders it to the north. I'm not sure you even read the article, ironically titled: "Most Americans have traveled abroad, although differences among demographic groups are large". This is literally in the article you linked to:

 

 

That this correlation between affluence and air travel not only exists within America's own income inequality but also then exists globally in the inequality between rich nations and poor nations reiterates - not disproves - the notion that air travel is *already* more often than not a commodity enjoyed by those within rich nations that has yet to show evidence that its benefits outweigh the harms from it.

 

No one is trying to shame you for taking a flight. The point is normalizing discussions about humans accepting the natural limitations of the physical world around them. 

 

The edit done to your original post shows you're being a bit trollish about any of this. The average Chinese person has less than *half* of the carbon emissions as your average American due to the difference in consumption between both, marked by the difference in wealth of each nation's average citizen. 

This graphic shows that 73% of American citizens have traveled abroad, and heavy taxation for populistic reasons will only make this number smaller while it solves nothing regarding the environment. And the mass media and governments are so happy about people believing that passenger flights need to be targeted and are the root of our environmental issues.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Bonicap

[Communion]

3 minutes ago, Bonicap said:

The people that can buy private planes should use them as much as they want 

Not very sure this sentence aligns with claiming your worry is poor people not being able to enjoy commercial flights, tbh! 

[Richie.Valdez]

She needs her bootycall.. no matter what.. the D has always been her priority.. i don’t blame her tho 

[Shelter]

She only cares about herself, like most celebs do. 
 

 

[Young Volcanoes]

she never learns  disgusting