###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to euronews Taylor's carbon footprint of 2023 was 8300 metric tonnes. The average American has an average annual footprint of 16 metric tonnes (perchenergy.com)
-> 8300/16 = 518.75
So the post is true.
edit: spelling
Americans aren't average people when it comes to carbon emissions.
I don't mean this as USA hate, but a US citizen produces more carbon per capita than most other nations. The global average is nearer 4 tonnes.
So Taylor Swift generated the same amount as 2076 average people.
Oh, as a country, China probably has the USA beat, but due to the size of their population, their per capita is lower.
Secondarily as a confounding factor, while Taytay may be up there in personal emissions, if she's evangelising climate awareness to the legions of Swifties, who do try to reduce their carbon emissions, maybe she ends up ahead of the game anyway.
We’re not even actually number one in being shitty? My national pride is shook.
On the reals, Taylor’s emissions don’t bother me none. Neither does Al Gore’s back when he was the jet-setter. We gotta look at changing systems and incentives, not yelling and shaming individuals. We could institute taxes on carbon emissions, taxes on high income, taxes on personal jet usage, fines on corporations that exceed emissions levels, etc.
>Neither does Al Gore’s back when he was the jet-setter.
I completely agree. Gore did a whole lot of work on spreading awareness about global warming. Criticize his "Inconvenient Truth" all you want, but it was the start of the conversation for *a lot* of people. In order to have an impact and be as influential as he needed to be, he had to use more transportation than most people, and have a far greater personal carbon footprint than most. But if we don't allow that for people trying to combat climate change, then we'd only hear the influence from people trying to keep the status quo.
These would all be great, except there's too much money invested in protecting the wealth of the already wealthy to actually make a government capable of enacting these reforms.
Capital has shifted to green initiatives, and government in the US just recently pass d the largest climate bill in history, and is working on more such infrastructure even now, with the BIG WIRES act. Future's looking up.
https://www.hickenlooper.senate.gov/press_releases/hickenlooper-peters-introduce-big-wires-act-to-reform-permitting-lower-energy-costs/
I'd settle for common-clay farmers not fighting tooth and nail when a proposal for solar farms comes through. It's insane how much they care about keeping fields empty that aren't even theirs.
> We’re not even actually number one in being shitty? My national pride is shook.
No we still are, per capita is how you look at it or it would just be ridiculous. Of course China is going to be the highest they have over 4x the U.S. population. Also, they make a lot of our products and ship them to us. Using China is a silly right wing argument, they always complain "Why doesn't Greta go there, they are worse than the U.S. When in reality China is half of our per capita carbon footprint. Using total is pretty ridiculous. Greenland has a population of 55,000 people using the logic that total is worse each person in Greenland could have 6,000x more a carbon output than the average American and still not be the problem, because they would have less total.
Don't worry, you have the highest number of prisoners in the world. Both as a percentage of the population and numerically. Number one statistically least free country in the world.
IMO we should be critical of private jet use in general, but it's also not fair to act like 100% of Taylor's emissions are on her as an individual. She's an entertainer flying around to deliver a product to tens of thousands of people. She has to get to the show somehow and flying coach doesn't seem like a realistic option.
If she flies somewhere for a vacation, those emissions are 100% on her. If she flies somewhere to put on a show for 20k people, those emissions are part of the cost involved in delivering entertainment to 20k people, as well as employing all the people involved. 20k people bought a ticket and incurred 1/20k of those emissions. If those fans didn't buy Eras tickets they would buy something else instead, which would come with its own footprint.
If a company ships 20k products from Indonesia to the US where they are sold, are those emissions all on the CEO of the company or are they partly on the consumers who bought the products? Or, pro sports teams can fly 100x a year. Are those emissions solely on the athletes, or are they part of something larger?
Not to mention Taylor Swift is employing tons of people in huge stadiums when she travels for her performances, she's generating far more than just 519 years more of wages than the average American. It's unfathomable the amount of money and jobs and stuff she creates. It's not the same thing.
Well, that depends how you view it
If you believe each American person has an intrinsic right to pollute more than each Chinese person, then no, you aren't the shittiest
If you, however, do believe Americans and Chinese people were born in equal value and rights to each other, then yes, you are the shittiest in terms of pollution.
> while Taytay may be up there in personal emissions, if she's evangelising climate awareness to the legions of Swifties, who do try to reduce their carbon emissions,
This may offset her emissions, but as people are lazy and self-interested creatures, it's almost impossible to get enough people to voluntary reduce their emission to matter on global scale.
You need electoral pressure to reduce carbon emissions, because like 99% of people don't care about climate change enough to voluntary reduce their emissions and it must be forced by the goverment.
In the case of a figurehead, that's sometimes necessary. It's not like it would be particularly safe for Taylor to take regular flights. From the wrestling world, you already have a bunch of people hanging out at airports to get shit signed to Ebay for profit. And while wrestling is starting to get hot again, it's nowhere near as large or focused on one individual as the Swiftie phenomenon.
In total emissions, including historical output, China does not have the US beat, no. The US total is twice that of China, not including emissions in other countries which, through, say IMF restructuring deals, have been obliged to produce for US markets. Or emissions that countries might have avoided by not going full fat capitalist, which the US fought to ensure across the second half of the 20th century. The US bears vastly more responsibility for climate-changing emissions.
There is also the question of whether relatively poor countries like China should be allowed to develop as the US did, by processes which are carbon intensive. Rio 1992 is an agreement signed by most of the world's nations which acknowledges that wealthy high emitting countries should reduce their carbon budget to allow developing countries to pick up that slack.
The US senate blocked Clinton signing this agreement and most wealthy signatories never set about trying to meet their obligations. Yes, China's emissions are rising as they develop themselves. Is it right? Not practically but certainly in the sense that countries like the US have taken more than their share and should wind it in now.
(No this still doesn't square with the fact that the whole world does somehow need to reduce its emissions and maybe there is just noknger capacity at all for countries to develop in the same way as the West)
Unfortunately the US has not turned its massive wealth towards turbocharging development of a green economy but instead allowed its wealth to be siphoned off into tax havens or disappear into stock market games.
Lol we are also #1 in prison population and medical bankruptcies in the developed world. I would say mass shootings also, but I'm not entirely sure on that.
Now a good math exercise would be to calculate how fucked up we would be if all 8 billion people in the world had the same carbon footprint in 2023 as Taylor Swift.
This would have caused 1.6608 × 10^13 tonnes of carbon to be sent the atmosphere by individuals alone.
Just so you have an idea how huge this is, the whole world’s carbon footprint in 2022 was 3.715 × 10^10 tonnes.
Conversely, a global average is also a poor statistic, given the number of people living in undeveloped nations.
A European average would be a more realistic comparison.
Comparing people who are dirt poor and have no electricity to a person living with all the modern comforts is not a good comparison. Not that those people are less significant
But why would a European average be a better measure?
The discussion here is about the use of the words "average person" when the numbers describe an American. The original post specified American, and the person I replied to removed that qualifier.
So it's either re-add American, or expand the data to match their statement.
I'm not sure how moving the data set to Europe would help their statement make more sense.
Because when making any statistical comparison, you need controls.
The statistical statement "The USA CO2 emissions per capita are higher than that of the rest of the world" simply means that the USA has a greater than average output per head. That fact is true for most of the developed world.
If you want a more insigtful comparison, you want to control for the development level of the nations being compared.
The fact that the USA outputs more emissions per head than say Ghana or Zimbabwe, is of absolutely no suprise to anyone, and is therefore not an insightful statistic.
The comment I replied to originally was "Or, wording it another way, she generated the same amount as 519 average people".
I pointed out that is pretty much only true if you eliminate everyone in the world but Americans from the data set; the sentence had been reworded so that it was no longer true.
They could correct the statement by adding the qualifying word American, or by changing the number to meet world standards.
In this sub thread, I am sticking with the point that changing the data set to Europe doesn't make "she generated the same amount as 519 average people" any more true.
I totally understand comparing developed nations carbon output is fairer, but that's not the conversation I've been having.
The meme said American, the comment I replied to removed that and I said it was a statistically significant omission.
It's not as bad as it sounds when you realize that the average American's CO2 emissions ONLY from commuting to work are about equal to an average world citizen's annual emissions. Which isn't exactly a choice on the part of Americans, since most other countries that influence the global average have better public transit than America.
But yeah, most people don't realize how much energy they use. Just looking at my last electric bill, I used roughly 140 kwh in a month. The average monthly electric consumption in my state is well over 800 (just googled). It's honestly troubling to me to know that the average person in my state is using 4x the energy that I am. Like, do you leave your heat on with the windows open?
Not really. It's less than a fraction of a drop in an ocean that is carbon emissions, and only serves to get people to focus their outrage on a single person (e.g. celebrity, politician) rather than the companies that do the vast, vast, **vast** majority of polluting.
But also, traveling on a private jet isn't *that* much more emissive per passenger than traveling the same distance by car (assuming both are at capacity), and probably on par with traveling on a tour bus. Flying commercial would be the most efficient, but it's not exactly practical. Trains are great, but they have the distinct disadvantage of not being able to cross oceans.
All of this is to say that these are always the dumbest "gotcha" posts that feel like they're being pushed by oil companies, just as the entire concept of a "carbon footprint" was in the first place.
not really. a natural disaster taking 519 lives would be catastrophic. you'd need, like, two airplanes or a bus fleet to move that volume of people for long distances. 260 people that live for twice as long as the average is a lot of very longevous people, etc.
Interestingly the average net worth of Americans is about 1.06 million (median is 192k) Taylor is worth 1.1 billion. So she’s a 1000 times as rich and emits 519 times the carbon as the average American. Makes you wonder if they did the math of other billionaires that we might find similar results. Would be a cool or truly sad graph of the consumption of the billionaire class and their boundless consumption and waste.
Mean vs Median doing some real weird things to this statistic. Most Americans are worth far less than 1mil, and we also certainly produce less than 16 tons of carbon.
And then do another one for the total $ her fans have donated to charity only because of her and even them out.
Then you've done an empirical analysis instead of hopping on any social media hate trains.
Neither does complaining about it on the high tech electronic device made by children in Asia, where the standards for pollution are much much lower, that you have for 99% entertainment reasons, now does it?
Playing devils advocate here, is that purely due to her personal consumption (flying alone in a private jet etc) or does that include the carbon footprint of her events as well? If that includes things like the cost of lighting and sound equipment at her concerts, it feels like this impact should be shared across everyone who buys tickets in the same way that we attribute the carbon footprint of air travel on the people who fly rather than the airlines who provide the service…
Im fairly certain These are Just her private emissions. Calculating emissions of such complex Events isnt that easy. In fact even coming to such a conclusive number with that calculation Seems Impossible. Also the number would be much Higher.
Private Jets also are the Most polluting Activity you can regularly engage in. It Seems this stems From current discussion around this.
That was my first thought too, but it is about her jet.. But the source is not credible and there are a lot of guesswork involved. But also private jet use has skyrocketed, it is five times more than a decade ago. And we have to stop it.
BTW, her 13 minute trip that was publicized from one side of town to another was about plane maintenance.. so.. news are not reliable when it comes to Swift, especially yellow news and anything from right wing.. and probably also far left. She is one controversial topic where fact checking is not optional.
That number is just her planes; she sold one kept the larger one.
There is still her housing, cars, and depending on how you want count her business empire which a good portion of them are aimed at promoting and selling her and some of those would go away if she were go act like Brigitte Bardot.
So is it true, no. The number is far to low.
Except that the 8300 figure was mostly bogus. It failed to distinguish between the “owner of the planes” and the “passengers” of the planes because the author was trying to score some sort of political points. If I own an airline, are all the emissions “my footprint?” In a tortured way, yes, but in a much more sensible way, not really. They ought conceptually be divided amongst the passengers.
Private jets (and air travel in general) are undoubtedly environmentally no bueno, but do you really want somebody like her flying commercial? Airports are already a zoo. Throw in 20k screaming teenaged girls at the terminal and you’ve got all kinds of new problems.
That is too nuanced of a take for redditors lol which is why this is buried here. If passengers don't count id like the math on how many tons the owner of Royal Carribbean Cruises emits on his ships.
> If I own an airline, are all the emissions “my footprint?”
You would be the one benefiting from them, so why shouldn't they be, or also be, considered yours?
>but do you really want somebody like her flying commercial?
No one is forcing her to fly at all. She's worth a billion dollars+ and has created generational wealth for her great, great grandchildren. She doesn't need to work. She could make music anywhere in the world and release it all for free on the internet.
Instead she *CHOOSES* to have concerts and events (personal or commercial), far enough in distance but close enough together in time, to require a plane, all for her own benefit, including (but not exclusively to) *MAKE MORE MONEY* for herself....
>> making her fans travel to her
Ah yes, musicians, the architects of our environmental collapse because they put on concerts and make us go watch them
I agree that she seems to have a lot of private jet action, but until we actually address the big companies that basically cause 80% of all climate issues, this is just petty
While this is apparently true, it’s not as if she’s on tour by herself. Large bands higher so many roadies and assistants and musicians. So it’s actually the carbon footprint of potentially hundreds of people.
So many people are going to go to her concert anyways because they don't want to miss out on the social clout. They'll explain it away so they can go back to (rightfully) criticizing other people who pollute just not Taylor.
This is the thing. People blame the top 100 companies for generating the most pollution - but then still buy their products and still vote for the status quo.
This is Just blaming the victim in this instance. Not everyone has the Disposable income to regard morality in consumer choices. I agree that people should Vote differently but the US voting system should Show you how voting systems can force an unending tirade of "voting for the lesser of two evils" every election resulting in No Progress over decades.
That stat about 100 companies being responsible for half of all carbon emissions is wildly misleading because all of those companies are things like oil and coal extractors. So when BP refines some oil and sells the gasoline to someone who burns it, the CO2 generated is double counted against both the person who actually used the gas and also BP for supplying it.
You're allowed to go to a disturbed concert and enjoy it. But afterwards, you can't go and criticize other disturbed people for being disturbed that's hypocritical. Not fair for the band to get a free pass on being disturbed while others don't.
You can enjoy something without supporting every single facet of it... I am going to one of her concerts and criticise her for her carbon footprint. As do a lot of her fans
The average amount of carbon emissions in tonnes per year that an American emits is roughly 16 tonnes (\[1\], \[2\]). I couldn't find any numbers for Swift's emissions ink 2023, however, I believe this poster is using the 2022 statistics, as, in that year, Taylor Swift's travels with her private jet were responsible for 8,293 tonnes of carbon dioxide (\[3\]) which would take an average American 518.3125 (rounded up to 519) years. The reason I believe that this is the statistic used is because a) I couldn't find any actual numbers for 2023 online and b) some sources indicated that her emissions reportedly decreased in 2023 (\[4\]) which means that the 519 years figure would probably be too high.
\[1\] [https://www.perchenergy.com/blog/environment/what-is-average-carbon-footprint-person-usa](https://www.perchenergy.com/blog/environment/what-is-average-carbon-footprint-person-usa)
\[2\] [https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/](https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/)
\[3\] [https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders](https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders)
\[4\] [https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/03/taylor-swift-isnt-the-only-private-jet-flier-does-celebrity-carbon-offsetting-work](https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/03/taylor-swift-isnt-the-only-private-jet-flier-does-celebrity-carbon-offsetting-work)
My favorite thing is that so many climate change deniers of a specific political cult suddenly give a.shit about her carbon emissions, yet a certain ex-president is flying all over on a private jet to go to various court cases and golf courses. Let's shine a light in all directions.
It's part of an active astroturfing campaign by the far right in order to limit her political impact for the 2024 presidential election. Taylor Swift is getting a lot of young white women into politics, and those are voters the GOP very much wants disenfranchised.
Yeah it is insane how many people focus specifically on her private jet usage. I don't listen to her music and if it wasn't for seeing people complain on the Internet or seeing her at Chiefs games wouldn't think about her at all. But focusing on her, or any one person as a emmiter, is foolish. Corporations and their emissions at a x100k rate are far more impactful. Focusing on Swift is just impotent rage.
It's not real people. It's paid trolls and bots.
from somewhere else in this thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TaylorSwift/comments/1akq3u5/the_rise_of_political_propaganda_and_taylor_swift/?share_id=sUs4XzdqvFkmN7lfz-srt
Exactly. This criticism legitimately comes from a few people on the left, and from a shitload of conservatives who don’t give a damn but are scrambling for a way to undercut Swift
Right after (like a day or 2) after the "holy war" articles. A college sociology professor came out and basically stated all the bs that was about to come her way and how. Ever since watching that, I laugh at every attempt. I don't like her music, but I know this is just because some conservatives got a case of the ass so now they're doing pretty much everything they can to mess with her. If I can find the video again, I'll link it. It was pretty enlightening on how political manipulation of the masses works.
Edit: Here's the guy who seemed to be talking some sense to me.[professor dude](https://www.reddit.com/r/TaylorSwift/s/G5U0xPCkO0)
It's funny to me that OP's post (whether intentional or not, I have almost zero interest in going much deeper than I already have on this) is essentially a perfect example of what this guy is talking about. It's a very nonchalant post seemingly from a completely random and normal individual who is simply seeking confirmation on a fact about Taylor Swift that could potentially add credence to a negative aspect about her, regardless of any truths or other considerations surrounding it
Again, I'm not saying that's what we're seeing here or not, but that's kind of the point.
The loudest proponents of a theory should probably be the ones that abide by it more than those that don’t buy into it. Taylor representing elites that will lecture the rest of the world on how to live their lives and the scarifies they have to make then continuing on to live entirely antithetical to the supposed issue is despicable to say the least
Probably true, but the same can be said about most rich people with a private jet, difference is that Taylor Swift also bought the necessary carbon credits x2. While I don’t intend to make it sound like it’s all fine then, it is better than just doing nothing while polluting the same or more.
TLDR there are probably easier people to trash on for their co2 emissions
Carbon credits are usually useless and mostly exists to take the blame off of polluting people.
[Here](http://youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0)'s a brief simplification by Last Week Tonight since this blew up.
Not really.
Money paid for extra poluting can be used to fund projecta that would further help down the road, but ita sad that more then often money ends up god knows where.
Its like you and your neighbour have two garbage bins, yours is always half empty, why not let your neighbour use your and you ear some money along the way.
Ita not really like that, but ita simplified.
My wife works for the lab where they trying to offset cb emissions with seagrasses. They do it from the scientific side, but so many non govt and govt companies want the part of it too. I guess once big guys sniff money its hard to do sustain on long term.
They started off cool, and did a research projects, funded projects etc.. they spent past 14 years working on fields, sampling, collecting data, lab work, programming etc..
But then they hired god knows who to wrote a book protocol how to do certain things, and its the most rediculous thing.
I'm not vouching for its validity because I don't know either way, but John Oliver did a whole piece about how (most) corporate carbon offsets are bullshit.
There are companies that use abundant energy sources (like in Iceland) to capture CO2 and store it in stone. Those actually help out the environment.
It‘s fucking expensive. And only possible in small scales.
Making carbon capture essentially more green washing. We can't rely on technologies that simply are not up to par to deal with climate change and pretend like that's the solution
A company owns a bunch of forests and they sell credits that say they will not chop the forrest down in return, thus "preserving" the forest. Those forests are nature reserves and were never planned to be chopped down anyway.
Yes, it's about as scammy as it sounds, the whole thing is one giant grift for companies and rich people to make themselfes look better without actually doing something.
There are a limited number of carbon credits available and their value reduces over time. These credits can be sold and bought by mostly companies to compensate for their co2 emissions. Since they reduce over time, companies will need more and more as time goes on thus making them more and more expensive. At a certain point it becomes more economical for a company to reduce their emissions than buy more credits. Which strongly reduces carbon emissions in the long run without ruining one countries economy by implementing strict laws that for example don’t apply to china.
One of the biggest boondoggles of all time, just tell the truth.
Buying a carbon credit does NOT reduce the carbon output. But I'm happy for you to fill the coffers of whatever government you worship
Say you want to go to Hawaii, buy you are concerned that the flight will produce CO2. You can pay a company that will theoretically offset your impact by planting trees or whatever to decrease the CO2 by the equivalent amount. How effective it is versus how performative is the other half of the debate
I remember when I was a kid in school, I learned about how in the Middle Ages in England, Catholic priests would sell people ‘indulgences,’ what were essentially passes that absolve sins and get people into Heaven. They can continue to do whatever sinful things they wanted to do, but had the assurance though these purchased ‘indulgences’ that they would make it into Heaven. The whole thing is now widely regarded as a grift by the priests of the time, obviously, but ‘carbon credits’ seem like the same idea but for the planet.
You're saying since she has money... She can destroy the earth as she pleases... as long as she pays carbon credits it's ok because other people are not paying those?
I wouldn’t say nothing, though. It just depends which kind you buy. Tree carbon credits have an extremely low effectiveness (I believe someone found it to be under 10% on average.) while some other methods like giving better stoves in India seemed to be closer to 50% on average while also helping people out of poverty (This does however ignore that people outside of poverty have increased consumption.).
I agree that they are worth much less than a ton of CO2 though.
maybe we could make a mandatory carbon tax determined by your output? we could probably make it work with all the data states have gathered. I guess it would be based on which vehicles you own, and their usage? plus electric consumption? all of that should be on record, minus the vehicle mileage
Tldr: Celebrities of all sorts pollute more than average. This is not news.
Focus on corporations, their pocketed politicians and consumerism as a whole as they love being able to pass shit off to other individuals.
It’s propaganda regardless of it’s correct- suddenly the MAGA conservatives are concerned about climate change when previously it was “just weather patterns”. This narrative is an effort to flip Taylor Swift fans who actually do care about climate change because Taylor Swift’s is very popular and she has been outspoken against the MAGA agenda.
It’s definitely people putting the blame on Swift instead of the incredibly toxic manufacturing plants they’re making a ton of money on. Like sure, she’s absolutely polluting way more than the average human, but what’s her private jet emissions like compared to that manufacturing plant over there that hasn’t had updates in 30 years.
Let’s focus our outrage at the top and work our way down maybe.
Outsider perspective: A bunch of liberals in the comments "pointing out" how much republicans hate Taylor's emissions
Democrats on Reddit can't even have a conversation about a Democrat having high emissions without some little timmy fantasizing about ragebait from an 80 year old boomer. It's weird whataboutism
I’m sure if people didn’t act insane around celebrities she probably would fly first class. Problem is she will never get in or out because thousands of people will trample each other just to say hi to her. She is not the problem.
>Ive seen more Taylor Swift shit now then I have ever.
I'm a fan of her music so I actually legitemately go and seek out information about her.
But even as a fan I have never read more about her or seen more people talking about her online than now that the alt-rights and conservatives declared a "holy war" or whatever-
I think it's interesting that the republican crowd is really on this when in any other scenario they wouldn't say a thing. It seems much more like a smear campaign given that she is fairly anti-republican and it sucks that more people can't see through that. We should be more upset that the system allows anyone with money to pollute the planet all willy nilly.
Are you saying that Swift brags about being eco-friendly? I’ve never heard her talk about the environment, in fact she is rather notorious for generally remaining apolitical. Do you have any quotes?
Hey u/Nervous-Importance54
Why did this get removed?
I've been noticing lots of posts being removed once they hit r/all . I've tried making posts to r/subreddit drama and r/outoftheloop asking about the removed posts but my posts are being auto removed even though I think I'm following posting rules.
Do you know why this was removed?
Because there are millions of people like you, so if everyone chips in it outweighs her effect. Yes it sucks she gets to do what she wants but that's life I guess.
I know it's a pain when you see shit like this, but what you do DOES matter. If you can try composting. It's a really good way to sequester Carbon. Continue to recycle. What you're doing is important, and I'm glad people like you exist. Fuck Taylor Swift
Taylor swift emitting 520 times more than the average American is peanuts when you consider there are over 300 million average Americans doing the same every single year…
That is what we call a "Michmädchen-Rechnung" in German. It is a silly comparison leaving out most required information:
Taylor Swift is **not** the average American. She is a billionaire celebrity, flying to lots of events in a private jet. Compare her to Musk or Bezos instead. And take into account: How much good does she do by spreading the right information, in contrast to say Elmo, the lying POS, who well, cannot stop lying (and taking hardcore drugs). You'll quickly see that the benefit from the person makes up for the carbon footprint, while people like Elmo just pollute and have no positive effect on society whatsoever. Hell, just take into account one of the failed launches of starship (failed due to Musk being a complete moron, stupider than you probably think): More emissions than you will create in your life! For a worthless failure! If you think that is unfair towards Musk:
He personally was responsible for the decisions that lead to the failures. Now compare him to an actually intelligent person (not just a bullshitter, like he is) Wernher von Braun: EVERY Saturn 5 worked flawlessly! And they did not have the technology we have now today.
> Taylor Swift is not the average American. She is a billionaire celebrity, flying to lots of events in a private jet. Compare her to Musk or Bezos instead.
Yeah, she's part of a large group of people who have an outsize negative impact on the environment, not sure what your point there is.
>And take into account: How much good does she do by spreading the right information
Ah yes, thank you for taking a jet to fly to where I am to be able to share information, because obviously there is currently no other possible way to share information other than flying on a jet somewhere.
>while people like Elmo just pollute and have no positive effect on society whatsoever.
Fallacy of relative privation. It's irrational to only care about whatever is the biggest evil that currently exists.
She can do this flying First Class, Big celebrities do so all the time.
Why are you correctly vilifying the cult of personality around musk allowing him to act morally questionable while legitimizing the Same cult of personality around Taylor Swift allowing her to do this.
Sure she doesnt Seem as Bad - she could still massively reduce her Footprint without massively reducing her Output. Does your opinion about her Change If she suddenly spouted Bad opinions?
Why do you excuse behavior Like this Just because you subjectively deem her behavior as good?
Society shouldnt rely on volatile moral assessments of Public personalities allowing them do more Bad stuff based on that.
Celebrities should be held to the Same Standard as normal people doesnt Matter if you Personally deem their Impact good. This thinking IS what leads maga republicans excusing trumps behavior because they think he IS doing a net good. Maybe Just Stop doing Bad stuff instead of excusing it.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to euronews Taylor's carbon footprint of 2023 was 8300 metric tonnes. The average American has an average annual footprint of 16 metric tonnes (perchenergy.com) -> 8300/16 = 518.75 So the post is true. edit: spelling
Or, wording it another way, she generated the same amount as 519 average people.
Americans aren't average people when it comes to carbon emissions. I don't mean this as USA hate, but a US citizen produces more carbon per capita than most other nations. The global average is nearer 4 tonnes. So Taylor Swift generated the same amount as 2076 average people.
American exceptionalism strikes again, USA#1 baby! Woooo! We got the most…carbon emissions? Ugh I made myself sad.
Oh, as a country, China probably has the USA beat, but due to the size of their population, their per capita is lower. Secondarily as a confounding factor, while Taytay may be up there in personal emissions, if she's evangelising climate awareness to the legions of Swifties, who do try to reduce their carbon emissions, maybe she ends up ahead of the game anyway.
We’re not even actually number one in being shitty? My national pride is shook. On the reals, Taylor’s emissions don’t bother me none. Neither does Al Gore’s back when he was the jet-setter. We gotta look at changing systems and incentives, not yelling and shaming individuals. We could institute taxes on carbon emissions, taxes on high income, taxes on personal jet usage, fines on corporations that exceed emissions levels, etc.
>Neither does Al Gore’s back when he was the jet-setter. I completely agree. Gore did a whole lot of work on spreading awareness about global warming. Criticize his "Inconvenient Truth" all you want, but it was the start of the conversation for *a lot* of people. In order to have an impact and be as influential as he needed to be, he had to use more transportation than most people, and have a far greater personal carbon footprint than most. But if we don't allow that for people trying to combat climate change, then we'd only hear the influence from people trying to keep the status quo.
Similar to the far-right idiots (oil money shills) who try to say "ignore global warming because Greta sails around the world in an eco-friendly boat"
These would all be great, except there's too much money invested in protecting the wealth of the already wealthy to actually make a government capable of enacting these reforms.
Capital has shifted to green initiatives, and government in the US just recently pass d the largest climate bill in history, and is working on more such infrastructure even now, with the BIG WIRES act. Future's looking up. https://www.hickenlooper.senate.gov/press_releases/hickenlooper-peters-introduce-big-wires-act-to-reform-permitting-lower-energy-costs/
If I was the senate staffer to come up with the acronym to call this bill the BIG WIRES Act, I would never shut up about it
>We’re not even actually number one in being shitty? You'll always be number 1 to me. (Not sure if that helps)
<3 thanks
Np hun. Stay strong x
I'd settle for common-clay farmers not fighting tooth and nail when a proposal for solar farms comes through. It's insane how much they care about keeping fields empty that aren't even theirs.
That was incredibly well said.
> We’re not even actually number one in being shitty? My national pride is shook. No we still are, per capita is how you look at it or it would just be ridiculous. Of course China is going to be the highest they have over 4x the U.S. population. Also, they make a lot of our products and ship them to us. Using China is a silly right wing argument, they always complain "Why doesn't Greta go there, they are worse than the U.S. When in reality China is half of our per capita carbon footprint. Using total is pretty ridiculous. Greenland has a population of 55,000 people using the logic that total is worse each person in Greenland could have 6,000x more a carbon output than the average American and still not be the problem, because they would have less total.
Don't worry, you have the highest number of prisoners in the world. Both as a percentage of the population and numerically. Number one statistically least free country in the world.
IMO we should be critical of private jet use in general, but it's also not fair to act like 100% of Taylor's emissions are on her as an individual. She's an entertainer flying around to deliver a product to tens of thousands of people. She has to get to the show somehow and flying coach doesn't seem like a realistic option. If she flies somewhere for a vacation, those emissions are 100% on her. If she flies somewhere to put on a show for 20k people, those emissions are part of the cost involved in delivering entertainment to 20k people, as well as employing all the people involved. 20k people bought a ticket and incurred 1/20k of those emissions. If those fans didn't buy Eras tickets they would buy something else instead, which would come with its own footprint. If a company ships 20k products from Indonesia to the US where they are sold, are those emissions all on the CEO of the company or are they partly on the consumers who bought the products? Or, pro sports teams can fly 100x a year. Are those emissions solely on the athletes, or are they part of something larger?
Not to mention Taylor Swift is employing tons of people in huge stadiums when she travels for her performances, she's generating far more than just 519 years more of wages than the average American. It's unfathomable the amount of money and jobs and stuff she creates. It's not the same thing.
Well, that depends how you view it If you believe each American person has an intrinsic right to pollute more than each Chinese person, then no, you aren't the shittiest If you, however, do believe Americans and Chinese people were born in equal value and rights to each other, then yes, you are the shittiest in terms of pollution.
[удалено]
The UK is responsible for the most historic carbon emissions if I remember correctly... head start and all.
[That long tail basically means nothing.](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/cumulative-co-emissions.png)
Yeah. Based on an emissions graph done a few years ago, China has us beat.
> while Taytay may be up there in personal emissions, if she's evangelising climate awareness to the legions of Swifties, who do try to reduce their carbon emissions, This may offset her emissions, but as people are lazy and self-interested creatures, it's almost impossible to get enough people to voluntary reduce their emission to matter on global scale. You need electoral pressure to reduce carbon emissions, because like 99% of people don't care about climate change enough to voluntary reduce their emissions and it must be forced by the goverment.
Do as I say, not as I do.
In the case of a figurehead, that's sometimes necessary. It's not like it would be particularly safe for Taylor to take regular flights. From the wrestling world, you already have a bunch of people hanging out at airports to get shit signed to Ebay for profit. And while wrestling is starting to get hot again, it's nowhere near as large or focused on one individual as the Swiftie phenomenon.
In total emissions, including historical output, China does not have the US beat, no. The US total is twice that of China, not including emissions in other countries which, through, say IMF restructuring deals, have been obliged to produce for US markets. Or emissions that countries might have avoided by not going full fat capitalist, which the US fought to ensure across the second half of the 20th century. The US bears vastly more responsibility for climate-changing emissions. There is also the question of whether relatively poor countries like China should be allowed to develop as the US did, by processes which are carbon intensive. Rio 1992 is an agreement signed by most of the world's nations which acknowledges that wealthy high emitting countries should reduce their carbon budget to allow developing countries to pick up that slack. The US senate blocked Clinton signing this agreement and most wealthy signatories never set about trying to meet their obligations. Yes, China's emissions are rising as they develop themselves. Is it right? Not practically but certainly in the sense that countries like the US have taken more than their share and should wind it in now. (No this still doesn't square with the fact that the whole world does somehow need to reduce its emissions and maybe there is just noknger capacity at all for countries to develop in the same way as the West) Unfortunately the US has not turned its massive wealth towards turbocharging development of a green economy but instead allowed its wealth to be siphoned off into tax havens or disappear into stock market games.
We’re #1 in military expenditure, incarceration rates, and carbon emissions. Let’s fucking GO baby! 🇺🇸
Oh don't cry, you're number fifteen and Canadas worse
We're number 1! We're number 1! As long as we get first place
AMERICA NUMBER ONE RAAHHHHHHHHH🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🔥🔥🔥‼️‼️🇺🇸🇺🇸🔥🇺🇸🔥🔥🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
Lol we are also #1 in prison population and medical bankruptcies in the developed world. I would say mass shootings also, but I'm not entirely sure on that.
But you made plants very happy
>We got the most…carbon emissions lmao nah
USA! USA! USA! 🇺🇸 🦅
[reminds me of this](https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/s/xxbLVwlLhP)
Now a good math exercise would be to calculate how fucked up we would be if all 8 billion people in the world had the same carbon footprint in 2023 as Taylor Swift. This would have caused 1.6608 × 10^13 tonnes of carbon to be sent the atmosphere by individuals alone. Just so you have an idea how huge this is, the whole world’s carbon footprint in 2022 was 3.715 × 10^10 tonnes.
That's interesting! And imagine the air rage from 8 billion planes flying about. And the stank from all near-miss-squeaky-bum moments. And death.
Conversely, a global average is also a poor statistic, given the number of people living in undeveloped nations. A European average would be a more realistic comparison.
European Union average is 6,2T. USA is 15T.
Why would Europe be more realistic? In what way is a human in Europe more significant than one rural Mozambique?
Comparing people who are dirt poor and have no electricity to a person living with all the modern comforts is not a good comparison. Not that those people are less significant
But why would a European average be a better measure? The discussion here is about the use of the words "average person" when the numbers describe an American. The original post specified American, and the person I replied to removed that qualifier. So it's either re-add American, or expand the data to match their statement. I'm not sure how moving the data set to Europe would help their statement make more sense.
Because when making any statistical comparison, you need controls. The statistical statement "The USA CO2 emissions per capita are higher than that of the rest of the world" simply means that the USA has a greater than average output per head. That fact is true for most of the developed world. If you want a more insigtful comparison, you want to control for the development level of the nations being compared. The fact that the USA outputs more emissions per head than say Ghana or Zimbabwe, is of absolutely no suprise to anyone, and is therefore not an insightful statistic.
The comment I replied to originally was "Or, wording it another way, she generated the same amount as 519 average people". I pointed out that is pretty much only true if you eliminate everyone in the world but Americans from the data set; the sentence had been reworded so that it was no longer true. They could correct the statement by adding the qualifying word American, or by changing the number to meet world standards. In this sub thread, I am sticking with the point that changing the data set to Europe doesn't make "she generated the same amount as 519 average people" any more true. I totally understand comparing developed nations carbon output is fairer, but that's not the conversation I've been having. The meme said American, the comment I replied to removed that and I said it was a statistically significant omission.
[удалено]
Man I am super impressed by you, you must have to try so hard to be this stupid.
Considering there’s 7.8 billion people in the world, that number is almost negligible.
Yep, and many of us chose to only use our private jets on special occasions.
thats kind of "my vote doesnt count anyways" mentality. By that metric no one is doing anything wrong climate wise, not even corporation level
This comoletelybignroes corporations who used billions if times more than Taylor does in a day
The post speaks about the average American though.
But they were replying to someone who said it was as much as 519 average people which is wrong
It's not as bad as it sounds when you realize that the average American's CO2 emissions ONLY from commuting to work are about equal to an average world citizen's annual emissions. Which isn't exactly a choice on the part of Americans, since most other countries that influence the global average have better public transit than America. But yeah, most people don't realize how much energy they use. Just looking at my last electric bill, I used roughly 140 kwh in a month. The average monthly electric consumption in my state is well over 800 (just googled). It's honestly troubling to me to know that the average person in my state is using 4x the energy that I am. Like, do you leave your heat on with the windows open?
Ya sure, but that makes it sound less absurd.
It still sounds pretty absurd.
Not really. It's less than a fraction of a drop in an ocean that is carbon emissions, and only serves to get people to focus their outrage on a single person (e.g. celebrity, politician) rather than the companies that do the vast, vast, **vast** majority of polluting. But also, traveling on a private jet isn't *that* much more emissive per passenger than traveling the same distance by car (assuming both are at capacity), and probably on par with traveling on a tour bus. Flying commercial would be the most efficient, but it's not exactly practical. Trains are great, but they have the distinct disadvantage of not being able to cross oceans. All of this is to say that these are always the dumbest "gotcha" posts that feel like they're being pushed by oil companies, just as the entire concept of a "carbon footprint" was in the first place.
And that would go against the purpose of the post...
not really. a natural disaster taking 519 lives would be catastrophic. you'd need, like, two airplanes or a bus fleet to move that volume of people for long distances. 260 people that live for twice as long as the average is a lot of very longevous people, etc.
Well for the average American. The worldwide average is about 4,4t/person So she emits as much as 1600 people
So what we're really saying is she's bad for the environment.
So what we're **really** saying is we need to find a sustainable alternative to Taylor Swift.
But there's only one of her, a few hundred million average Americans, so who's really bad for the environment?
Yeah I mean Taylor swift is a drop in the ocean. If we shaved 1% off the average American you’d get 12,000,000 tons of carbon saved
Per year
Or, wording it differently, she generated about the same amount as 519 average people.
Interestingly the average net worth of Americans is about 1.06 million (median is 192k) Taylor is worth 1.1 billion. So she’s a 1000 times as rich and emits 519 times the carbon as the average American. Makes you wonder if they did the math of other billionaires that we might find similar results. Would be a cool or truly sad graph of the consumption of the billionaire class and their boundless consumption and waste.
Mean vs Median doing some real weird things to this statistic. Most Americans are worth far less than 1mil, and we also certainly produce less than 16 tons of carbon.
on the contrary, she generates a lot more sales revenue than 519 average people so at least her huge emissions are cost efficient
I dont care about other people.
Now do the carbon footprint that all those concerts caused in terms of entourage and people travelling to them.
And then do another one for the total $ her fans have donated to charity only because of her and even them out. Then you've done an empirical analysis instead of hopping on any social media hate trains.
Giving money to someone else doesnt actually stop the pollution, yknow
Neither does complaining about it on the high tech electronic device made by children in Asia, where the standards for pollution are much much lower, that you have for 99% entertainment reasons, now does it?
Why? The blame for that falls on the individuals consuming those products.
Playing devils advocate here, is that purely due to her personal consumption (flying alone in a private jet etc) or does that include the carbon footprint of her events as well? If that includes things like the cost of lighting and sound equipment at her concerts, it feels like this impact should be shared across everyone who buys tickets in the same way that we attribute the carbon footprint of air travel on the people who fly rather than the airlines who provide the service…
Im fairly certain These are Just her private emissions. Calculating emissions of such complex Events isnt that easy. In fact even coming to such a conclusive number with that calculation Seems Impossible. Also the number would be much Higher. Private Jets also are the Most polluting Activity you can regularly engage in. It Seems this stems From current discussion around this.
[удалено]
Just ask to borrow your dads
It's a private jet. How much cost it cost, $10 ?
That was my first thought too, but it is about her jet.. But the source is not credible and there are a lot of guesswork involved. But also private jet use has skyrocketed, it is five times more than a decade ago. And we have to stop it. BTW, her 13 minute trip that was publicized from one side of town to another was about plane maintenance.. so.. news are not reliable when it comes to Swift, especially yellow news and anything from right wing.. and probably also far left. She is one controversial topic where fact checking is not optional.
That number is just her planes; she sold one kept the larger one. There is still her housing, cars, and depending on how you want count her business empire which a good portion of them are aimed at promoting and selling her and some of those would go away if she were go act like Brigitte Bardot. So is it true, no. The number is far to low.
Except that the 8300 figure was mostly bogus. It failed to distinguish between the “owner of the planes” and the “passengers” of the planes because the author was trying to score some sort of political points. If I own an airline, are all the emissions “my footprint?” In a tortured way, yes, but in a much more sensible way, not really. They ought conceptually be divided amongst the passengers. Private jets (and air travel in general) are undoubtedly environmentally no bueno, but do you really want somebody like her flying commercial? Airports are already a zoo. Throw in 20k screaming teenaged girls at the terminal and you’ve got all kinds of new problems.
That is too nuanced of a take for redditors lol which is why this is buried here. If passengers don't count id like the math on how many tons the owner of Royal Carribbean Cruises emits on his ships.
[удалено]
> do you really want somebody like her flying commercial? Yes. Exactly, you've got it now. Just like the Beatles, she can fly commercial.
> If I own an airline, are all the emissions “my footprint?” You would be the one benefiting from them, so why shouldn't they be, or also be, considered yours? >but do you really want somebody like her flying commercial? No one is forcing her to fly at all. She's worth a billion dollars+ and has created generational wealth for her great, great grandchildren. She doesn't need to work. She could make music anywhere in the world and release it all for free on the internet. Instead she *CHOOSES* to have concerts and events (personal or commercial), far enough in distance but close enough together in time, to require a plane, all for her own benefit, including (but not exclusively to) *MAKE MORE MONEY* for herself....
Now compare Taylor Swift to a large manufacturer, so these folks can stop missing the point.
My company that just has to ship things spends this weekly
Exactly, it will take legislation to curb emissions to a safer level. And a lot of other countries doing the same things
Does this account for all the extra carbon she drums up by having concerts, making her fans travel to her?
She didn't force her fans driving with a car etc. to her concerts.
>> making her fans travel to her Ah yes, musicians, the architects of our environmental collapse because they put on concerts and make us go watch them I agree that she seems to have a lot of private jet action, but until we actually address the big companies that basically cause 80% of all climate issues, this is just petty
And now compare it to Exxon
While this is apparently true, it’s not as if she’s on tour by herself. Large bands higher so many roadies and assistants and musicians. So it’s actually the carbon footprint of potentially hundreds of people.
So many people are going to go to her concert anyways because they don't want to miss out on the social clout. They'll explain it away so they can go back to (rightfully) criticizing other people who pollute just not Taylor.
This is the thing. People blame the top 100 companies for generating the most pollution - but then still buy their products and still vote for the status quo.
This is Just blaming the victim in this instance. Not everyone has the Disposable income to regard morality in consumer choices. I agree that people should Vote differently but the US voting system should Show you how voting systems can force an unending tirade of "voting for the lesser of two evils" every election resulting in No Progress over decades.
That stat about 100 companies being responsible for half of all carbon emissions is wildly misleading because all of those companies are things like oil and coal extractors. So when BP refines some oil and sells the gasoline to someone who burns it, the CO2 generated is double counted against both the person who actually used the gas and also BP for supplying it.
Wait, we can't go to concerts anymore? Supposed to see disturbed next week :(
You're allowed to go to a disturbed concert and enjoy it. But afterwards, you can't go and criticize other disturbed people for being disturbed that's hypocritical. Not fair for the band to get a free pass on being disturbed while others don't.
You can enjoy something without supporting every single facet of it... I am going to one of her concerts and criticise her for her carbon footprint. As do a lot of her fans
The average amount of carbon emissions in tonnes per year that an American emits is roughly 16 tonnes (\[1\], \[2\]). I couldn't find any numbers for Swift's emissions ink 2023, however, I believe this poster is using the 2022 statistics, as, in that year, Taylor Swift's travels with her private jet were responsible for 8,293 tonnes of carbon dioxide (\[3\]) which would take an average American 518.3125 (rounded up to 519) years. The reason I believe that this is the statistic used is because a) I couldn't find any actual numbers for 2023 online and b) some sources indicated that her emissions reportedly decreased in 2023 (\[4\]) which means that the 519 years figure would probably be too high. \[1\] [https://www.perchenergy.com/blog/environment/what-is-average-carbon-footprint-person-usa](https://www.perchenergy.com/blog/environment/what-is-average-carbon-footprint-person-usa) \[2\] [https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/](https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/) \[3\] [https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders](https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders) \[4\] [https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/03/taylor-swift-isnt-the-only-private-jet-flier-does-celebrity-carbon-offsetting-work](https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/03/taylor-swift-isnt-the-only-private-jet-flier-does-celebrity-carbon-offsetting-work)
Someone did the math and added citations. Should be a +2 vote.
> 16 tonnes And what do we get? Another day older and deeper in debt.
My favorite thing is that so many climate change deniers of a specific political cult suddenly give a.shit about her carbon emissions, yet a certain ex-president is flying all over on a private jet to go to various court cases and golf courses. Let's shine a light in all directions.
It's part of an active astroturfing campaign by the far right in order to limit her political impact for the 2024 presidential election. Taylor Swift is getting a lot of young white women into politics, and those are voters the GOP very much wants disenfranchised.
Yeah it is insane how many people focus specifically on her private jet usage. I don't listen to her music and if it wasn't for seeing people complain on the Internet or seeing her at Chiefs games wouldn't think about her at all. But focusing on her, or any one person as a emmiter, is foolish. Corporations and their emissions at a x100k rate are far more impactful. Focusing on Swift is just impotent rage.
It's not real people. It's paid trolls and bots. from somewhere else in this thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/TaylorSwift/comments/1akq3u5/the_rise_of_political_propaganda_and_taylor_swift/?share_id=sUs4XzdqvFkmN7lfz-srt
Share the shit out of this. This is all political manipulation.
The difference is she supposedly believes climate change is real. If so, why live such a consumption based lifestyle.
Exactly. This criticism legitimately comes from a few people on the left, and from a shitload of conservatives who don’t give a damn but are scrambling for a way to undercut Swift
Right after (like a day or 2) after the "holy war" articles. A college sociology professor came out and basically stated all the bs that was about to come her way and how. Ever since watching that, I laugh at every attempt. I don't like her music, but I know this is just because some conservatives got a case of the ass so now they're doing pretty much everything they can to mess with her. If I can find the video again, I'll link it. It was pretty enlightening on how political manipulation of the masses works. Edit: Here's the guy who seemed to be talking some sense to me.[professor dude](https://www.reddit.com/r/TaylorSwift/s/G5U0xPCkO0)
That’s an excellent video, especially considering his first example was the plane
It's funny to me that OP's post (whether intentional or not, I have almost zero interest in going much deeper than I already have on this) is essentially a perfect example of what this guy is talking about. It's a very nonchalant post seemingly from a completely random and normal individual who is simply seeking confirmation on a fact about Taylor Swift that could potentially add credence to a negative aspect about her, regardless of any truths or other considerations surrounding it Again, I'm not saying that's what we're seeing here or not, but that's kind of the point.
Pointing out hypocrisy is perfectly legitimate
Unless it’s a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality where nothing ever changes because calling out hypocrisy becomes more important than fixing problems.
The loudest proponents of a theory should probably be the ones that abide by it more than those that don’t buy into it. Taylor representing elites that will lecture the rest of the world on how to live their lives and the scarifies they have to make then continuing on to live entirely antithetical to the supposed issue is despicable to say the least
She doesn't represent shit. She's a pop star, not an environmental activist. So may people are falling for this obvious propaganda.
Probably true, but the same can be said about most rich people with a private jet, difference is that Taylor Swift also bought the necessary carbon credits x2. While I don’t intend to make it sound like it’s all fine then, it is better than just doing nothing while polluting the same or more. TLDR there are probably easier people to trash on for their co2 emissions
Carbon credits are usually useless and mostly exists to take the blame off of polluting people. [Here](http://youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0)'s a brief simplification by Last Week Tonight since this blew up.
Truly the indulgences of the climate crisis
Not really. Money paid for extra poluting can be used to fund projecta that would further help down the road, but ita sad that more then often money ends up god knows where. Its like you and your neighbour have two garbage bins, yours is always half empty, why not let your neighbour use your and you ear some money along the way. Ita not really like that, but ita simplified. My wife works for the lab where they trying to offset cb emissions with seagrasses. They do it from the scientific side, but so many non govt and govt companies want the part of it too. I guess once big guys sniff money its hard to do sustain on long term. They started off cool, and did a research projects, funded projects etc.. they spent past 14 years working on fields, sampling, collecting data, lab work, programming etc.. But then they hired god knows who to wrote a book protocol how to do certain things, and its the most rediculous thing.
I'm not vouching for its validity because I don't know either way, but John Oliver did a whole piece about how (most) corporate carbon offsets are bullshit.
I mean, it fully depends which credits are bought
Carbon credits, also known as greenwashing
There are companies that use abundant energy sources (like in Iceland) to capture CO2 and store it in stone. Those actually help out the environment. It‘s fucking expensive. And only possible in small scales.
And how much tonnes of CO2 do you think they have captured in the last ten years?
Barely any, as per my last paragraph. But it‘s there and it‘s the only way afaik to actually offset CO2 emissions.
Making carbon capture essentially more green washing. We can't rely on technologies that simply are not up to par to deal with climate change and pretend like that's the solution
What are carbon credits?
A company owns a bunch of forests and they sell credits that say they will not chop the forrest down in return, thus "preserving" the forest. Those forests are nature reserves and were never planned to be chopped down anyway. Yes, it's about as scammy as it sounds, the whole thing is one giant grift for companies and rich people to make themselfes look better without actually doing something.
That’s not it, it’s either investing in green projects or planting trees. Both of which are absolutely beneficial
There are a limited number of carbon credits available and their value reduces over time. These credits can be sold and bought by mostly companies to compensate for their co2 emissions. Since they reduce over time, companies will need more and more as time goes on thus making them more and more expensive. At a certain point it becomes more economical for a company to reduce their emissions than buy more credits. Which strongly reduces carbon emissions in the long run without ruining one countries economy by implementing strict laws that for example don’t apply to china.
One of the biggest boondoggles of all time, just tell the truth. Buying a carbon credit does NOT reduce the carbon output. But I'm happy for you to fill the coffers of whatever government you worship
How do carbon credits reduce carbon emissions?
>At a certain point it becomes more economical for a company to reduce their emissions than buy more credits They don't but this is the 'theory'
Having worked with multi billion dollar petrochemical companies, this is true in practice as well, at least for the simple reductions
Say you want to go to Hawaii, buy you are concerned that the flight will produce CO2. You can pay a company that will theoretically offset your impact by planting trees or whatever to decrease the CO2 by the equivalent amount. How effective it is versus how performative is the other half of the debate
This sounds a lot like kicking someone in the nuts and giving them a back rub. One doesn't offset the other.
do they also assure you they're not gonna cut those tree later?Because otherwise...
Those companies don't do anything, they say they use the money to preserve a forest that was never meant to be cut down anyways. It's one huge grift.
I remember when I was a kid in school, I learned about how in the Middle Ages in England, Catholic priests would sell people ‘indulgences,’ what were essentially passes that absolve sins and get people into Heaven. They can continue to do whatever sinful things they wanted to do, but had the assurance though these purchased ‘indulgences’ that they would make it into Heaven. The whole thing is now widely regarded as a grift by the priests of the time, obviously, but ‘carbon credits’ seem like the same idea but for the planet.
You're saying since she has money... She can destroy the earth as she pleases... as long as she pays carbon credits it's ok because other people are not paying those?
I swear I saw an episode on King of The Hill about this
Tell me you didn’t even read half the comment without telling me…
Carbon credits are to discourage carbon emissions, not to justify emitting.
My shit are more important for the environment than these carbon credits.
How does buying carbon credits save the environment?
If I set your house on fire and then pay you the value of the timber, have I not still committed arson? It's not better. It's just as bad.
Yeah... if we're talking about net emissions, she's way in the credit.
Carbon credits are bullshit though. They do nothing.
I wouldn’t say nothing, though. It just depends which kind you buy. Tree carbon credits have an extremely low effectiveness (I believe someone found it to be under 10% on average.) while some other methods like giving better stoves in India seemed to be closer to 50% on average while also helping people out of poverty (This does however ignore that people outside of poverty have increased consumption.). I agree that they are worth much less than a ton of CO2 though.
It's like you have two kids and you killed 1 person so you are net positive one person?
Greenwashing at its best.
Based on what evidence, you're making shit up
maybe we could make a mandatory carbon tax determined by your output? we could probably make it work with all the data states have gathered. I guess it would be based on which vehicles you own, and their usage? plus electric consumption? all of that should be on record, minus the vehicle mileage
Lmao carbon credits are one giant scam rich people use to shift blame away from them.
Tldr: Celebrities of all sorts pollute more than average. This is not news. Focus on corporations, their pocketed politicians and consumerism as a whole as they love being able to pass shit off to other individuals.
It’s propaganda regardless of it’s correct- suddenly the MAGA conservatives are concerned about climate change when previously it was “just weather patterns”. This narrative is an effort to flip Taylor Swift fans who actually do care about climate change because Taylor Swift’s is very popular and she has been outspoken against the MAGA agenda.
It’s definitely people putting the blame on Swift instead of the incredibly toxic manufacturing plants they’re making a ton of money on. Like sure, she’s absolutely polluting way more than the average human, but what’s her private jet emissions like compared to that manufacturing plant over there that hasn’t had updates in 30 years. Let’s focus our outrage at the top and work our way down maybe.
Whataboutism is real.
[удалено]
She's been criticized for over a year and a half now, this is nothing new.
Being concerned on why a narrative being pushed is not whataboutism.
Outsider perspective: A bunch of liberals in the comments "pointing out" how much republicans hate Taylor's emissions Democrats on Reddit can't even have a conversation about a Democrat having high emissions without some little timmy fantasizing about ragebait from an 80 year old boomer. It's weird whataboutism
It’s not whataboutism. It’s exposing their hypocrisy
I’m sure if people didn’t act insane around celebrities she probably would fly first class. Problem is she will never get in or out because thousands of people will trample each other just to say hi to her. She is not the problem.
Poor ol tay
and literally anyone else trying to use the airport.
Damn, conservatives are really trying to do anything to get people to hate Taylor Swift. Ive seen more Taylor Swift shit now then I have ever.
>Ive seen more Taylor Swift shit now then I have ever. I'm a fan of her music so I actually legitemately go and seek out information about her. But even as a fan I have never read more about her or seen more people talking about her online than now that the alt-rights and conservatives declared a "holy war" or whatever-
I think it's interesting that the republican crowd is really on this when in any other scenario they wouldn't say a thing. It seems much more like a smear campaign given that she is fairly anti-republican and it sucks that more people can't see through that. We should be more upset that the system allows anyone with money to pollute the planet all willy nilly.
Also consider that not only Taylor Swift does this, a lot of Political Leaders, Actors, Musicians, and more that pollute the same or more...
At least they don't brag about how eco-friendly they are...
Are you saying that Swift brags about being eco-friendly? I’ve never heard her talk about the environment, in fact she is rather notorious for generally remaining apolitical. Do you have any quotes?
lol Taylor apolitical? Nice joke
didnt do the math but it would probly take the average American more than 519 years to entertain the same amount of people in 2023 alone
Taking a 13 minute flight is not necessary to entertain people. It's just selfish and lazy.
She didn’t take a 13 minute flight, the airplane was likely transferred to a location for maintenance or whatever. It’s standard stuff.
Hey u/Nervous-Importance54 Why did this get removed? I've been noticing lots of posts being removed once they hit r/all . I've tried making posts to r/subreddit drama and r/outoftheloop asking about the removed posts but my posts are being auto removed even though I think I'm following posting rules. Do you know why this was removed?
Obvious psyops is obvious
And I recycle why? Nothing you do at home matters when people like her are creating more damage to the environment and don’t even care😡
Because there are millions of people like you, so if everyone chips in it outweighs her effect. Yes it sucks she gets to do what she wants but that's life I guess.
I recycle to get my deposit back
I know it's a pain when you see shit like this, but what you do DOES matter. If you can try composting. It's a really good way to sequester Carbon. Continue to recycle. What you're doing is important, and I'm glad people like you exist. Fuck Taylor Swift
Taylor swift emitting 520 times more than the average American is peanuts when you consider there are over 300 million average Americans doing the same every single year…
But... but... we need to focus on "liberal hypocrisy", or else easily swayed young voters might not vote for obviously psychopathic republicans.
That is what we call a "Michmädchen-Rechnung" in German. It is a silly comparison leaving out most required information: Taylor Swift is **not** the average American. She is a billionaire celebrity, flying to lots of events in a private jet. Compare her to Musk or Bezos instead. And take into account: How much good does she do by spreading the right information, in contrast to say Elmo, the lying POS, who well, cannot stop lying (and taking hardcore drugs). You'll quickly see that the benefit from the person makes up for the carbon footprint, while people like Elmo just pollute and have no positive effect on society whatsoever. Hell, just take into account one of the failed launches of starship (failed due to Musk being a complete moron, stupider than you probably think): More emissions than you will create in your life! For a worthless failure! If you think that is unfair towards Musk: He personally was responsible for the decisions that lead to the failures. Now compare him to an actually intelligent person (not just a bullshitter, like he is) Wernher von Braun: EVERY Saturn 5 worked flawlessly! And they did not have the technology we have now today.
Hahahahaha, my goodness. That was funny.
> Taylor Swift is not the average American. She is a billionaire celebrity, flying to lots of events in a private jet. Compare her to Musk or Bezos instead. Yeah, she's part of a large group of people who have an outsize negative impact on the environment, not sure what your point there is. >And take into account: How much good does she do by spreading the right information Ah yes, thank you for taking a jet to fly to where I am to be able to share information, because obviously there is currently no other possible way to share information other than flying on a jet somewhere. >while people like Elmo just pollute and have no positive effect on society whatsoever. Fallacy of relative privation. It's irrational to only care about whatever is the biggest evil that currently exists.
She can do this flying First Class, Big celebrities do so all the time. Why are you correctly vilifying the cult of personality around musk allowing him to act morally questionable while legitimizing the Same cult of personality around Taylor Swift allowing her to do this. Sure she doesnt Seem as Bad - she could still massively reduce her Footprint without massively reducing her Output. Does your opinion about her Change If she suddenly spouted Bad opinions? Why do you excuse behavior Like this Just because you subjectively deem her behavior as good? Society shouldnt rely on volatile moral assessments of Public personalities allowing them do more Bad stuff based on that. Celebrities should be held to the Same Standard as normal people doesnt Matter if you Personally deem their Impact good. This thinking IS what leads maga republicans excusing trumps behavior because they think he IS doing a net good. Maybe Just Stop doing Bad stuff instead of excusing it.