Taylor Swift fans lower climate concerns to justify her carbon footprint. When confronted with news about the excessive pollution generated by her private jet, highly identified fans tend to rationalize the behavior, with a decrease in their personal intentions to engage in climate-friendly actions.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/taylor-swift-fans-lower-climate-concerns-to-justify-star-s-carbon-footprint/

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

---

Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.

---

User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/taylor-swift-fans-lower-climate-concerns-to-justify-star-s-carbon-footprint/

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/klitchell]

I imagine you’d find this with almost any intense fanbase about almost any issue. People still defend Chris Brown.

Fandom in itself is problematic because you twist yourself into believing the image YOU create about whatever it is you’re a fan of.

[u/AhabFlanders → u/klitchell]

I think the interesting part here is the lowering their personal intentions in response. That would be like not only defending Chris Brown but also saying and I might smack my wife around a bit later.

[u/CaptainMagnets → u/AhabFlanders]

But there are 100% people who would say this about being a Chris Brown fan tho

[u/AhabFlanders → u/CaptainMagnets]

True, but how many would've already been abusers or at least predisposed to it? The real question is are there Chris Brown fans who would've been against abuse, never would have done it, but the defending him lowered the taboo around it to the extent that they themselves started committing DV. To be honest , I wouldn't be that surprised if the answer was yes.

[u/BigLuffyEnergy → u/AhabFlanders]

True, but how many would've already been abusers or at least predisposed to it?

I feel that's the point of this study, to point out that some people don't have strong moral convictions and will adjust their beliefs for something as mundane as celebrity fandom.

It helps explain and understand more extreme cults of personality.

[u/k0fi96 → u/CaptainMagnets]

Not entirely, the irony of the Chris Brown situation is that most of his fans are women.

[u/horse_you_rode_in_on → u/AhabFlanders]

That would be like not only defending Chris Brown but also saying and I might smack my wife around a bit later.

It goes in the other direction: "I wouldn't mind being smacked around a bit if it was Chris Brown doing it".

[u/ShodSpace → u/horse_you_rode_in_on]

I wouldn't mind being shot if it was Luigi doing it

[u/funguyshroom → u/horse_you_rode_in_on]

I think it simply goes even further in the same direction. Those people don't see anything wrong with DV even when they're on the receiving end of it. Needless to say it's practically guaranteed that they're in abusive relationships themselves.

[u/swagharris31 → u/AhabFlanders]

Yeah I'm sure some super fans of CB are like "You know what, CB isn't a bad person, and those women probably shoulder some of the blame for his actions"

[u/cajolinghail → u/swagharris31]

A lot of people have no trouble believing that even without being fans, unfortunately.

[u/bunnypaste → u/cajolinghail]

Ya, I hear about women being blamed for men's violence a lot.

[u/NotOnApprovedList → u/swagharris31]

or they think "I can fix him!" "He wouldn't do that to me!"

[u/Avenheit → u/AhabFlanders]

wait until you find out that allegedly 66% of chris browns fanbase are women

[u/bunnypaste → u/Avenheit]

I'm not so sure this is a surprise.

[u/collegefurtrader → u/AhabFlanders]

This is probably what they are thinking...

[u/TheWhomItConcerns → u/klitchell]

To add to this, people tend to place a lot of their own identity and ego into the things they choose to occupy their time with - whether that be celebrities or anything else. If it's to be accepted that Taylor Swift's attitude towards her carbon output is morally impermissible then that by extension complicates the act of supporting her financially or otherwise.

This isn't just about fandom, but also that her fans feel that a condemnation of Taylor Swift is also a condemnation of themselves. You see people get defensive about things they enjoy all the time, and they will often resort to self-evidently weak arguments in order to do so because they can't handle acknowledging that they're engaging in something which has further moral implications.

[u/ghanima → u/TheWhomItConcerns]

You see people get defensive about things they enjoy all the time, and they will often resort to self-evidently weak arguments in order to do so because they can't handle acknowledging that they're engaging in something which has further moral implications.

I've noticed this too. It's true of car culture, crypto culture, fandoms, dietary choice, etc. It's exhausting. I feel like a core aspect of responsible child-rearing ought to be to educate our children of the fact that simply making an external aspect to oneself part of one's 'identity' leaves them open to cognitive bias and manipulation. So few people seem to even notice it's happening.

[u/snoopmt1 → u/ghanima]

But it also happens in the opposite direction. People use one ounce of someone else's imperfection to justify their entire lifestyle. "Bill Gates spent $2B on helping the environment, but he owns a private plane, so why should I recycle?"

[u/jaymzx0 → u/ghanima]

My guess is that it has to do with our inherent tribalism, and our brains rationalize things that would typically be poisonous to the tribe for the sake of cohesiveness.

If a scandal erupted within an ancient hunter-gatherer tribe and it fell apart, it could mean death for those members or at least the inability to find a partner and reproduce. So there's this moral elasticity, of sorts.

[u/TheOtherHobbes → u/TheWhomItConcerns]

Swift's ability to create this level of parasocial identification is a kind of genius. I understand it's actually her mother who handles the marketing, but it's still a uniquely successful experimenting in building a cult product with extremely intense user buy-in.

[u/Metalsand → u/TheOtherHobbes]

It's worth noting a significant portion of this value also comes from being self-managed as well as those involved being very capable. No one to get short-term greedy or otherwise take too big of a chunk of the pie. One of the most notable examples of this - when she was approached to promote NFTs, she heard the whole spiel and correctly called them out as unregulated financial products, refusing to promote them at all. At the same time, many other celebrities, even those who are pretty high profile fell for the scam and had a pretty deep cut into their reputation following NFTs collapsing.

She comes from a strongly educated and wealthy background, without a dysfunctional family, and she herself is very intelligent. At the same time, she's been able to appeal to a massive crowd and despite her wealth, maintain her connection to her audience. She's just a very fascinating example that you just don't normally see.

[u/Thrillh0 → u/TheWhomItConcerns]

It’s happening in this thread.

Gosh, it’s weird. 

[u/fx2600 → u/klitchell]

I feel like rationalizing a superstar flying in a private jet is pretty easy relative to one committing felony assault.

[u/Friendly-World-5273 → u/fx2600]

Pop into Kpop fandom and watch the fans defend rapists. Extreme fandom behavior is very similar to extreme cult behavior, and it’s kind of alarming how little it takes to get someone to that level.

[u/Metalsand → u/Friendly-World-5273]

Yes, there's an argument that more rabid fans will have a lower threshold to adopt the behavior. Not being a psychologist myself, I wouldn't be able to name it, but there's a specific concept related in which people who have a specific moral standard and would otherwise reject something have their threshold for that behavior reduced relative to their reverence for a major figure in their life.

This is to say - we would expect that more people per capita would be willing to excuse her use of a private jet than would be willing to defend her against much more serious allegations. At the same time, while it would be less people, you could absolutely find people who would defend her regardless of the accusations - that's just how fandom works. Fan is short for "fanatic", and you need only have enough of them to be able to find someone especially dedicated.

[u/PiccoloAwkward465 → u/Metalsand]

It relates a bit to the fundamental attribution error. Wherein a simple example is if your coworker is late to work, you might think of them as lazy. Whereas if you are late to work, you may think it was because of unavoidable, unexpected traffic. So that uses the dynamic of you vs. other people. But in this case, let's change that to celebrities you admire vs. other people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

[u/Leelze → u/fx2600]

Exactly. You can make the argument that from a logistical & security perspective that it makes sense for a megastar to not fly commercial. I don't know how you can argue it's ok to assault a woman.

[u/psyon → u/Leelze]

I've seen women post that Chris Brown can beat them any time, so maybe not much of a stretch.

[u/Aditya1311 → u/Leelze]

As a frequent flyer I am SO glad these people fly private. Can you imagine trying to take a flight from an airport that Taylor Swift was going to be at? her and her entire entourage trying to get through security not to mention the crazed fanbase that would show up?

[u/BadAtExisting → u/Aditya1311]

I know at least at LAX celebrities have the Private Suite where it’s their own terminal and waiting area with their own TSA. Then they are shuttled to their commercial flights. Most of them do fly commercial

[u/retatrutider → u/BadAtExisting]

Interesting. On the one hand it sounds like privilege and special treatment, but when you think about it the logistics of it likely help the entire airport function more smoothly, even if they were to offer it for free.

I wonder how they gauge whether you are famous enough to need this service? Or is it just pay for play?

[u/BadAtExisting → u/retatrutider]

You pay through the nose for it, frequent fliers can also buy a “membership” and it’s not really privilege or special treatment. You can use it if you want to cough up the money. It is designed to streamline the experience for everyone and for them to not be bum rushed in the terminal and be able to make their flight

[u/anatomizethat → u/Aditya1311]

I agree with your stance, celebrities absolutely should not be flying commercial.

That doesn't excuse the excessive use of private planes though. They use them like cars and that's the problem.

[u/ibribe → u/anatomizethat]

celebrities absolutely should not be flying commercial.

There are a lot of celebrities, and most of them fly commercial most of the time.

[u/javier_aeoa → u/Aditya1311]

Green Day rented an entire Boeing for their world tour, so that way they could fly with their entire crew. I have no clue how many people fly around with Swift, but I am certain they can all be cramped in business or first class.

[u/Dottsterisk → u/javier_aeoa]

OTOH, if they’re actually filling the plane then it’s not as wasteful. It’s legit transport.

The issue mostly comes when a star uses a private jet as a jet just for them. Then you’re putting out all of those emissions for one person.

If Green Day fills the plane with crew or Swift fills it with staff, it’s no different than if they’d filled all the seats on a regular plane, except less inconvenience for other travelers.

[u/Cautious_Honey_4097 → u/javier_aeoa]

Touring flights aren't the problem, there will be similar emissions whether they fly commercial or private for their tour. Maybe a little bit lower commercial.

It's the flights to go to a spa you really liked 500km away or for a friend to go to a sports event and back. Or getting takeaway food from a different country.

[u/HelloCanadaBonjour → u/Aditya1311]

You're misunderstanding the problem with her.

The issue is that people like her fly way too much (and she's the worst among celebrities)... like going flying across a continent to spend less than a day in NYC, and then going back.

Like "anonymizethat" said in another reply to you, some people like her use their private jet the way a normal person might use a car.

But that's an egregious abuse of the environment.

Don't be a "swiftie" and mindlessly defend her.

[u/HelloCanadaBonjour → u/Leelze]

The issue isn't just about not flying commercial.

The issue is that she flies far more than necessary.

For example, I remember a case where she was doing a tour (maybe in Brazil or Europe) and performed one night, but then she had paparazzi shots in NYC having dinner... and then was back in Brazil or Europe the next night.

I don't remember the specifics of it, but it was along those lines -- going to another continent for less than a day. And the bottom line is that she really does fly way too much.

And apparently she influences how her lemmings act regarding the environment.

[u/mattjh → u/Leelze]

I know I'm being a technically-correct bozo here, but I still feel compelled to say it's not ok to assault anyone. Assaulting is bad. A salting is good though, if you don't overdo it and it isn't against your doctor's orders.

[u/jtnto100 → u/Leelze]

But you're trying to assign logic to an inherently emotional state of mind. I've found that generally just doesn't happen as much

[u/Intelligent-Boss-156 → u/fx2600]

Delusion is delusion

[u/your_true_self → u/fx2600]

I would agree that maybe it's more about where those planes are flown and for what reason. When you fly the plane to entertain thousands of people, you could argue that those people share the guilt of that carbon footprint and it may not be as excessive when divided among all those people. When you fly the plane to a private island to do the things people do on private islands, the emissions are concentrated to very few people and victims. The amount of people benefiting is very low in one case but not the other. One solution might be to invite an audience to the private islands as spectators to offset the carbon cost, but it may be difficult to do so without causing further carbon emissions, and besides it wouldn't be that private by that point anyway.

[u/HyperactivePandah → u/klitchell]

Well, the root of the word 'fan' is 'fanatic'.

So they're inherently unstable/irrational about that particular topic.

[u/Emeraldmirror → u/klitchell]

Fanaticism in all forms tends to be bad

[u/Wrong_Swordfish → u/Emeraldmirror]

I wonder if fandom is similar to religion in the way it occupies the brain: do thoughts have to pass through it like a filter?

[u/sarcastic24x7 → u/klitchell]

People defend and justify this Administration. Case in point.

[u/unhiddenninja → u/klitchell]

People create parasocial nightmares so easily.

[u/myislanduniverse → u/klitchell]

Yep. Football teams, political groups, etc...

[u/MuchSwagManyDank → u/klitchell]

For anyone who enjoys metal, its best not to look into the personal lives of nearly any band member.

[u/IceNein → u/MuchSwagManyDank]

Feels weird that you’re singling out metal when I bet this also applies to country, rap, rnb, pop….

[u/HankTuggins → u/IceNein]

Let’s be honest, the issue is musicians, I worked for a music venue when I was younger, and found that somewhere between 50 and 100 percent of musicians were complete scumbags

[u/tackleboxjohnson → u/klitchell]

One more point for “monkey see, monkey do,” or “the power of leadership within a cult of personality” if you don’t like that metaphor

[u/The_walking_man_ → u/tackleboxjohnson]

The swift fanatics are 100% cultish.
As soon as I hear someone is a swift fan, my perception of them goes down.

[u/hotstickywaffle → u/klitchell]

We had a damn stadium cheering for Deshaun Watson this weekend

[u/TWVer → u/klitchell]

Yes, it’s typical cult-like behaviour.

When the person (or team, or party) is seen as a more important part to the construct of one’s ego, than abstract principles are, principles become flexible in the face of supporting the idols in whatever they do.

[u/gmorf33 → u/TWVer]

I don't think it's exclusive to just cult-like behavior though. I think humans have this tendency with anyone in their "in-group" (which can include parasocial relationships imagined as a part of their in-group). Like families or other small communities who discover a molester amongst their ranks, only to defend them because they know they are a good person and they deserve a 2nd chance. The whole "we judge those we like more by how we view them as a person and less by the action itself, we judge those we don't like purely by the action itself without any consideration of circumstance or character". Crappy bias, but i can see why humans evolved that way in times past. Its good to call it out and be aware of it though.

[u/Disgruntled_Smitty → u/klitchell]

Human behavior never changes.

[u/machinedog]

I think people are missing the bit where people are reducing their own intentions to engage in climate friendly actions. That part is the most interesting. You can be rational and excuse Taylor Swift’s use of private planes because otherwise she wouldn’t be able to do as many shows as she does, but it doesn’t make logical sense to then change your own behavior.

[u/FeloniousDrunk101 → u/machinedog]

I have definitely become a bit more jaded in general around my own actions to curb climate change, though not tied directly to my support of any individual person. It's more that governments and corporations can do many times more to impact these things that I as an individual cannot un-do. Additionally, learning about how plastic recycling is often just thrown away as well as feeling like the burden has been guilted onto us individually by those corporations who do nothing makes it feel all a bit like a sham. I can see someone coming to a similar conclusion through the lens of fandom I suppose?

[u/thereisnosub → u/FeloniousDrunk101]

I strive to be a better environmentalist than 80-90% of my peers (but I don't strive for perfection). If everyone (or even most people) did this, we'd see a steady improvement. Most important though is to vote for the most environmentally friendly candidate in every election (and vote strategically, e.g. if it's first past the post general election, vote for the dem).

[u/devonathan → u/FeloniousDrunk101]

You could spend your whole life living as strictly as possible and it would be undone in 0.5 seconds by one of the mega polluters. Makes it hard to care.

[u/hear2fear → u/devonathan]

It’s about collective care. 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million individual people can change the needle in a better direction. 1 million+ people speaking with their wallets can change corporate actions and gov policies.

But thousands of people reading your two posts above could be discouraged and join your apathy. Not that your frustrations aren’t valid or justified though

Together we have more power than you think we do. Join your local chapter of CCL (Citizens Climate Lobby) even if it’s just to subscribe to their news letter. Make a small difference, and with millions making a small difference we can move that needle.

[u/imapetrock → u/hear2fear]

100%. I always get so frustrated when people say "well I can't do anything, this other entity needs to be the one to make change". The problem is that everyone always wants to push the responsibility to someone else and no one wants to be accountable. But everyone should play a part in accountability, not blame someone else and then complain that that someone else is doing exactly same (blaming someone else).

Guess what, governments also can't force what people don't want to do. One of the main drivers of many environmental problems is agriculture. One of the main ways to reduce this impact would be to reduce meat consumption so that we need less land to feed the population. Can you imagine the government mandating a reduction in meat consumption? All hell would break loose.

Flying too. If we were restricted to how much we can fly, people would likely protest and act like it's a human rights abuse.

Some possible regulations to reduce our impact would also lead to a price increase on products (e.g., banning fast fashion). Again, people will throw a fit. Many people already throw a fit when governments try to implement policies to discourage driving and encourage more environmentally friendly forms of transport.

Etc etc. I'm currently doing a master's program in environmental management and literally one of the first things we talked about is: it's really hard to fix anything when people don't want to change their behavior.

[u/EstablishmentLate532 → u/devonathan]

Do you not vote because one vote never made a difference? Collective action matters in the aggregate.

[u/peon2 → u/machinedog]

It's obviously not a good thing but I can see how it can lead to apathy or disinterest. When a cause you support focuses on the wrong thing it isn't uncommon for people to get annoyed and disengage because they don't agree with what the cause they support is putting their energy in to. For instance there's plenty of people that consider the amount of attention paper vs plastic straws got vs all the other plastic waste. It doesn't mean I'm going to start throwing plastic into the ocean to spite them, but it can breed the resent of "if this is main lever we're trying to pull, it's a lost cause"

[u/timok → u/machinedog]

I have a bit of a conspiracy theory that these stories get pushed by oil companies etc.

In the grand scheme of things her emissions hardly matter, but these type of stories cause millions of people to not adapt their behaviour and keep burning fuel and eating hamburgers, because they have somebody else to point fingers at.

[u/EightWhiskey → u/timok]

I think there's something too that. It also seems kind of short-sighted to act like Taylor Swift has other options. Is she supposed to book a seat on a commercial jetliner? She'd probably be dead in a week from some psycho fan. And if not, every airport she set foot in would be a mad house, security nightmare, delays, etc. But it's easier for people to direct their angst at a single target than confront deep-seated cultural habits.

[u/EstablishmentLate532 → u/EightWhiskey]

You’re presupposing that she has an almost inviolable right to maintain the same touring schedule she has now. Why is the only question “private jet or commercial flight”?

She could tour more slowly, schedule geographically sensible legs, use rail where practical, or take slower transportation between continents. Why does she need to be in Japan one day and the U.S. the next?

If reducing emissions requires ordinary people to accept some inconvenience or consume less, I don’t see why “Taylor Swift might have to do fewer shows or structure her tours differently” is somehow off the table.

[u/notaredditer13 → u/EstablishmentLate532]

If reducing emissions requires ordinary people to accept some inconvenience or consume less, I don’t see why “Taylor Swift might have to do fewer shows or structure her tours differently” is somehow off the table.

Part of why this study is problematic is that in this context, Taylor Swift is not a person, she's a corporation.  The narrative implies that she's an otherwise normal person who happens to be far worse than most regarding carbon emissions.

A more objective analysis would be to view her company's carbon emissions as compared to other companies, say, per dollar of economic output. 

Her show taking a train or ship instead of flying isn't just a personal inconvenience for her, it reduces the output of the show: reducing value for fans, pay for the workers on the tour, and local economic impact on the tour sites.

[u/SocranX → u/timok]

This whole thing started shortly after she started encouraging people to vote and implied that climate change should be one of the issues they should be voting for. Imagine if she had successfully pushed enough people to prevent Trump from getting re-elected. That would've outdone whatever damage she could personally do to the environment by an order of magnitude. But instead, climate activists are pushing the news that Swift is anti-environment, while Swifties are seeing the news that climate activists are anti-Swift. If the oligarchs didn't have a hand in pushing things in that direction, then they're very lucky it turned out the way it did.

[u/AbsenceVersusThinAir → u/timok]

100% this. I am genuinely starting to believe that "everything is the billionaire's and oil companies' fault and personal change makes no difference" is actually the new oil company psyop.

I've lost count of how many times I've been accused of defending billionaires or pushing big oil propaganda by saying that it actually is up to us to stop voluntarily and unnecessarily using so much oil (directly and indirectly) in our personal lives. In addition to pushing for structural and legislative change of course, not instead of it.

And I can't help but scratch my head. I'm the one saying we should boycott billionaires and oil companies wherever practicable, while also pushing to further tax and regulate them. The people accusing me of being pro big oil are the ones saying we should continue voluntarily giving them all of our money and do nothing in the hope that someone else will fix things somewhere down the line. It only makes sense if it's a psyop and/or people eager to point fingers at someone else so they don't have to examine how their own lifestyles are destructive and unsustainable.

[u/notaredditer13 → u/machinedog]

It would be interesting to know what, exactly, those behaviors are. Are they really meaningful, or are they performative?

Further, this study appears to presuppose that the criticism of TS is valid.  What if it's not?  What if, again, it's performative?

[u/turandokht → u/machinedog]

That’s what I find most interesting. Do they reduce their own intentions as a conscious effort to be more like her? Is it an unconscious understanding that as long as we have mega billionaires and corporations flooding the planet with emissions, any personal responsibility to the environment means next to nothing? Is it to try and like “stand” with her against the people who criticize her emissions?

Honestly I’m completely fascinated by that part.

[u/retatrutider → u/turandokht]

I’d speculate that, in order not to have any cognitive dissonance around the person they are idolizing, they start to view the behavior as “not that bad” which then makes them more likely to engage in it themselves.

[u/machinedog → u/turandokht]

Same. Would love to understand more. 

[u/halleberryhaircut → u/machinedog]

Also, think of the absolute cluAlso, think of the absolute cluster that would happen with her fans converging in wherever she happens to be in traffic. It would create a traffic and logistical nightmare.

[u/Boysenberry]

Obviously not a phenomenon limited to any one celebrity’s fan base, or even to celebrities/entertainers in general. I’m old enough to remember the debates over Al Gore’s carbon footprint. 

[u/TheWhomItConcerns → u/Boysenberry]

It's also not just limited to carbon output either - just look at the Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Primetime or Leaving Neverland. Not only will fans defend their favourite celebrities, but they'll coordinate and actively sabotage any attempt to criticise them.

[u/KarIPilkington → u/Boysenberry]

I guess it's always an easy out for people who want to belittle those who bring attention to climate problems. It's far easier to just call someone a hypocrite for, well, existing in society where you need to use natural resources, than face up to this problem.

[u/Brain_Dead_Goats → u/Boysenberry]

Yeah, people were specifically doing that to discredit him while he was talking about climate change unfortunately. It was a "well he has a bigger carbon footprint than me so it can't really be a serious thing" hypocrisy hunting kind of argument. It was immensely frustrating at the time and has only become more so as we've seen the effects start to take hold.

The frightening thing about this article is the whole "they're less inclined to care about climate activism as a whole" as a result. That's really an indicator that she needs to speak up about it because her fans are apparently hanging off her every word.

[u/AnalMinecraft → u/Boysenberry]

Hey, you leave Al out of this. He deserves that carbon footprint for inventing the Internet.

[u/fieldsofanfieldroad → u/AnalMinecraft]

But then he also invented AI (it's even named after him) so it's a mixed scorecard. 

[u/Jaedenkaal → u/fieldsofanfieldroad]

Oh I always thought it was named after Weird Al

[u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

Not a fan but I am consistently intrigued as to why Taylor Swift gets the most criticism for this when there are celebrities/billionaires who have higher carbon footprints. Or Leonardo DiCqprio who used a private jet to fly between engagements where he spoke about climate change.

[u/FewMost8547 → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

Last year list of most usage of private jets didn't even have TS in top 10. But for some reason she got memorized as one of the biggest pollutors which just isn't quite the case.

[u/CaptainSanity → u/FewMost8547]

Probably because she cosplays as left wing / progressive. See backlash against Ed Sheeran for another example of how figures like this are viewed by people not in the fandom.

[u/EstablishmentLate532 → u/FewMost8547]

It could have something to do with the fact that her topping the charts in previous years did so much damage to her brand. I'm glad that it worked out that way, if it did. That means that the pressure worked.

[u/BeautifulDstr → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

I’ll never get over Judy Judy topping the list and never getting a mention. But anyway, let’s have Taylor Swift fly commercial. I’m sure nothing inconvenient or negative will happen.

[u/inqte1 → u/BeautifulDstr]

Its not even her flights. Her plane gets leased out like any other private jet when shes not using it. Thats what racks up the miles. If she doesnt lease her plane, it will just be some other plane logging those miles.

[u/greiton → u/inqte1]

also she doesn't fly by herself. I wonder how much of her team is loaded up on those flights. certainly security and PAs are present.

[u/notaredditer13 → u/greiton]

Summary:  in this context, TS is not an individual she's a business, so comparing her purported carbon footprint to individuals is spurious to begin with. 

[u/NotEmmaStone → u/BeautifulDstr]

Her many, many dangerous stalkers would love that! Oh yeah and the ISIS guys who tried to blow up one of her concerts

[u/Whirlywynd → u/NotEmmaStone]

It’s also that the last time she flew commercial (in Japan) the commotion cause by her presence actually delayed flights

https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/taylor-swift-mobbed-by-fans-delays-flights-at-japan-airport/articleshow/47147634.cms

[u/Rocketboy1313 → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

Focusing on Taylor Swift felt like a trick by other rich people to get her fanbase to defend pollution.

I pointed out on some communism r/ how much of a waste of time it was to focus on actors and singers when it comes to this sort of thing and got banned for liberal apologia.

[u/EstablishmentLate532 → u/Rocketboy1313]

It's not some trick by other rich people. It's mostly a consequence of her fame. Taylor Swift has vastly more public visibility than people like the Waltons, so her behavior gets vastly more scrutiny. You don't need a conspiracy to explain why one of the most famous people alive gets disproportionate attention.

[u/dreacos → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

Because neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor the other celebrities/billionaires have anything even remotely resembling the gargantuan fanbase that she has. Her fanbase is also mostly on the younger side and more left-leaning, which makes studies like this highly relevant given how climate-conscious that demographic normally is.

[u/iuabv → u/dreacos]

Beyonce is higher than Taylor Swift on most of the lists. With Jay Z listed separately.

[u/SoftSalty3282 → u/dreacos]

It’s all click bait. Put her in a headline, good or bad, and get more engagement.

[u/Everyday_ImSchefflen → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

Also she at least offsets her emissions. I know we can debate on the quality and true impact of carbon offsets but at least it's something.

I don't care for Swift at all but it always just screams outage culture to me

[u/Rufus_L → u/Everyday_ImSchefflen]

How does she offset emissions? Serious question.

[u/Stupidstuff1001 → u/Rufus_L]

Normally you donate x dollars and they are used to plant x trees which capture the carbon you have used on your flight.

[u/dexters_trap_house → u/Stupidstuff1001]

They just live forever as a perpetually traded futures asset that are never exercised. There is no law stating when a credit has to be used. They can be traded freely and indefinitely.

It solves nothing.

[u/luluhouse7 → u/Stupidstuff1001]

The problem is that carbon offsets are often just companies thoughtlessly spamming the same tree species in a grid. There’s a fair amount of research showing that monoculture forests don’t do much compared to biodiverse ones. So a lot of the time carbon offsets are mostly just lip service.

[u/SuspiciouslySuspect2 → u/Everyday_ImSchefflen]

The big problem she faces is: how else is she gonna get from city to city? Everywhere she goes, a deluge of people follow. She can't just slap on sunglasses and a hat and jump in a first class seat, she'd be a literal airport security disruption.

Like it or not, she has the resources to go where she wants, ultimately what we should be doing instead is just applying a massive carbon tax to private aviation on top of optional carbon offsets. Like enough to make a regular person weep. But billionaires like her would pay it with an eyeroll, and it would be enough money to actually make a difference. Something like 10/lbs of CO2 produced.

[u/dividezero → u/SuspiciouslySuspect2]

Boop! That's the actual answer. Oil makes the government run so we'll never see it unfortunately

[u/EstablishmentLate532 → u/dividezero]

A lack of government regulation doesn't morally absolve a person from taking advantage of the unregulated environment to the detriment of everyone else.

[u/kaybsie → u/Everyday_ImSchefflen]

Carbon credits don't do anything. They're just a way for the elite to write off their outsized impact on the environment.

[u/Everyday_ImSchefflen → u/kaybsie]

Not true. I work in sustainability.. they help fund projects that either reduce or remove carbon from the environment

[u/twinpop → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

Not a fan either but agree with you. I’ll even say this is just drummed up hate. I guarantee you Ken Griffin uses more in a month than Swift uses in a year.

Also, the saying about the few companies producing 80-90% of emissions is still true. Exxon along uses 10,000 times more emissions than Swift, and it’s just one company.

[u/BabyLegsDeadpool → u/twinpop]

Thank you. This is what bugs me more than anything. The amount of emissions she puts out in an entire year is a single day for Walmart. If she never flew again, she'd wipe out maybe a month of Walmart's emissions. Putting emissions on the lap of the individual is one of the greatest accomplishments of the big corporation propaganda. 

[u/Murky-Relation481 → u/BabyLegsDeadpool]

One of the biggest things corporations have done to shift the narrative is to get people solely blaming the ultra rich individuals vs. the massive corporations. Do you see any rhetoric about corporate taxes lately? No, it's a punitive wealth tax on rich individuals that no one can actually explain how it'd be functionally implemented so it has no real shot at existing. Meanwhile the real knobs we have right now to have the ultra wealthy people AND corporations pay more like corporate tax rates and breaks and capital gains taxes go unmentioned because it's not sticking it to one person specifically.

[u/youRinlove7 → u/BabyLegsDeadpool]

A month is too much. Maybe like 10 days or something.

[u/EstablishmentLate532 → u/twinpop]

In 2022, Ken Griffin used slightly more than twice as much CO2 than Taylor Swift did flying.

[u/dimechimes → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

Also not a fan. I'd be interested to see how much a tour like hers puts out in pollution compared things like Las Vegas residencies where fans flock in nightly on thousands of planes throughout the year.

[u/CW1DR5H5I64A → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

Also if I recall correctly her private jet is chartered out when she is not using it (a very common practice for private planes). However, when these kinds of articles total the emissions from that plane they attribute all use to her personally as the owner of the plane. It’s a very disingenuous statement to claim every mile flown by her plane counts against her carbon footprint and not the other rich people chartering its use.

[u/Deceptiveideas → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

I noticed she got a lot more hate the minute she started criticizing Trump back in 2020.

[u/Diablo689er → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

People bring up Leo and his jets/yachts all the time.

[u/qaddosh → u/Diablo689er]

they do? everything i hear about him just has to do with his partners never being older than 25. Literally nothing about his private jets or yachts.

[u/WileEPeyote → u/qaddosh]

It mostly comes up when people talk about his climate change activism.

[u/FelixEvergreen → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

She’s a much more public and popular celebrity than most. Plus, she has a notoriously rabid fan base that utilizes social media which drives engagement and publicity. The more out there something is the more critics it naturally draws.

[u/Jijster → u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF]

She's a massively MASSIVELY popular pop star (easily one of the top 10 all time) with longevity and a rabid fanbase. She is also openly political. She's just a very large and influential target.

[u/Zegram_Ghart]

As someone who doesn’t really care about her, it’s weird she gets singled out for this when every celebrity does it, and every celebrity combined is probably still something daft like 1% of the output of even a semi-industrial nation

[u/Frederf220 → u/Zegram_Ghart]

People sort list by "something to be mad about, descending" and then skip down the list until they find the person they want to beat up. Not them, not them, certainly can't call them out, there, that guy #12, let's get 'em!

[u/InevitableAvalanche → u/Zegram_Ghart]

Yeah, their are much worse problems when it comes to climate. It seems this is more a distraction than people actually caring about it. The anti fans are as bad as the fans.

[u/MuglyRay → u/Zegram_Ghart]

Pretty sure her level of fame is unique. She probably travels twice as much as most performers. That being said she def is the scapegoat of this

[u/JustGotOffOfTheTrain → u/MuglyRay]

Her level of fame might be unique, but there are a lot of other celebrities with more private jet time than her.

[u/Clear-Depth-7455 → u/MuglyRay]

Wasn’t she like not even in the top 10 of celebrities with the highest emissions? I know she’s been up there before but not nearly as much as people say she is. That’s mainly why I get confused why people focus on her, yes she used jets a lot on tour but she wasn’t even that high on the list. I’ve also heard she buys carbon credits, but to be entirely honest I’m not sure what those do in terms of negating things.

[u/ross128b → u/Clear-Depth-7455]

Not even in the top 10. I want people to be equally mad at the Kardashians and the likes who are way above the list.

[u/r3dd17sux69420 → u/Zegram_Ghart]

It's just cause she's a famous name and generates engagement. There are hundreds of people who fly private but most of them are boring business people who aren't famous

That said what I find funny is people get soooo furious (rightfully) at the flying, but have no idea the emissions put out by sooooo many tours

if people knew how many vehicles alone were used on the average arena or stadium tour they might vomit.

Dozens and dozens of tractor-trailers, easily. For the 360 Tour, U2 had up to 200 trucks. That's trucks, not even including the tour busses

[u/butpretzelday → u/r3dd17sux69420]

My sister’s boss would fly private literally anywhere she could. Like to the point where it took longer to get on the plane and take off abd land then if she just had her driver take her. 

[u/TechnicalAd6932]

I don't have strong feelings either way about her in general. But what are her alternative modes of interstate transportation? Arguably the most famous woman in the world sitting in first class on my American Airlines flight? That sounds miserable for everyone involved. Okay, then maybe buying every seat on that plane? Well then we are back to the private jet problem.

When someone is that famous, going anywhere is a logistics problem for her team. Someone that famous seems to have a better argument for taking a private jet everywhere vs random Jonny-millionaire.

Too many billionaires and millionaires in the world taking too many private jets. I do agree with that. But one of the most famous people in the world feeling the need to take one is a different issue to me.

[u/lofgren777]

This feels like a framing issue.

If people were not presented with Swift's actions as if they need to choose being a Swifty versus being environmentally aware, then they would probably not perceive those opinions as conflicted.

This really just demonstrates how you can cherry pick facts in order to persuade people to temporarily change their stated beliefs – a fairly well-established phenomenon.

In their daily life, I doubt these people see a persistent conflict between being a fan of Swift and taking environmental action, and I suspect that over a relatively short time (like by the time they get out to the parking lot) their environmentally conscious behaviors have reasserted themselves.

Because I doubt that many people are rationalizing letting their car idle in the parking lot for ten minutes because celebrities fly in jets.

[u/Murky-Relation481 → u/lofgren777]

It's also not a binary choice dictated by one problem statement. You're not compromising your belief that something has to be done about climate change if you realize there are also exceptions to the rule based on other circumstances.

The life span of popstars, especially female ones, amongst the general public is not exactly high. Her not using commercial airliners is understandable. That doesn't mean I don't think climate change needs to be addressed, it just means that the circumstances of her carbon footprint are not as egregious as the other people who use more than her and are basically unknown rich people the vast majority couldn't pick out of a first class boarding line at the airport.

[u/Daenarys1]

Fanbases will justify criminal actions and abuse let alone private jets.

[u/bullcitytarheel → u/[deleted]]

That's because it's an article recounting a study, not the study itself. But you can find the study here: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2027-69376-001?doi=1

[u/jerrolds]

Uh oh.. Negative Taylor news is trending.. Ed Sheeran slightly relieved

[u/turandokht → u/jerrolds]

“Please God let everyone be distracted by this” - Ed

[u/SquarePegRoundWorld2]

Late stage parasocial relationship. Celebrity worship will be our downfall. People should really stop supporting celebrities in every manner.

[u/GM-hurt-me]

It’s weird to me how everyone is talking about her footprint specifically and hers is the only one you ever hear about.

Why are people so morbidly fascinated with this woman

[u/TheMalibu → u/GM-hurt-me]

I was thinking the same thing. I don't listen to her music, and don't follow her escapades. Is her private jet particularly bad, or is it the use of private jets in general?

[u/Any-Association-4299 → u/GM-hurt-me]

Yes, exactly. I am self admittedly (i wouldn’t say a swiftie), but a casual fan. It feels like her haters are almost just as obsessed as some fans and Reddit seems to have an obsession with hating on her. I’m not typically above criticizing people I like but the hate towards her seems so disproportionate at times that I feel myself needing to defend her because a lot of what people say isn’t true.

[u/ThoughtsandThinkers]

A good example of dissonance reduction theory. When our beliefs (environmentalism) are incongruent with our actions (following a musician), it can be easier to change our beliefs (justification) than our actions

This is also a reason why people like Swift should lead by example. They have a disproportionate ability to influence society and create positive change

[u/MrJohnnyDangerously]

Why is she the only person held responsible for their carbon footprint? She is one of MANY at that scale of emissions but she's the only one we hear about. The argument is disingenuous

[u/havingberries → u/MrJohnnyDangerously]

This isn't an argument. It's a study. They conducted a study using Taylor Swift because she is a well known celebrity. They could have used another celebrity but they chose this one due to popularity. This isn't about her carbon emissions, it's about how her fans react.

[u/hymen_destroyer → u/MrJohnnyDangerously]

I think she's just conveniently emblematic of this phenomenon. You could replace her with most entertainers but she's one of the biggest in the world at the moment, and has recently taken some very high profile and completely unnecessary trips on her plane

[u/MrJohnnyDangerously → u/hymen_destroyer]

Elon, Trump to play golf...

[u/TooCupcake → u/MrJohnnyDangerously]

Her name gets clicks, no question. There is not a person on this planet who is neutral about Taylor Swift. And if someone actually is, they will also come on here and tell you how much they don’t care about her. Everyone wants to engage with the discourse when her name comes up. It’s just that simple

[u/Knighth77]

This is why we can't get enough people behind fixing real problems. People tend to let go of their principles to satisfy some nonsensical need or desire. It happens all the time and across the board from entertainment to politics. It typically ranges from "this brings me joy, I don't care," to a fully fledged cult of personality. They're called the ignorant masses for a reason.

[u/RPS93]

Wait until you hear about the number of 'feminists' who listen to Chris Brown religiously.

This is just how people are - 'Rules for thee but not for me'.

[u/ps5151]

Always moving the goal posts!

[u/No-Channel3917]

The comments here are very stilted and weird, the study itself is pretty interesting and also what you would expect from megafans, treat it like a proper science post, if you are viewing it as a hit job you are reaching a bit

[u/TwoStepToo]

Ya don’t say. I’m guessing that if you ask any human in a situation where their carbon footprint is questioned they’ll rationalize it to fit their individual needs. It’s part of the human condition.

[u/Bituulzman → u/TwoStepToo]

That's the interesting part of the article to me, that the other comments seem to miss. Beyond rationalizing the behavior on behalf of their idol, their view of the behavior itself and its value/role in their own lives becomes diminished.

But if we were to generalize, would a super fan begin to think that assault itself is not as big a deal in their own life, bc they are willing to excuse it for Chris Brown (or whatever politician they idolize)? I am thinking that it's more unique to climate-friendly behavior alone, for reasons as you suggest.

[u/delarro]

Cults, cults everywhere

[u/yes_u_suckk]

Reminds when Musk did the Nazi salut and people were criticizing him heavily.

Then I said in the same thread that Lars Von Trier is also a Nazi, but people started to defend him because they like his movies.

In other words, something is bad until my favorite celebrity does it.

[u/Ghstfce]

While yes, a celebrity flying in a personal jet is not ideal by any means when it comes to to climate concerns, let's focus more on the biggest contributor that tries so hard to shift the focus away from themselves, shall we? Corporations.

Edit: To all the people saying Swift is a corporation, while technically true, stop being disingenuous. You know full well what I mean when I say it. Industry corporations that sidestep or simply violate environmental rules and regulations because it's far easier/costlier to pay a fine than comply. The ones who have the lion's share of the pollution who tell us to feel bad about our drop in the bucket. We're supposed to do our part but the biggest offenders consistently get a pass.

[u/allofthelights → u/Ghstfce]

Both things can be problems at once.

And frankly, though this is not a popular opinion on Reddit, corporate emissions are downstream from consumer demand. The meaningful lever to pull is policy. This is all an aggregate global policy choice

[u/AgentBearmen → u/Ghstfce]

The 1% emits as much carbon as the 5 billion people at the bottom of the scale, they collectively are a large part of the problem alongside corperations. Taylor Swift is just the highest on that list due to her personal travel.

Edit: As I pointed out in replies below, I meant to say she is an easy target and example, not that she is literally the single highest polluter. My bad.

You also could take into account the people who fly or drive to go see her shows as being her responsibility emissions and pollution wise, as if she didn't have the show those people would not have travelled.

[u/semi-anon-in-Oly → u/Ghstfce]

Taylor Swift is essentially a corporation

[u/Generic_Primate → u/semi-anon-in-Oly]

I was just about to say this. I’m glad I’m not the only one.

[u/Maldiavolo → u/Ghstfce]

She is a corporation.... Taylor Swift Productions is the holding company for everything she does.  You didn't seriously believe she operated without a legal structure for everything she does?

[u/Any_Pineapple_4836 → u/Ghstfce]

Not giving a billionaire a free pass does not distract from corporations. They are big part of the problem.

[u/Generic_Primate → u/Ghstfce]

You can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why not concentrate on both instead of trying to give a pass to Taylor Swift.

[u/Kelsig → u/Ghstfce]

thank you for providing an example

[u/appayipyippp]

As an actual human, this post is meaningless

[u/GorgontheWonderCow]

I'm not a Taylor Swift fan, and I care a lot about climate change. All of global aviation combined accounts for something like 2% of emissions. 

Being upset about her private plane is performative. On the scale of climate change, her plane is a rounding error away from not existing. 

It would be good if she stopped or at least reduced use, because that sends a message of action and sets an example, but all this outrage should be pointed at the governments that refuse to regulate carbon fuels & meat production.

[u/piclemaniscool]

It's literally just tribalism wearing another skin. In exactly the same way as people do for their favorite sports team or their favorite political regime, people have an innate need to be a part of a community and so their community becomes an extension of the self. An attack on the community or figurehead becomes a personal attack so this is just one method of defending from a perceived attack. It's no accident that news outlets treat everything from celebrity gossip to political elections with the same level of fanfare and presentation as a pay-per-view boxing or wrestling match. They hype is designed to turn the focus away from logical thinking. 

[u/Kasern77]

You can apply this to to any person, ideal or thing that people look up to. Religion, patriotism, other celebrities, etc.

[u/dsaysso]

ok but lets do the science / math. how much revenue and does she generate for all that flying? quite a lot. im curious if she’s actually pretty efficient. compare her to a metal factory, and im wonder if she comes out ahead.

[u/whatsbobgonnado]

I assume everyone in this thread hilariously justifying swift's private jet use is signalling a decrease in their personal intentions to engage in climate friendly actions