Taylor Swift has the worst Private Jet on Earth, according to Rolling Stone

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2021
16,338
13,259
2,288
Texas

As the world quite literally burns and floods, it’s important to remember that individualism won’t really solve the climate crisis, especially compared to, say, the wholesale dismantling of the brutal grip the fossil fuel industry has on modern society. Still, there are some individuals who could probably stand to do a bit more to mitigate their carbon footprint — among them, the super-wealthy who make frequent use of carbon-spewing private jets. (And let’s not even get started on yachts.)

While private jets are used by rich folks of all kinds, their use among celebrities has come under scrutiny recently, with reports of the likes of Drake and Kylie Jenner taking flights that lasted less than 20 minutes. In response, the sustainability marketing firm Yard put together a new report using data to rank the celebrities whose private jets have flown the most so far this year — and subsequently dumped the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Drake and Jenner both appear on the list, but they’re actually nowhere near the top, which is occupied by none other than Taylor Swift. According to Yard, Swift’s jet flew 170 times between Jan. 1 and July 19 (the window for the Yard study), totaling 22,923 minutes, or 15.9 days, in the air. That output has created estimated total flight emissions of 8,293.54 tonnes of carbon, which Yard says is 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions. (At least one more flight can be added to that list, too: The flight-tracking Twitter account Celebrity Jets notes that Swift’s plane flew today, July 29.)


So, this is not based on any analysis of Swift's aircraft. I doubt anyone anywhere near the writing of this article would understand any kind of technical analysis. It's based on the number of miles the aircraft flew. Swift's spokesman's defense is that she often leases or lends her aircraft to others so all the miles are not miles that she is responsible for.

I think a much better answer would have been, "kiss my ass."

This needs to be said way more often to these whiny liberals, insisting that we defend ourselves from their often bizarre and illogical criticism. The reason that Swift takes a private jet instead of riding a solar charged electric scooter is that her personal goals are way more important to her than saving the planet, assuming you accept the idea that private jets are destroying it. Like Greta Thunberg, she doesn't care about any supposed harm from private jet travel.


Liberals, if you don't like private jets, tell your party to ban them. Let Al Gore, Jeff Bezos, the royals of England and Bill Gates fly commercial. I'm sure they can afford first class, so they will get to board first. If you are not lobbying for the banning of private jets for everyone, stop the wailing. It is as annoying as the wailing of babies on commercial jets, which is no doubt part of why the 400 people who flew into the COP26 environmental conference chose to take private jets.

 
Complaining about conspicuous consumption and waste by the super-wealthy is normal. Admiring it is not.
 
So happy republicans give all those rich people tax cuts rewarding them for polluting more. Taylor Swift can have a private jet just to fly her cat around.


 
Last edited:
Complaining about conspicuous consumption and waste by the super-wealthy is normal. Admiring it is not.
Complaining by liberals is certainly typical. I guess that makes it "normal."

I'm not sure who admires Al Gore and John Kerry for their conspicuous consumption and waste. Do you?
 
Complaining by liberals is certainly typical. I guess that makes it "normal."

I'm not sure who admires Al Gore and John Kerry for their conspicuous consumption and waste. Do you?
Trotting out those you see as hypocritical somehow makes using the world as a garbage can alright?
 
Trotting out those you see as hypocritical somehow makes using the world as a garbage can alright?
Me? I don't take private jets nowhere.

Talk to your "environmental leaders." I, Seymour Flops, see them as hypocritical? Does that mean that you, occupied, do not?
 
So happy republicans give all those rich people tax cuts rewarding them for polluting more. Taylor Swift can have a private jet just to fly her cat around.



Dems are in charge now. Tell your leaders to take away those tax deductions for the private jets their corporate donors ride around in.
 
Me? I don't take private jets nowhere.

Talk to your "environmental leaders." I, Seymour Flops, see them as hypocritical? Does that mean that you, occupied, do not?
Even if all those people started walking your super-rich idols are still shitting up the planet and looking for ways to live in space after the rest of us are fucked. In your OP you seem to think the super-rich are entitled to burn up more resources than any number of ordinary citizens just because they can. Explain that one.
 
Even if all those people started walking your super-rich idols are still shitting up the planet and looking for ways to live in space after the rest of us are fucked.
They're not my idols. I just don't care whether they fly private jets or not. Just like Greta Thunberg.

In your OP you seem to think the super-rich are entitled to burn up more resources than any number of ordinary citizens just because they can. Explain that one.
Same reason you feel that you are entitled to eat more food than people in third world countries. In fact, I would guess that you throw away more calories than any number of third worlders eat. Assuming that you are a middle class American, you use way more resources than a third worlder and than many first worlders. You are "entitled" to do that for two main reasons:

1) Either you made the effort to move to the land or opportunity, or some of your ancestors did, and now you are here where you can buy PBJ sandwiches with the crust already cut off for you, and eat them in your Volt. You work for what you have, or else someone who supports you does. It's not your fault if people in third world hellholes don't have it as good as you, just like it isn't Al Gore's fault that you cannot afford a private jet yourself.

2) I'm not appointed the arbiter of who is "entitled" to what. People have what they have. If they stole it, they should be arrested and have what they stole confiscated and returned to the rightful owner. Barring that, it's none of my business. As far as I know, John Kerry married his money, so he gets a private jet, bought with money earned by his wife's late husband, the Ketchup King. He has it, so he has it. I don't know or care whether he's "entitled" to it.

As a bit of an aside, the only things that humans are "entitled" to are our natural rights. Everything else we have to work for or earn in some way. Yet the left are constantly trying to violate our natural rights and take what we earn in order to create artificial entitlements.

I think you may have meant to ask why I think the wealthy are "entitled" to pollute more? Ask me that, and my answer may surprise you.

But first, is John Kerry a hypocrite or not a hypocrite?
 
They're not my idols. I just don't care whether they fly private jets or not. Just like Greta Thunberg.


Same reason you feel that you are entitled to eat more food than people in third world countries. In fact, I would guess that you throw away more calories than any number of third worlders eat. Assuming that you are a middle class American, you use way more resources than a third worlder and than many first worlders. You are "entitled" to do that for two main reasons:

1) Either you made the effort to move to the land or opportunity, or some of your ancestors did, and now you are here where you can buy PBJ sandwiches with the crust already cut off for you, and eat them in your Volt. You work for what you have, or else someone who supports you does. It's not your fault if people in third world hellholes don't have it as good as you, just like it isn't Al Gore's fault that you cannot afford a private jet yourself.

2) I'm not appointed the arbiter of who is "entitled" to what. People have what they have. If they stole it, they should be arrested and have what they stole confiscated and returned to the rightful owner. Barring that, it's none of my business. As far as I know, John Kerry married his money, so he gets a private jet, bought with money earned by his wife's late husband, the Ketchup King. He has it, so he has it. I don't know or care whether he's "entitled" to it.

As a bit of an aside, the only things that humans are "entitled" to are our natural rights. Everything else we have to work for or earn in some way. Yet the left are constantly trying to violate our natural rights and take what we earn in order to create artificial entitlements.

I think you may have meant to ask why I think the wealthy are "entitled" to pollute more? Ask me that, and my answer may surprise you.

But first, is John Kerry a hypocrite or not a hypocrite?
I did ask you that but you seem obsessed with John Kerry. If you think he is a worse person for trying to do something for the planet rather than the nothing most of the rest of the jet-set do then I guess that's just your opinion.
 
I did ask you that but you seem obsessed with John Kerry. If you think he is a worse person for trying to do something for the planet rather than the nothing most of the rest of the jet-set do then I guess that's just your opinion.
He's a blatant hypocrite, is the answer that you are trying to avoid.

To answer the question about polluting, no one is entitled to pollute the air that others must use. However, avoiding all pollution would require abandoning the industrial age. We can't even go back to the agricultural age, now that the left has explained the extreme harm of cow farts. So, we would have to go back to a hunter-gatherer economy.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that leaving the industrial age would do more harm than the benefit of reducing pollution. So we agree that some pollution must be tolerated, even though it interferes with the right to breathe completely unpolluted air.

How to determine the precise regulations to implement to reduce pollution. Through a process called democratic election of representatives followed by negotiations. Those negotiations will be far more productive, if we can approach it in good faith as a balancing of the need for industry with the need for clean air. politicized science, hidden agendas, and personal attacks do not help at all, and are counter-productive.
 
The article didn't say what kind of airplane Taylor Swift owns ... does anyone know? ...

They multiplied these carbon emissions mass numbers by 2.7 because of ... ummm ... "radiative forcing" ... how many moron people are going to swallow this without any reservations ... that's not what radiative forcing does ... the stupidity of some people ...
 
The article didn't say what kind of airplane Taylor Swift owns ... does anyone know? ...

They multiplied these carbon emissions mass numbers by 2.7 because of ... ummm ... "radiative forcing" ... how many moron people are going to swallow this without any reservations ... that's not what radiative forcing does ... the stupidity of some people ...
I know, right?

Radioactive forcing - pffffft!

Just kidding. I have no idea what radioactive forcing is, but if you mean that the people attacking Taylor Swift for not taking coach on JetBlue are morons, I agree completely.
 
I get Cessna Citations flying over my house low on final to the local airport ... fucking cool ... worth every tera-gram of soot belching out the jet engines ... makes me want to burn tires to help show the pilots the way in ...
 

As the world quite literally burns and floods, it’s important to remember that individualism won’t really solve the climate crisis, especially compared to, say, the wholesale dismantling of the brutal grip the fossil fuel industry has on modern society. Still, there are some individuals who could probably stand to do a bit more to mitigate their carbon footprint — among them, the super-wealthy who make frequent use of carbon-spewing private jets. (And let’s not even get started on yachts.)

While private jets are used by rich folks of all kinds, their use among celebrities has come under scrutiny recently, with reports of the likes of Drake and Kylie Jenner taking flights that lasted less than 20 minutes. In response, the sustainability marketing firm Yard put together a new report using data to rank the celebrities whose private jets have flown the most so far this year — and subsequently dumped the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Drake and Jenner both appear on the list, but they’re actually nowhere near the top, which is occupied by none other than Taylor Swift. According to Yard, Swift’s jet flew 170 times between Jan. 1 and July 19 (the window for the Yard study), totaling 22,923 minutes, or 15.9 days, in the air. That output has created estimated total flight emissions of 8,293.54 tonnes of carbon, which Yard says is 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions. (At least one more flight can be added to that list, too: The flight-tracking Twitter account Celebrity Jets notes that Swift’s plane flew today, July 29.)


So, this is not based on any analysis of Swift's aircraft. I doubt anyone anywhere near the writing of this article would understand any kind of technical analysis. It's based on the number of miles the aircraft flew. Swift's spokesman's defense is that she often leases or lends her aircraft to others so all the miles are not miles that she is responsible for.

I think a much better answer would have been, "kiss my ass."

This needs to be said way more often to these whiny liberals, insisting that we defend ourselves from their often bizarre and illogical criticism. The reason that Swift takes a private jet instead of riding a solar charged electric scooter is that her personal goals are way more important to her than saving the planet, assuming you accept the idea that private jets are destroying it. Like Greta Thunberg, she doesn't care about any supposed harm from private jet travel.


Liberals, if you don't like private jets, tell your party to ban them. Let Al Gore, Jeff Bezos, the royals of England and Bill Gates fly commercial. I'm sure they can afford first class, so they will get to board first. If you are not lobbying for the banning of private jets for everyone, stop the wailing. It is as annoying as the wailing of babies on commercial jets, which is no doubt part of why the 400 people who flew into the COP26 environmental conference chose to take private jets.

I shocked that any intelligent person reads rolling stone with all its may have, sources indicate, could have happened, it appears that...etc etc.....why dont they just admit they make it all up....shit, how stupid do they think their readers are
 
Complaining by liberals is certainly typical. I guess that makes it "normal."

I'm not sure who admires Al Gore and John Kerry for their conspicuous consumption and waste. Do you?
Complaining by Seymour Flops is certainly typical. But it's not normal.
 

As the world quite literally burns and floods, it’s important to remember that individualism won’t really solve the climate crisis, especially compared to, say, the wholesale dismantling of the brutal grip the fossil fuel industry has on modern society. Still, there are some individuals who could probably stand to do a bit more to mitigate their carbon footprint — among them, the super-wealthy who make frequent use of carbon-spewing private jets. (And let’s not even get started on yachts.)

While private jets are used by rich folks of all kinds, their use among celebrities has come under scrutiny recently, with reports of the likes of Drake and Kylie Jenner taking flights that lasted less than 20 minutes. In response, the sustainability marketing firm Yard put together a new report using data to rank the celebrities whose private jets have flown the most so far this year — and subsequently dumped the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Drake and Jenner both appear on the list, but they’re actually nowhere near the top, which is occupied by none other than Taylor Swift. According to Yard, Swift’s jet flew 170 times between Jan. 1 and July 19 (the window for the Yard study), totaling 22,923 minutes, or 15.9 days, in the air. That output has created estimated total flight emissions of 8,293.54 tonnes of carbon, which Yard says is 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions. (At least one more flight can be added to that list, too: The flight-tracking Twitter account Celebrity Jets notes that Swift’s plane flew today, July 29.)


So, this is not based on any analysis of Swift's aircraft. I doubt anyone anywhere near the writing of this article would understand any kind of technical analysis. It's based on the number of miles the aircraft flew. Swift's spokesman's defense is that she often leases or lends her aircraft to others so all the miles are not miles that she is responsible for.

I think a much better answer would have been, "kiss my ass."

This needs to be said way more often to these whiny liberals, insisting that we defend ourselves from their often bizarre and illogical criticism. The reason that Swift takes a private jet instead of riding a solar charged electric scooter is that her personal goals are way more important to her than saving the planet, assuming you accept the idea that private jets are destroying it. Like Greta Thunberg, she doesn't care about any supposed harm from private jet travel.


Liberals, if you don't like private jets, tell your party to ban them. Let Al Gore, Jeff Bezos, the royals of England and Bill Gates fly commercial. I'm sure they can afford first class, so they will get to board first. If you are not lobbying for the banning of private jets for everyone, stop the wailing. It is as annoying as the wailing of babies on commercial jets, which is no doubt part of why the 400 people who flew into the COP26 environmental conference chose to take private jets.

so vote democratic and tax the rich again so the United states can return to prosperity for more than just the rich people, brainwashed functional moron

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  1. What is the average number of flights per day? – Short-Fact

    Feb 09, 2021 · In March of 2019, the total flights per day averaged 176,000 commercial flights. In March of 2020, commercial flights per day averaged 145,000. Broken down, commercial flight

amazing how you idiots totally miss the point. You don't even believe in global warming, the only party and the only people in the world who deny it. Big oil big money brainwashed functional morons....​

 
Last edited:
Most Climate Carbon Warriors burn more carbons than entire towns in a year.
Until they give up their opulent lifestyles, they can piss off.
 
it’s important to remember that individualism won’t really solve the climate crisis,

Great! I can continue to let my SUV idle in the driveway!

Winter_Exhaust.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top