It’s been a tough summer for private planes and the ultra-rich who swear by them. Reality TV star Kylie Jenner and pop star Taylor Swift have both been the target of widespread outrage online about their travel habits and the impact of those flashy trips and their CO2 emissions on the environment.
We’ll give Taylor credit — many celebrities don’t even try to justify their extravagant lifestyles and huge carbon footprints.
Amid the backlash, Swift’s spokesperson argued the star isn’t taking all those trips to — no, she often lends her plane to friends. We’ll give Taylor credit — many celebrities don’t even try to justify their extravagant lifestyles and huge carbon footprints.
And while celebrities absolutely contribute to the climate crisis, it’s the carbon hypocrites who really stand out, people like Bill Gates who travel the world talking about climate change while racking up hundreds of thousands of air miles in their private jets.
All the evidence shows that most of the super-rich, including many celebrities and public figures, even when campaigning against climate change, release far more than their share of greenhouse gases from their jets. private, superyachts, multiple and mobile homes. lifestyles. And buying carbon offsets does not make emissions disappear. So while it may seem unfair to some people to single out just one celebrity for use, it’s entirely fair to point out the massive and disproportionate impact of celebrity private jet travel.
Last year we published an article on the carbon footprint of billionaires because we were interested in studying the environmental impact of growing wealth and inequality. We’ve calculated the 2018 carbon footprint of 20 international (but mostly US-based) billionaires famous for their glamorous lifestyles. We measured very carefully, as many details were hidden, but we still found that the billionaires each emitted an average of 8,194 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a year, compared to less than 5 metric tons for an average person.
This means that in 2018, the average billionaire polluted our common atmosphere 1,714 times more than the average person. But even more damaging than the more than 3,300 billionaires, and relevant to the current backlash, are the high emissions of the more than 300,000 people classified by Wealth-X as “Ultra-High-Net-Worth” – each with more than 30 million in assets. This global elite is responsible for a large portion of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, more than many major countries emit.
This imbalance is unfair, especially when the rest of the population is intimidated and made to feel guilty for their botched recycling or driving an SUV. Worse, while the super-rich have giant carbon footprints, their wealth also enables them to dodge the dire consequences of resulting climate change. They can hop on a private jet to get away from floods or hurricanes, and all they see is starvation and poverty through the windows of their armored limos.
Celebrities have also set a bad example for the rest of us through their lavish, carbon-intensive lifestyles, constantly hyped by the press and their millions of social media followers. It makes sense to ask why we should twist our own lifestyles to save the world when a billionaire emits more carbon dioxide in a day than we do all year. Why should I give up my beach vacation when Kylie Jenner uses a private jet to go shopping?
It makes sense to ask why we should twist our own lifestyles to save the world when a billionaire emits more carbon dioxide in a day than we do all year.
Transportation, the way people get around, is a huge part of the carbon footprint of the rich. Aviation is responsible for around 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, but because it injects pollution at high altitudes, aviation’s contribution to global warming is closer to 3.5%. And just 1% of the population is responsible for 50% of global aviation emissions.
The current celebrity miles controversy highlights some unruly facts; flying private can be up to 14 times more polluting than taking a commercial jet, and there are plenty of cleaner options for short trips. For instance, Kim Kardashian’s jet reportedly traveled the 170 miles from San Diego to Camarillo, California in 23 minutes, producing about 3 tonnes of CO2. A regular sedan on the road would emit about as much in an entire year of driving 11,000 miles. Drake owns a Boeing 767, which can carry over 300 passengers, and emits the same amount per mile even if he lends the plane to friends, or flies it empty to pick it up somewhere.
One solution is what we call “carbon shaming”, raising public awareness of super polluters and getting people to publicly commit to reducing their theft and making their footprints public. The Swedes call it “flygskam” (flight shame), and the idea has spread to many other European countries. As anthropologists, we know how powerful shame can be – many cultures depend on shame rather than the police and courts to control antisocial behavior. California’s 2014-15 drought led to public ‘drought shaming’ as citizens flew drones over neighborhoods to spot over-watered lawns, and newspapers published lists of top water users . At least some celebrities (notably Barbra Streisand) have responded by covering their lawns with drought-tolerant xeriscapes.
The recent publicity about Kylie Jenner, Drake, Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift and the many others bragging (or humbly bragging) about their private jets has certainly raised awareness. It’s ultimately a good thing. The scientific evidence is undeniable and irrefutable that we are living in a climate emergency and that we must act, collectively and urgently. If celebrities don’t care about the environment, they might care about their reputation.