• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

All Hail Taylor Swift, Person of the Year!

acbytesla said:
Exactly.

Performing artists do that in Vegas and Bransom for example. Either way, someone is getting on a jet and burning fuel. Seems to me, (although maybe I haven't thought this through entirely) that making fans travel results in more wasted fuel and more co2. After all, 20,000 fans driving to respective airports and flying to destinations must burn more fuel than say 10 performers and support staff flying to the destinations.
Click to expand...

Or she could rent a floor or two of a nearby hotel.

As a bonus the pain of separation from her latest future song lyric boyfriend would give her more material for her next album.
 
This just came up on my Post feed:

Taylor Swift. She read the random blog of a Mom who had just lost her toddler to cancer. Then she wrote this song from the blog post. Then she wrote to the Mom to be sure it was okay. Then she put it on her album and donated all proceeds to help with pediatric cancer. You will need tissues.


https://youtu.be/kdiBc40gW7s?si=GWlaVi-8Xz54aroC
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Or she could rent a floor or two of a nearby hotel.
Click to expand...
Huh? What does that have to do with transportation to and from the venues? Either way, her and the other musicians must travel sizable distances or the audience does.

As for renting space at nearby hotels, my bet is she does that too.
 
So, apparently there's conspiracy theory out there that Ms Swift has been deliberately propped up so that she can at some point endorse Biden thus swinging the election his way.
 
It's not just the performers that need to travel. Beyonce has about 40 trucks on her current tour
 
ahhell said:
So, apparently there's conspiracy theory out there that Ms Swift has been deliberately propped up so that she can at some point endorse Biden thus swinging the election his way.
Click to expand...

I heard she's having an affair with Hunter Biden and that's what's on that laptop: explicit videos of them! Also she was born a man, is Chinese, and is the go-between in the CCP and Biden Crime Family's plan to install the New World Order. They're engineering a war in the Middle East so they can use the chaos as cover to retrieve the Ark of the Covenant, and then they can open it using the blood of a descendant of Moses who they identified by having DNA scans done of everyone who attended a Taylor Swift concert. It's pretty obvious when you think about, really.
 
acbytesla said:
Huh? What does that have to do with transportation to and from the venues? Either way, her and the other musicians must travel sizable distances or the audience does.

As for renting space at nearby hotels, my bet is she does that too.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand: Taylor Swift was flying back to the USA in one of her two private jets between (at least some) performances, rather than staying in a nearby hotel and then moving onto the next venue.

Obviously the two private jets for transport is bad, but then zigzagging all over the planet in them is just taking the piss.

She was also the top celebrity CO2 polluter in 2022 as well, so it will be interesting to see if she continues this behaviour on the other legs of her Eras world tour.

For 2022:

https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders

Taylor Swift might be today's pop princess, but Yard's research found that Miss Swift is the biggest celebrity CO2e polluter of this year so far. Racking up a total of 170 flights since January, Taylor's jet has amassed a vast 22,923 minutes in the air – 15.9 days. Quite a large amount considering that she is not currently touring.

Taylor's jet has an average flight time of just 80 minutes and an average of 139.36 miles per flight. Her total flight emissions for the year come in at 8,293.54 tonnes, or 1,184.8 times more than the average person's total annual emissions. Taylor’s shortest recorded flight of 2022 was just 36 minutes, flying from Missouri to Nashville.
Click to expand...

I think the excuse "it wasn't always me in my private jet plane" is a bit lame; keep it on the ground if you don't "need" to use it, rather than renting it out so someone else can pollute on your behalf.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
I don't think you understand: Taylor Swift was flying back to the USA in one of her two private jets between (at least some) performances, rather than staying in a nearby hotel and then moving onto the next venue.

Obviously the two private jets for transport is bad, but then zigzagging all over the planet in them is just taking the piss.

She was also the top celebrity CO2 polluter in 2022 as well, so it will be interesting to see if she continues this behaviour on the other legs of her Eras world tour.

For 2022:

https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders


I think the excuse "it wasn't always me in my private jet plane" is a bit lame; keep it on the ground if you don't "need" to use it, rather than renting it out so someone else can pollute on your behalf.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's wasteful. But performing is her job. She also has a life.

Other celebrities with multiple planes.
Tom Cruise owns at least 3 jets. A Gulfstream IV, a Hondajet HA-400 and a Bombardier Challenger 300. He also owns multiple propeller engine planes including a P-51 Mustang.
Harrison Ford owns 2 jets, a Bell helicopter, and 5 other planes.
John Travolta owns at least 6 jets including 3 Gulfstreams, a Bombardier Challenger, a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 727.
Rapper Drake owns a 767-200
Kylie Jenner owns a Bombardier Global 7500
Rapper Travis Scott’s private jet is the twin-engine Embraer ERJ-190-100.
Bezos and Musk own multiple Gulfstreams jets.
Kim Kardashian also owns a Gulfstream 650
Actor Jackie Chan owns a Legacy 650
Celine Dion owns a Bombardier BD-700
Morgan Freeman has Syberjet SJ30
Lionel Messi own Gulfstream V
Mel Gibson own Gulfstream V
Jim Carrey owns Gulfstream V
Jay-Z owns a Bombardier
Bill Gates owns a Bombardier Challenger 350
The list goes on and on.
Hell, there are YouTubers that have multiple jets.

A good friend of mine works as a pilot for the Nordstrom Corporation. Most of his flying is for flying the Nordstrom family around.

I absolutely think all of this is a waste of resources. It's also highly pollutes. But I do think singling Taylor Swift out for this abuse is absurd.
 
acbytesla said:
Yes, it's wasteful. But performing is her job. She also has a life.

Other celebrities with multiple planes.
Tom Cruise owns at least 3 jets. A Gulfstream IV, a Hondajet HA-400 and a Bombardier Challenger 300. He also owns multiple propeller engine planes including a P-51 Mustang.
Harrison Ford owns 2 jets, a Bell helicopter, and 5 other planes.
John Travolta owns at least 6 jets including 3 Gulfstreams, a Bombardier Challenger, a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 727.
Rapper Drake owns a 767-200
Kylie Jenner owns a Bombardier Global 7500
Rapper Travis Scott’s private jet is the twin-engine Embraer ERJ-190-100.
Bezos and Musk own multiple Gulfstreams jets.
Kim Kardashian also owns a Gulfstream 650
Actor Jackie Chan owns a Legacy 650
Celine Dion owns a Bombardier BD-700
Morgan Freeman has Syberjet SJ30
Lionel Messi own Gulfstream V
Mel Gibson own Gulfstream V
Jim Carrey owns Gulfstream V
Jay-Z owns a Bombardier
Bill Gates owns a Bombardier Challenger 350
The list goes on and on.
Hell, there are YouTubers that have multiple jets.

A good friend of mine works as a pilot for the Nordstrom Corporation. Most of his flying is for flying the Nordstrom family around.

I absolutely think all of this is a waste of resources. It's also highly pollutes. But I do think singling Taylor Swift out for this abuse is absurd.
Click to expand...

How is it absurd to single Taylor Swift out for her polluting behaviour in a thread about Taylor Swift, particularly when she was the biggest celebrity polluter in private jets two years running?

As for Taylor Swift having a life, yes don't we all, and most of us have miniscule resources and options compared to Taylor Swift to move about this planet whilst doing the least harm.

There are other less damaging ways she could move around the planet, yet because she's ultra-wealthy she (and most of her economic class) feels entitled to pollute more than the rest of us.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
How is it absurd to single Taylor Swift out for her polluting behaviour in a thread about Taylor Swift, particularly when she was the biggest celebrity polluter in private jets two years running?

As for Taylor Swift having a life, yes don't we all, and most of us have miniscule resources and options compared to Taylor Swift to move about this planet whilst doing the least harm.

There are other less damaging ways she could move around the planet, yet because she's ultra-wealthy she (and most of her economic class) feels entitled to pollute more than the rest of us.
Click to expand...

And the vast majority of Americans and other people in developed countries feel entitled to pollute far more than the world average. Its hypocrisy to point out someone else pollutes more than me because they can afford to when I could certainly pollute less than I do, and still survive.

By getting on a computer and arguing on a webforum you are polluting more than your minimum survival amount. Save the world. Have your electricity shut off! Depend on it for heating; have solar? OK give it to someone else, get yourself down to an area of the world where you can survive without heating! Theres more that almost everyone in a developed country COULD DO, to lower their Co2 footprint.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
How is it absurd to single Taylor Swift out for her polluting behaviour in a thread about Taylor Swift, particularly when she was the biggest celebrity polluter in private jets two years running?
Click to expand...

I think a Taylor Swift thread should be about things that distinguish Taylor Swift from other people, not inane commentary about things she has in common with a lot of other people.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
How is it absurd to single Taylor Swift out for her polluting behaviour in a thread about Taylor Swift, particularly when she was the biggest celebrity polluter in private jets two years running?
Click to expand...
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Did you pull that out of your ass?
 
theprestige said:
I think a Taylor Swift thread should be about things that distinguish Taylor Swift from other people, not inane commentary about things she has in common with a lot of other people.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this thread should be about other than Taylor Swift. I'm also not sure what makes private aviation inane.

I remember that for years, no probably decades, billionaire investor Warren Buffet use to rail about wealthy people owning private jets. Then he bought one. Now he considers it to be one of his best purchases. Time is more valuable to him than money. But he also contends it saves him money. (Not sure I believe that though.!)

It probably makes sense for Taylor Swift to own a private jet. Even a need to own multiple jets. (People forget about the maintenance required to keep jets flying safely) Her job requires a lot of travel to and from many different destinations.
 
Last edited:
I guess my problem is I feel like the air travel issue has been done to death already in the Greta Thunberg thread. A relatively few fat cats jetting around aren't the problem. And as far as I can tell, the climate change program envisioned by the elites always included the elites being able to fly when and where they wanted. The small amount of pollution they create is more than offset by the green policies they are devising and vouchsafing to the rest of the global populace.

If Al Gore needs to fly to Davos to help build a better tomorrow for the rest of us, let him fly. I'll happily huff his exhaust fumes for the greater good, if that's what it takes.

And if Taylor Swift needs to fly home to recuperate in her fortress of solitude, in order to keep bringing so much happiness to so many people, how can I begrudge her that? Human happiness is a great good thing. The pollution she creates is a drop in the bucket, compared to all the economic and industrial activity we take for granted, from America to China, from Canada to South Africa.
 
ahhell said:
So, apparently there's conspiracy theory out there that Ms Swift has been deliberately propped up so that she can at some point endorse Biden thus swinging the election his way.
Click to expand...


Apparently it's something to do with the Super Bowl:

US rightwing conspiracy theory touts Taylor Swift as ‘Pentagon asset’

Taylor Swift is a “Pentagon asset”, an “election interference psyop” who, with unnamed left-leaning forces, has conspired to “rig” the Super Bowl and then endorse Joe Biden in the presidential election.
Click to expand...

:crazy:
 
theprestige said:
I guess my problem is I feel like the air travel issue has been done to death already in the Greta Thunberg thread. A relatively few fat cats jetting around aren't the problem. And as far as I can tell, the climate change program envisioned by the elites always included the elites being able to fly when and where they wanted. The small amount of pollution they create is more than offset by the green policies they are devising and vouchsafing to the rest of the global populace.

If Al Gore needs to fly to Davos to help build a better tomorrow for the rest of us, let him fly. I'll happily huff his exhaust fumes for the greater good, if that's what it takes.

And if Taylor Swift needs to fly home to recuperate in her fortress of solitude, in order to keep bringing so much happiness to so many people, how can I begrudge her that? Human happiness is a great good thing. The pollution she creates is a drop in the bucket, compared to all the economic and industrial activity we take for granted, from America to China, from Canada to South Africa.
Click to expand...

This issue is highly complex. There is little doubt in my mind, there is more than a fair amount of hypocrisy on the wealthy left when it come to CO2 pollution. But whether there is hypocrisy or not, CO2 and climate change is a problem. So I appreciate anyone speaking about the need to address it.

But I also believe the world isn't going to solve it by tightening its belt. Technology got the world into this problem and technology is going to have to get us out.

Getting Taylor Swift to fly commercial isn't going to solve global warming.
 
acbytesla said:
Getting Taylor Swift to fly commercial isn't going to solve global warming.
Click to expand...

If she's a "Pentagon asset" as suggested then she could be using military aircraft.

I bet even Kanye West would have had the sense to not pick a fight with her if he knew she had access to bombers. Potentially with nukes? Better not to find out.
 
lobosrul5 said:
And the vast majority of Americans and other people in developed countries feel entitled to pollute far more than the world average. Its hypocrisy to point out someone else pollutes more than me because they can afford to when I could certainly pollute less than I do, and still survive.
Click to expand...

No, it's not hypocrisy. It's pointing out that she and others with her wealth have far more resources to pollute less than average and yet pollute vastly more by their own choice (or more likely indifference; the worst isn't going to affect them).

By getting on a computer and arguing on a webforum you are polluting more than your minimum survival amount. Save the world. Have your electricity shut off! Depend on it for heating; have solar? OK give it to someone else, get yourself down to an area of the world where you can survive without heating! Theres more that almost everyone in a developed country COULD DO, to lower their Co2 footprint.
Click to expand...

Where have I suggested or even hinted that Taylor Swift reduce her pollution to the minimal survival amount? Or is not travelling by one of two private jets below "the minimal survivable amount" for the likes of Taylor Swift?
 
theprestige said:
I guess my problem is I feel like the air travel issue has been done to death already in the Greta Thunberg thread. A relatively few fat cats jetting around aren't the problem. <snip>
Click to expand...

Actually, they are as far as pollution from aviation is concerned.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
No, it's not hypocrisy. It's pointing out that she and others with her wealth have far more resources to pollute less than average and yet pollute vastly more by their own choice (or more likely indifference; the worst isn't going to affect them).
Click to expand...

And you, mr Ivor the Engineer can almost certainly pollute less than you do given the resources an average person in a developed country has. Swift lives an almost impossible to imagine lifestyle for the average American. But, the average American lives an almost impossible to imagine lifestyle for at least the bottom half of the worlds population. Why do we get to burn so much more carbon than they do*? Its the same question as, how come Swift gets to emit so much carbon than we do?

*dont forget you have to calculate how much of their carbon emissions are in service of industry for export to the developed world

Where have I suggested or even hinted that Taylor Swift reduce her pollution to the minimal survival amount? Or is not travelling by one of two private jets below "the minimal survivable amount" for the likes of Taylor Swift?
Click to expand...

No, you've suggested she reduce her carbon emissions amount to a level that YOU deem acceptable. Why are you the final arbiter of what's acceptable? To a subsistence farmer in south America struggling due to climate change, you are the problem. The "you's and me's" of the world emit vastly more total co2 than the Taylor Swifts of the world.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
No, their money does. There is a difference. And it is quite arguable that wealth has caused as many problems as it has solved.
Click to expand...

Engines of industry and commerce go brrr.

Where do you think her money comes from? It comes from her doing the stuff that she does.

All the money for charitable donations comes from people doing business. All the tax revenue your government uses to pay for all the good stuff they give you comes from people working the engines of industry and commerce. (And it is quite arguable that governments spending taxes have caused as many problems as they'e solved.)

In the past year, Taylor Swift has made more people genuinely happy than I ever will. And that's before we look at what she's doing with all the money those happy people are sending her way.
 
We’ve drifted pretty far off Taylor Swift in particular, but I thought as long as we’re there…

Not too long ago I got to fly right seat in a Beech Premiere.

53500162612_7bb61c4963_c.jpg


I’m not legally certified to fly it, but apparently just having a second pilot in the cockpit reduces the insurance premium a bit.

The mission was to fly to Pensacola from Knoxville (where the photo was taken) to pick up a family and fly them to Ohio State University. From there, we flew a fellow to Norfolk and then dead headed it back to Knoxville.

In Pensacola there were perhaps 10 other business jets on the ramp, some bigger, some smaller. I just got a vague feeling of “wretched excess” - these things cost thousands of dollars per hour to keep in the air, and it just seemed a bit much.

Then again, they are supported by an army of mechanics and suppliers, not to mention those manufacturing the darn things. Wishing them away would leave hundreds of thousands unemployed. In a capitalist society, folks are free to spend their money on whatever they want, and who am I to judge.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Engines of industry and commerce go brrr.

Where do you think her money comes from? It comes from her doing the stuff that she does.

All the money for charitable donations comes from people doing business. All the tax revenue your government uses to pay for all the good stuff they give you comes from people working the engines of industry and commerce. (And it is quite arguable that governments spending taxes have caused as many problems as they'e solved.)

In the past year, Taylor Swift has made more people genuinely happy than I ever will. And that's before we look at what she's doing with all the money those happy people are sending her way.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree. But I'm a big believer that the laws, rules and tax code are all made not to benefit the general public, but to benefit the 1 percenters. Many of whom do little but clip coupons. This has created many negative effects including there being a dearth of affordable cars and housing.

Instead industry is making super yachts, McMansions and private jets. The US is 5 times more wealthy per person than it was in the mid-1960s and yet the average American is poorer. When an economy is based on the consumption of very few, it isn't actually healthy.


If people really want to take us back to the 50s, why don't we start with the tax code and labor laws.
 
acbytesla said:
I doubt that is less CO2 intensive.

In fact I know it isn't.

The jet Taylor Swift travels on is fairly fuel efficient but it depends on how you look at it.

Taylor Swift owns a Dassault Falcon 900. It carries 12 to 14 passengers plus two pilots. It burns 303 gallons of fuel per hour. But it also flies at about 550 nautical miles in that hour.
That equals 631 miles on the ground. That is about 2 miles per gallon. But if she flies with 10 other people, that equals out to 20 passenger miles per gallon. This is better fuel efficiency than I get.
Click to expand...

You don't get 20 miles per gallon? Gas hog!
 
There is the fuel and pollution contributing to climate change.
There are lots of people employed including all the way back to manufacturing.
And all those people spend there income which requires a lot of all-the-way-down math.
In the all-the-way-down math one has to include oil and gas production.
For Swift it must be an absolute drag to put up with fans at the airport and fans on the plane.
Then there is security, does the airport pay if it is a commercial flight? Surely Swift pays when taking her private jet.
And there is all-the-way-down math for the things paid security spend their wages on.
She might have 2 jets so one is always ready. That might mean one jet is sometimes moved to where it's needed without any passengers.
Anything else?

My point is if one really wants to consider the cost to the environment of Swift flying on her private jets then one should really look at the big picture, not just the burning of the jet fuel by itself.

Personally, I don't blame her given how hard it must be to fly commercial when you are that famous. People can be really obnoxious thinking their simple request for an autograph surely isn't that much trouble.


On a separate note, there's a news clip out there of Swift trying to convince her parents it is NOT against their religion to NOT vote for Trump. (Sorry for the double negative.) They didn't come right out and say it, (or I missed it), but it did look like her parents might be Trumpers.

It was late last night when I do a lot of web surfing so I didn't save it. I'll have to find it again.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
There is the fuel and pollution contributing to climate change.
There are lots of people employed including all the way back to manufacturing.
And all those people spend there income which requires a lot of all-the-way-down math.
In the all-the-way-down math one has to include oil and gas production.
For Swift it must be an absolute drag to put up with fans at the airport and fans on the plane.
Then there is security, does the airport pay if it is a commercial flight? Surely Swift pays when taking her private jet.
And there is all-the-way-down math for the things paid security spend their wages on.
She might have 2 jets so one is always ready. That might mean one jet is sometimes moved to where it's needed without any passengers.
Anything else?

My point is if one really wants to consider the cost to the environment of Swift flying on her private jets then one should really look at the big picture, not just the burning of the jet fuel by itself.

Personally, I don't blame her given how hard it must be to fly commercial when you are that famous. People can be really obnoxious thinking their simple request for an autograph surely isn't that much trouble.


On a separate note, there's a news clip out there of Swift trying to convince her parents it is NOT against their religion to NOT vote for Trump. (Sorry for the double negative.) They didn't come right out and say it, (or I missed it), but it did look like her parents might be Trumpers.

It was late last night when I do a lot of web surfing so I didn't save it. I'll have to find it again.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons for her not to fly commercial. You point out an excellent one but there's also the issue that commercial flights may be thin on the ground when she wants to fly (after a show), that the hub and spoke model of commercial aviation may mean that she would have to take multiple flights to get where she wants to go and that the equipment she wants to take with her may be incompatible with commercial flying (I for one would not entrust a valuable and/or fragile guitar to the airlines).

IMO the most sustainable least unsustainable model would be non-fossil fuel powered ground transport and a tour schedule which minimises total travel rather than criss-crossing the country but that ship has sailed and venue availability tends to have the whip hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom