Taylor Swift is not the problem
Labeling the world's favorite anti-hero as a climate villain misses the point.
Last month, Taylor came under fire for her lavish lifestyle: Her globe-trotting romance with NFL star Travis Kelce (go Bearcats), made possible by her private jet, was estimated to cost 138 tons of CO2 emissions over the last three months of 2023:
“According to statistics tracked by Taylor Swift's Jets on Instagram, her twelve trips have had an environmental impact equivalent to the energy consumption of 17 houses in a year or the electricity use of 26.9 homes over the same period.”
That sounds like a lot, but such numbers only tell part of the story.
Taylor Swift’s carbon-heavy lifestyle is more a product of capitalism than individual decisions. To attack her misses the point, especially since we’re all guilty to a fault.
For one, most of us emit as much as we can afford. Wealthier people live in larger homes, usually farther from city centers, and are much more likely to buy stuff they don’t need, take cars over public transit, and opt for planes over trains.
In an era (ha) of instant gratification, of traveling wherever we want whenever we want, private jets are simply the natural progression of this capitalist lifestyle. Unless you’re Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate activist who once took a solar-powered boat across the Atlantic to avoid emissions, few of us actually rebel against this system.
Second, Taylor Swift’s carbon footprint is much more connected to her events than her individual travel: Her tours pack stadiums, with tens of thousands of fans traveling — mostly by car and by plane — to see her perform.
But no one is saying to cancel the Eras Tour. If you want to see Taylor Swift perform, and if you have the means to do it, no one guilt-shames you to forgo it.
Finally, attacking celebrities for flying detracts from climate action. The real culprits here are the oil and gas companies, who for years have denied climate change and delayed the transition to cleaner energy.
When we attack climate champions — Leonardo DiCaprio, Bill Gates, even Pete Buttigeig — for taking private jets, we employ a common delay tactic used by climate opponents, as outlined by a recent report of the Institute of Strategic Dialogue.
Far-right leaders, climate deniers, and the Russian-state media all criticized the private jet use of attendees of COP26, the 2021 global climate summit in Scotland, as a way to undermine climate talks.
That’s not to say private jets aren’t a problem. A 2022 report found that celebrities’ private jet-setting emits about 480 times more CO2 than an average person’s annual emissions. And flying in general, which accounts for 2% of global emissions, is enjoyed almost exclusively by the world’s richest.
But to criticize celebrities both deflects blame while also being hypocritical: In the Western World, we’ve all benefited from a capitalist lifestyle of cars, planes, meat, single-family homes, and fast fashion — most of which are unnecessary for survival.
A much more effective tactic would be to push these same celebrities to advocate for causes you care about.
A 2021 study found that celebrities disproportionately affect greenhouse gas emissions, mostly through their outsized roles as consumers, investors, role models, campaign donors, and citizens.
Ask Swift’s boyfriend, Travis Kelce, about the outsized influence of his girlfriend: After Swift attended one of his games in September, the NFL star’s jersey sales shot up 400%.
More seriously, that influence is also why the European Commission’s Vice President recently called for Swift to mobilize young voters ahead of this year’s crucial E.U. elections.
Obsessing over what celebrities do and don’t do is great for tabloids but not for the Planet. Our Bad Blood is with climate opponents — oil and gas companies, climate delayers, and the like — not with Taylor Swift.