A shorter version of my latest column

-Hayes Brown, Bluesky

Transcription / Alt Text:
Panel one: [off-screen] Fox News: Taylor Swift’s plane is emitting soo much carbon Angry Goose: Why are carbon emissions bad? Panel 2: [Man labeled Fox News being chased] Goose: Explain why carbon emissions are bad, coward!!!

  • NIB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    This isnt a good argument. For Fox News carbon emissions are irrelevant or good or whatever. But since Taylor Swift is saying she cares about the environment and according to her carbon emissions are bad for the environment, it is hypocritical to use a private jet.

    The problem Fox News have with Taylor Swift isnt her carbon emissions, it is her hypocrisy.

    • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      When she’s on tour, the jet when she’s touring on serves the entertainment of lots of people, not just her. In the same way a venue does. When divided among lots of people it’s meaningless fraction of the transportation of the audience.

      I also think worrying about a few people is a way to discredit climate change concerns.

      Regulations and investing in better energy sources are what matters. I don’t give a fuck about a few rich fucks with yachts and airplanes. I care about policy and how society distributes resources and energy.

      All aviation accounts for less than 2% of emissions. Private jets are a tiny fraction of that. But now we’re talking about that instead of the actual issue. This serves climate change deniers. This serves the Republican agenda, and the pertrol agenda. You’re doing that right now.

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nope. A lot of us see the problem as people saying “we need to do X, but not me”. So much of the issue is people admitting there is a problem but denying that they have any impact. It’s always someone’s else’s problem.

        And some of us are sick of it from both sides.

  • kaffiene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I hate Fox but they have a point. Preaching about climate change (good) doesn’t excuse using a private jet (bad). And obviously the hypocricy makes it worse.

    • ULS@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ootl what’s going on and why are people talking about Taylor Swift like she’s a political el nino?

      • force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        she’s told her viewers to vote democrat and that she can’t contain her political opinions any longer because republicans have gotten so fucked etc. etc., which blows up due to her being a celebrity woman that people like finding reasons to be controversial about

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Greta Thunberg made the trip to the US for some climate summin via sailboat. Not to show that it can be done - but to show how absolutely impractical it is. Climate action cannot be about individual responsibility - sometimes we need private jets.

      So the rational action would be to start a massive development effort to develop jets that are slower and run on hydrogen fuel cells or something. And find ways to generate hydrogen fuel without carbon. And then distribute and regulate jets.

      But that’s basically a planned economy, a taboo word to think or say in mainstream. Instead any small advancement is patented which raises the cost of it to maximize profit.

      So no, pointing out Taylor’s swift as hypocrite is not a good point, it is indeed propaganda to avoid sensible action on climate change. Of course it’s way to late now so it doesn’t really matter any more.

      • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Do we need private jets for individuals to take on a whim? Maybe we need private jets for government officials specifically traveling to do work on behalf of the government.

        • InputZero@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Depending on the level of fame, yeah actually. I wouldn’t want to be on a plane with Taylor Swift. Even with her in first class and me in the cheap seats. Imagine all the Swifties trying to get on your plane to see Taylor or just say they were on the same plane, it would be a nightmare. Not to mention the security threats there would be, how many extremists do you think have made a death threat at Taylor Swift? How would you feel getting on a plane someone threatened to blow up because Taylor Swift was abourd?

          Like it or not the obsession with celebrity status necessitates things like private jets. No one needs to be as popular as Taylor Swift. That leaves the question of ‘is it ethical to become so popular?’ on the table but I am not interested in getting into that.

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        No ‘sometimes anybody needs private jets’. Fly commercial en masse to at least make it one flight instead of 300 separate ones. In this age of very good remote video calling there is no situation where somebody needs to be somewhere else within 2 hours to the point it is worth taking a private jet for all of the relevant reasons we’re concerned with. There were commercial empires spanning the globe long before the internet or manned flight existed and they arguably did far better than today’s ‘nimble’ corporations do. BS rhetoric for people to suggest they ‘need’ to fly private at all.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          She’s the most famous performer in the world.

          If she needs to fly private (which she does, her itineraries would never be possible on commercial, aside from the harassment she’d receive from the general public), it’s because her fans actually demand it.

          Thats the problem. It’s not the jets, it’s that she’s expected, by millions of people, to stick to an itinerary that’s unattainable without them.

          If you have enough fans to be the most famous performer in the world, and they demand you do things that are unattainable without a private jet, then you either need a private jet, or saner fans.

          Stop looking at the immediate problem. Look upstream. Don’t build a dam at a delta.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          For some reason I don’t think that Taylor has a whole Airbus A380 to herself.

          I was able to find she has a Dassault Falcon, a 12-seater. I doubt she travels alone in it…ever. Most of those seats are full, and I’m sure she’s flying direct and on her schedule.

          Now, I get the absurdity of a single person needing a plane. But I also get the absurdity of a single person driving an F-250 crew cab to their office job 60 miles away.

          After all, the guy in the pickup could have just as well taken public transit and shared. Except in order to take the train, he’d have to leave 3 hours earlier to arrive at the same time, and he’d get home two hours later. And there are several transfers along the way. Also there’s a store off the highway that he needs to go to, and he cant get there on the bus.

          Private transport will always be needed. We will never meet 100% of personal transportation needs with just public transit and bikes. It’s an absurd goal.

          The more important thing is that private-transport be right-sized for the individual need. In that lens, a 12-seat jet for a pop star, her pilot, body guard, and entourage, makes way more sense to me than a desk-jockey in a monster truck.

          If you want to be mad at something, be mad at the fact that society is demanding that she actually fly all over the world so she can sing and dance in front of them, beholden to schedules that could never be possible on commercial flights. Commercial may not have the appropriate routes, or times, or may have unexpected route changes or delays or cancellations.

          And the thing about planes is you kind of need to have them with you when you take off. You can’t exactly fly commercial and then take your private-jet for a specific hop and then go right back to commercial, either your jet stays with you or it dead-heads across the world without you.

          Not to mention, this is Taylor Fucking Swift we are talking about. She is probably the single most famous person in the world. I would not be surprised if more people could pick her out of a crowd than they could Olaf Scholz. The amount of harassment she’d be subject to on commercial would be unbearable. She needs to fly private just to preserve a shred of sanity.

          • force@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            not until we turn the kremlin into a pile of dust and bones. after that we can have all the transcontinental rail we want. except for to antarctica and oceania but fuck those guys

            • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I feel like if bombing anywhere could help make more trains then Davos during the WEF, or Washington DC, would be about 100 places further up the list, even if it wouldn’t give you the same bloodthirsty nationalist ahistorical satisfaction. But it seems unhinged to think anyone needs to die at all…

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yeah, but there are some speeds at which airplanes are quite efficient. One thing would also be to make large airplanes slower, to reduce energy costs. In general trains though yeah. China is building a lot of high speed rail.