• @DarthFrodo
    link
    8
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Admittedly I don’t know much about her as a person, but how can someone who uses a private jet in 2024 be considered a decent person by any stretch?

    Having such a ludicrously unsustainable lifestyle in a climate emergency that will kill millions and displace hundreds of millions in just a few decades is a crime against humanity, change my mind.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      410 months ago

      The same way a pediatric heart surgeon who also drives a Land Rover can be considered a decent person. People shouldn’t be judged on a single data point.

      • @DarthFrodo
        link
        3
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        A land rover isn’t nearly as polluting and doesn’t drive nearly as far. More importantly, the heart surgeon isn’t a role model in terms of lifestyle aspirations for literally hundreds of millions of followers.

        People shouldn’t be judged on a single data point.

        It’s not like we’re talking about stealing some sweets from children or something. Climate change just gets worse and worse and worse until we reach net zero co2 emissions. As long as it’s culturally accepted to cause massive amounts of completely unnecessary emissions, we don’t have the slightest chance of fixing this.

        The only way a decent person could be doing this is if they were completely uneducated about climate change and their impact as a role model.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          310 months ago

          Do you really think Taylor Swift not having a private plane is going to do anything about climate change when the real problem is major corporations?

          When 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, why is Taylor Swift to be treated as a pariah because she has a private plane?

          Neither the doctor nor Taylor Swift would make the tiniest dent in climate change if they gave those things up and we need to stop blaming individuals when it isn’t individuals who are the problem unless those individuals are running one of those 100 companies. Which Taylor Swift is not.

          • @DarthFrodo
            link
            2
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            There’s always a supplier and a consumer. The pollution of these 100 corporations is caused on behalf of their customers who fund them in exchange for fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. They are both responsible, it’s 2 sides of the same coin.

            Of course, much of this pollution isn’t really avoidable at this point. We can’t have 100% renewable power and electric cars tomorrow. Some really polluting industries will take decades to decarbonize, like steel and cement production. But this makes it even more urgent to adress the low hanging fruit asap, i.e. big sources of pollution that can easily be cut. Private jets are a prime example.

            You could say just a few private jet flights or chopping down one single forest won’t make a dent in global carbon emissions, but that doesn’t mean that thousands around the world can keep on doing it indefinitely without consequences for all of us. Especially if they are idols for millions of people, normalizing harm to society that we can’t afford.