• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    please don’t think I’m defending her actions

    literally defends her actions and says she has no other choice

    • citrusface
      link
      English
      129 months ago

      I didn’t say she had no other choice - I’m asking what her other choices are.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        59 months ago

        At the very least doing what all other celebrities are doing, which is flying a lot less than her

        • citrusface
          link
          English
          5
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          That’s not a solution to the question I asked - She needs to travel in order to entertain. Making suggestions of “she should just stop doing it.” doesn’t work because then she can’t do her job. I’m not hear to debate the ethics of her flying - because I agree, it’s incredibly wasteful and exorbitant.

          I am asking - Since she must travel, what alternatives can she make to travel that are not harmful to the planet. What can she do to at the very least to offset the carbon footprints she’s leaves with every flight.

          • @FrostyTheDoo
            link
            79 months ago

            A lot of celebrities need to travel to entertain. A lot of those celebrities do not fly nearly as much as Taylor Swift does, and continue to make a living. Knowing these facts, one logical answer to your question is that she could probably fly a lot less than she does and still maintain her career as an entertainer.

            It’s not that she shouldn’t travel, which seems to be your takeaway of the criticism of her. It’s that she should fly less, or do it much more efficiently (if she needs to fly, does she need to fly separately from everyone else in her crew that is going to the same location, or can she chart 1 jet for everyone?)

            • citrusface
              link
              English
              29 months ago

              Okay that is fair - flying less is a valid point. Apologies for misreading the prior answer.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Tour busses, guys. Tour busses. They aren’t not harmful, but they are a huge measure less harmful than sending her gear by truck and her by plane so she’s not inconvenienced. But if we were expecting her to be actually not harmful…tour busses that run on biofuel. Artists don’t enjoy being on the road in busses because, yeah, they take longer. But it’s her convenience weighed against the planet.

            • citrusface
              link
              English
              19 months ago

              That’s what I was saying, would a fleet of trucks and buses be any better from an emissions standpoint

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Yes. Because the fleet of trucks and busses already exists. Say there are 20 trucks needed for her tour. 20 trucks + 1 plane is worse than 20 trucks and 1 bus. Especially if, as I mentioned, she actually cared and wanted to run on biofuel. She absolutely could. But it’s easier and more comfortable for her to say, “well I bought carbon credits!” while wasting jet fuel for her comfort alone.