A full breakdown of the top 10 celebrity CO2e offenders:
-
Taylor Swift: 8,293.54 tonnes (per year), or 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions.
-
Floyd Mayweather: 7,076.8 tCO2e (tonnes of CO2 emitted, per year)
-
Jay-Z: 6,981.3 tCO2e
-
A-Rod ( J-Lo’s ex-fiance and baseball player) : 5,342.7 tCO2e
-
Blake Shelton: 4495 tCO2e
-
Steven Spielberg: 4,465 tCO2e
-
Kim Kardashian: 4268.5 tCO2e
-
Mark Wahlberg: 3772.85 tCO2e
-
Oprah Winfrey: 3,493.17 tCO2e
-
Travis Scott (Kylie Jenner’s Beau) : 3033.3 tCO2e
The addendum is interesting:
… this finding broadly assumes that all celebrities were using the same grade of private jet, whereas, in reality, there are some jets on the list which emit far more emissions than others. Therefore, revisiting calculations, taking into account the specific jets being used, rather than use a broad estimate of CO2e, we have the consumption of jet fuel during each of these trips, and then identified the CO2e per gallon of jet fuel.
Interestingly [with] these different calculations, we see that the jet owned by Drake uses an average of 1,722 gallons of jet fuel per hour, whereas Taylor Swift’s jet uses a much lower 347 gallons per hour.
taytay’s jet is 5x more efficient than Drake’s, which makes Drake look like an irresponsible fuckhead (surprising no one). His plane is basically rolling coal. Even with the adjustments, Swift still tops the list:
- 1 Taylor Swift 2,971.50
- 2 Drake 2,904.25
- 3 Floyd Mayweather 2,205.22
- 4 Puma/Jay-Z 2,107.72
- 5 Kim Kardashian 1,752.51
- 6 A-Rod 1,731.10
- 7 Steven Spielberg 1,485.69
- 8 Mark Wahlberg* 1,443.27
- 9 Blake Shelton 1,357.85
- 10 Jack Nicklaus 1,129.66
Which means she’s flying a lot more miles than everyone else.
When are we going to introduce tokens to handle externalities like this? It shouldn’t be possible or at least easy to abuse resources like this.
Maybe by getting onto the list, you earn a Manpad token, and have it delivered during your next flight
i see, time for
foodcalorie stamps i guess …That’s not what i’m suggesting, and the limits and costs associated with externalities could be tuned so that the life of a normal person would not be altered if not in the sense that you would get additional tokens that you can keep or sell depending on your needs and personal values. I can elaborate if it’s unclear.
The real change would be that if a billionaire wants to live that kind of lifestyle, they would have to gather enough tokens from the market. This would really enable some sort of trickle down because they would have to buy the tokens from you and you would always be able to tell them “no” and keep them from polluting.
To clarify, these tokens would be in addition to money, not a replacement for them. It’s a concept more similar to the carbon markets but they would be at the level of the citizen.
sure, since its not a single person planet: everyone should have a say on someone’s behaviour toward the climate
Aren’t they renting them out most of the time, making their customer the main culprits?
China and India are renting out their factories to create shit ton of things for the whole world. When the statistics come out, they get blamed for it regardless of the countries profiting off their pollution. why should this be different?
The money from renting it out doesn’t go towards the environment to my knowledge. It’s still not beneficial to anyone but themselves, thus the list makes no distinction.
They’re also not forced to rent them out. They make the decision to trade climate damage for money which is doubly dubious when they probably do not need the money.