this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
224 points (100.0% liked)
196
18191 readers
827 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At the very least doing what all other celebrities are doing, which is flying a lot less than her
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.
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?)
Okay that is fair - flying less is a valid point. Apologies for misreading the prior answer.
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.
That's what I was saying, would a fleet of trucks and buses be any better from an emissions standpoint
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.