Using data from a popular twitter account which tracks the movements of celebrity planes based on public information, the report stated that celebrity-affiliated planes emitted an average of more than 3,376 metric tons of CO2, about 480 times more than the average person’s annual emissions. The report, which was not peer-reviewed and features a prominent disclaimer about its analysis, includes the names of a handful of celebrities, at least two of whom have publicly disputed the list, saying flight data affiliated with them they do not reflect your current Usage.
Taylor Swift’s plane was identified by the report as the “biggest celebrity CO2e polluter this year so far,” racking up 170 flights since January with emissions totaling more than 8,293 metric tons. A plane affiliated with boxer Floyd Mayweather came in second, emitting around 7,076 metric tons of CO2, with a recorded trip taking just 10 minutes.
Jay-Z, who could not be reached for comment, was listed in third place. After publication, an attorney for Jay-Z told The Washington Post that the rapper does not own the private plane in question; Rolling Stone reported that the flight data used in the analysis is from a plane linked to Puma and attributed to Jay-Z due to its relationship with the brand.
In a statement to The Post, a spokesperson for Swift said: “Taylor’s plane is regularly loaned out to other people. Attributing most or all of these trips to her is blatantly wrong.” Representatives for Mayweather did not respond to a request for comment.
While the analysis notes that their list is “inconclusive” and that “there is no way to determine whether these celebrities were on every recorded flight,” the authors stressed that the purpose of the report is to “highlight the damaging impact of private jets.” “. usage,” a reality that is critically important for frequent flyers and the public to recognize, according to several experts who were not involved in the flight data study. Many other people also often rely on private jets, including politicians, government officials, athletes, business executives, and wealthy individuals.
“A short hop with a private jet requires lifting a 10- to 20-ton jet into the air and then moving it from point A to point B,” he said. Peter of Carlo, an associate professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University who studies atmospheric air pollution. “I know nobody likes being stuck in traffic, but you’re not blowing your car up. … The act of taking a huge piece of metal and putting it up in the sky is going to be a huge carbon footprint that really isn’t necessary, especially for these kinds of short distances.”
And while DeCarlo and other experts acknowledged that a blanket ban on private jet travel, which can meet essential transportation needs in certain situations, is not the solution, they encouraged people, especially celebrities with significant social influence, to consider the environmental impact of your options and the message they might be sending.
“There are valid claims that grounding private jets probably won’t do what we need to move in the right direction on climate change, but it’s really bad optics,” DeCarlo said. If people look up to celebrities as role models, “they want to emulate that behavior. So a private jet becomes a status symbol and something that people aspire to, and that’s not what we need right now in the context of the climate.”
Counting the environmental cost
A report published last year by Transport & Environment, a leading European clean transport campaign group, found that a single private plane can emit 2 metric tons of CO2 in just one hour. To put that into context, the average person in the EU produces around 8.2 tonnes of emissions over the course of a full year, according to the report.
But while these planes are often widely criticized for their environmental impact, it’s important to think about their emissions relative to other forms of transportation, he said. chris fielddirector of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.
Compared to fuel-efficient commercial aircraft and climate-friendly cars such as hybrid or electric vehicles, emissions per passenger mile are substantially higher for private jets, which typically carry few passengers and travel longer distances. short, Field said. But, he pointed out, the fuel economy of a private plane with a reasonable number of passengers could be comparable to that of a single person driving a Ford F-150 pickup.
“There is a certain level of environmental irresponsibility in a person driving an F-150 and certainly the same could be said about business jet travel,” he added.
Environmental concerns about private jets stem largely from how common they have become and how they are used, for example, on short trips or on empty planes to more convenient runways, he said. Colin Murphy, deputy director of the Institute for Policy for Energy, the Environment, and the Economy at the University of California, Davis. Private jet users not only travel a lot, “but they do so in a generally less efficient manner than if they were sitting in an economy seat on a 777 or any of the conventional commercial airliners.”
A fast trip in a private jet emphasizes “the least efficient parts of the aircraft’s duty cycle,” Murphy said, noting that a large amount of fuel is burned during takeoff and lift of the aircraft. “You have all the emissions from taxiing, warming up the engines and taking off and climbing, and not so much from cruising, where you’re actually covering the distance.”
In response to criticism for flights lasting less than 20 minutes, rapper Drake commented on Instagramwriting: “This is just them moving planes to whatever airport they are stored at for anyone interested in logistics… no one takes that flight.”
But moving planes without passengers is another “really problematic use” of private jets, Murphy said.
“What you’re doing is burning many hundreds or thousands of gallons of jet fuel to save a car full of people or a couple of cars full of people over a few hours,” he said. “Is that really the trade-off that we mean to say is acceptable in a world where climate change is no longer a future crisis, but a current crisis?”
Comparing the private with the commercial
In general, smaller planes have lower fuel consumption than larger planes, according to experts. “A fully loaded 737 has about the same emissions per passenger mile as an efficient car like a Prius,” Murphy said.
While larger commercial planes require more fuel, they often carry many more people, with all passengers on the flight sharing the total fuel consumption of the trip, DeCarlo said. But keep in mind, Field said, that sitting in first or business class can often result in a larger carbon footprint compared to an economy seat.
However, one of the main advantages of flying private is comfort.
“We live in a society where, among the very wealthy, convenience trumps everything else,” Field said, “and we would all benefit if we kept the emphasis on convenience in perspective.”
Getting rid of private planes is not the answer to our climate problem, experts say. Although the per-person emissions from private travel are large, they are still not as significant as those produced by the much larger commercial aviation industry, DeCarlo said.
In addition, there are situations where this type of air transportation is necessary, such as during medical emergencies or transporting organ donations, says Field. “Sometimes it’s really critical to get the right team to the right place at the right time, and that’s what business jets can do.”
Instead of banning private jets, experts said it might be more effective to explore regulations or policies aimed at reducing the amount of unnecessary travel.
“You can imagine political levers that would force it to be avoided, you can imagine economic levers that would make it so expensive that it wouldn’t be worth it or the kinds of regulatory things that would make it a nuisance,” Field said. “I am in favor of anything that is effective in decreasing truly frivolous travel without eliminating travel that really makes a difference.”
There is probably no benefit to “demonizing business jets,” Field said. Rather, he said, people should take responsibility for their actions and factor the environmental footprint of what they do into their decision-making.
Sustainability potential
While electric aircraft prototypes are still being developed, private and commercial aviation must take advantage of high-quality carbon offsets and more sustainable jet fuel alternatives made from biomass, algae or plants, Field said. Currently, most of these fuels are generally better than oil, but Murphy pointed out that “they are not zero emissions.”
Beyond cutting back on travel, private jet users should consider changing the way they fly, Field said. Longer flights that carry more passengers can help with overall efficiency, she said, and flying direct instead of stopping for connections can make a difference.
Although finding a long-term sustainable solution for private and commercial air travel is only one piece of the puzzle, experts encouraged travelers to do their part.
“It’s going to be really hard to imagine a world where we’re largely successful in limiting climate change to not many degrees above historical averages, when people are still flying private oil-powered planes at the current rate.” , Murphy said.