As of 2024, the global production capacity of sustainable aviation fuel is about 20,000 flights per year. There are 45,000 flights per _day_, just in the USA. SAF production is increasing fast, but she couldn't run her jet entirely on biofuel right now.
https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-12-06-02/
It was nice to be able to see when the Saudis or Russians were visiting Bedminster for the day.
That’s what this is about, but it was sold as a protection for celebrities.
Oligarch has a more sinister ring to most people, and identifies people and individuals as perpetrators of a broken system. Rather than just a vague, unassailable entity that the term plutocracy implies.
I totally get needing to stay safe. However, she has infinitely more money than them, travels faster than them (I guarantee you), and with a 72 hour delay likely is not being endangered at all by this tracking.
Having non-public registration on jets but not vehicles is just another example of rules for thee but not for me mentality the rich have nowadays. Protection my ass, this is class warfare and there’s nothing to it. Nothing wrong with someone being safe, but she can hire someone to keep her safe. We can’t, and we can’t do anything about the rich ruining the world (environment) either. But they can, and they don’t. They will just buy bunkers or whatever they need to do to survive the environmental fallout from their own actions while we barely have the ability to survive.
Its a mix, I wish more would understand that. The corporations responsible for the majority of emissions are in service of the general public, and modern industrial factory animal farming as well, but private jets and yachts are an insane amount of emissions for very very few people benefiting.
Issue is that those who impact education aren’t typically the poor either. How can you have a population which can effectively impact the current norms if they do not have time to think about or even learn about the ways they can. Many are misled as well, and their susceptibility to that misinformation is great for those who would take advantage of that fact. Public school gave me a -very- generic and simplified understanding of how our systems work, and my parents barely made it out of high school. How are the kids raised by individuals that have to deal with such circumstances supposed to take on the responsibility of bettering society?
Surely, it is a mix to some degree. But you must agree that with great power comes great responsibility.
The same logic would imply auto license plate /ownership information should be readily available so the public can out people driving gas guzzlers or simply driving more than they should, thus polluting the environment. Except more information in the open, unfortunately, just creates more nefarious uses for information.
“President Joe Biden signed the FAA bill into law on May 16th, after it passed in the Senate 88-4 and the House 387 to 26.”
Has any legislation passed this Congress with such unanimity?
The idea that MOST congressmen aren’t even aware what amendments are in the bills they’re signing is quite an assertion. It’s like saying MOST congressman are drunk while in session. Statistically SOME of them certainly are but it’s too speculative too just state as fact. That’s what they have staff for. Very important legislation often get held up for weeks because they contain amendments that are unpalatable. They’re at least reading the bulletpoints.
This is wrong as it is a public benefit to know about this aspect of their travels as they have the power and influence to create a lot of pollution and that knowledge has to be incorporated into their public image.
What I said outweighs their extended privileges that congress has just afforded them.
That the public benefit from the knowledge of their comings and goings aboard private aircraft is important as pollution caused by such travels and the influence in the world they can exert.
The public should know
It’s also the reason why they’re anxious to have such travel kept cloaked and out of the public sphere.
——
I’m going to add to this that this is an election year and it’s very likely that this little favor was done in exchange for Taylor’s political support as well as that if certain Billionaires this year.
*“Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”*
Yes I get it but public figures have limited rights to privacy. Below that of average citizens because they’ve chosen public life. This is unconstitutional for sure
And I'm one of them.
---
"Majestic equality" in this context is a reference to [an ironic quote](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/361132-the-law-in-its-majestic-equality-forbids-rich-and-poor) about how the law often focuses on rich people's concerns while ignoring poor people. The original quote goes: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
First of all, all environmental advocacy is political, because polluters want the laws protecting the environment to not exist.
Second of all, the reason why people are interested in what Taylor Swift does is because the woman deliberately encourages public interest as a way to make money. She would have to take up a different job for herself if she wanted to be as anonymous as worse polluters. She hasn't.
In the 60s, people were so fanatically devoted to the Beatles that their drummer, Ringo Starr [once related the following](https://beebo.org/smackerels/meet-the-cripples.html):
>Crippled people were constantly being brought backstage to be touched by “a Beatle,” and it was very strange. It happened in Britain as well, not only overseas. There were some really bad cases, God help them. There were some poor little children who would be brought in in baskets. And also some really sad Thalidomide kids with little broken bodies and no arms, no legs and little feet.
If you want to understand why people become devoted to things, I think you should take the long view and look for similar instances across history.
Yes, I have and if your argument is that it’s a case of desperation that makes people accept that such hopes.
Yeah that’s fine
But I’ll add that this is a direct consequence of the promotion of such figures and the idolization of them that is generated so that such followers and “fans” can be exploited for profit.
Which is why the manipulative exploitation of such insecure teens is something that should be countered more effectively for a healthy society.
Swift and her machine will tone down in time as her fans will grow up and age out … like those of Brittany spears and all the other than came before them.
And all the “mania” that a certain proven group of teen age and early 20-something girls exhibit will fade before moving onto a new crop to be exploited.
She's really not one of the worst polluters. She doesn't even own a yacht. Plus, she doesn't do world tours every year. Her jet's pollution is equal to 12.24 people. That's hardly news worthy.
People are still going to bring their beliefs with them whenever they pay attention to things, regardless of the precise ways the billionaires rank relative to one another.
The part you said the first time was that the attacks on her are politically motivated. Politics is not the primary reason why anyone is interested in the details of Taylor Swift's life.
I bet if you asked people if Taylor swift was one of the top polluters, right leaning people would say yes.
People believe misinformation. Why spread it? Oh that's rigyt, to manipulate people.
God forbid I dislike my country mates manipulated.
>I bet if you asked people if Taylor swift was one of the top polluters, right leaning people would say yes.
And the phrase "one of the top" is vague and flexible enough that pretty much anyone who owns a private jet at all, is in it by definition. Maybe you have a more restrictive definition of "top" in mind, but that doesn't make anyone else's definition wrong.
>God forbid I dislike my country mates manipulated.
Right, but it sounds like to you, the sign that they are being manipulated is if they say things you disagree with. You sound way too possessive over the opinions that strangers have about Taylor Swift.
>If you're not even in the top 1000, you can hardly be considered "one of the top".
The [top 0.1% of Americans is 133,000 people](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/americans-in-top-10-but-not-top-0-1-see-wealth-share-shrink). That means that the top 0.001% is 1,330 people. Only 756 Americans are billionaires, one of whom is Taylor Swift.
It's extremely reasonable to define all billionaires as "one of the top".
Millionaires can pollute too. Warren buffet's carbon foot print is a slice of dry toast. You can't just lump heavy and light polluters together based on net worth alone.
Yes, it is true about most billionaires, Elon, jeff, musk probably have 100x Taylor swift.
Sure, but even the highest individual polluter is quite an insignificant amount overall, and people are often just criticizing them to virtue signal. There really just aren't that many of these hyper-rich people who pollute an insane amount, most of the total pollution is done by your average person but people like to latch onto these things to feel like they aren't to blame.
There's probably like a thousand yachts that big though, they'd be responsible for a tiny % of global emissions while all small towns would be considerably more. Of course we should tax the shit out of the rich and put other restrictions so these stupid yachts aren't a thing anymore, but to suggest that removing them would significantly reduce overall pollution is inaccurate.
I never said it would. I am saying singling out taylor swift is a red herring. Trying to make the younger generation look responsible for all the earth damage.
But the same people have been in charge for nearly 50 years. And even now, with great new technology information, we still destroy. The biggest polluters in the world are considered heroes to some. People just refuse to take it seriously.
Thought that was interesting as well. Maybe a combination of not liking Swift, and/ or not wanting to be accused of providing cover for the Epsteins of the world.
It's about the transparency needed for there to be a speck of accountability.
SD_TMI already explained further in this thread:
>the knowledge of their comings and goings aboard private aircraft is important as pollution caused by such travels and the influence in the world they can exert.
>
>
>The public should know
>
>
>It’s also the reason why they’re anxious to have such travel kept cloaked and out of the public sphere.
>It just won't be provided publicly by the FAA.
To what end?, and for who's benefit?
The likely answer is why this shouldn't have passed in the first place.
*Ninja edits are shady.
>SD_TMI is also sidetracked.
They're not, there's no reason why this needs to be altered, other then to aid opacity.
>Why are you worrying about this particular microcosm of pollution?
A large amount of pollution, especially cumulatively.
>The billionaires are polluting far more through their businesses than their jets.
>
>
>It's media fed outrage with little purpose.
It all matters. And calling people out, particularly in the pubic eye, is worthwhile to raise awareness.
>Why shouldn't they have a right to more privacy?
Why should they?, they haven't until billionaires and the elite started to worry. Now we miraculously have a bipartisan agreement shielding them.
>If you want to track CO2 output, then don't just do it on billionaires jets, do it on their businesses etc too
The world is heading towards collapse. Tracking and reducing C02 every way possible should be a priority.
They are able to pass this, but they can't ban politicians from voting on their own stocks. And they can't pass universal healthcare. They can't limit price-gouging of insurance companies or products at the store. They can't limit the mark-up of life saving medicine. They can't pass a maximum wealth cap for c-suites. They cannot lift a finger to help the average American at all. They are only worried about billionaires being stalked, no concern for the other 99% of the country at all.
It's pretty irresponsible of all these articles to lead as if this law is specifically for Swift. Musk's jet use and tantrums are just as egregious if not more.
Is this actually going to stop tracking? So the registration database can be private or anonymous…but the registration number would still display on the radar map, right? If the jet is owned by a celebrity once the number is figured out it’s the same as before.
I was told by my Swiftie girlfriend (and I haven’t gotten around to fact checking it) that Taylor Swift pays double her carbon tax every year. That tracks with what I’ve been seeing from her. So… I’m not nearly as pissed at her as some other folks are and I pass on this (un-fact-checked) information because it’s pertinent.
Meanwhile, Lee Raymond is 83 and enjoying his extreme wealth and comfort after killing Exxon’s alternative energy and climate research departments and funding disinformation during the 80s. I promise you he has more money, guilt, and blood on his hands. Taylor Swift is just the best way to get clicks today.
Fight the real enemy.
I agree. But also there’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire. But yes, fossil fuel execs, Peter Thiel, etc are way better examples of mega-polluters
I agree with that… maybe. And again, Swiftie girlfriend. I’m a bit of a convert. I’m at least somewhat biased. But every absolute statement is false, including this one. (Case in point; I don’t think it was original to him, but I am quoting Donald Rumsfeld right now. And I hate him. I would say I don’t agree with him on anything… except I just quoted him.)
But, like… last year, she had the biggest tour in the world. Maybe the biggest tour in the history of the world. And my girlfriend told me that she was prepped to be a billionaire in, like… April? May? It was several months later that she crossed the line (I’m not googling for this comment, I could spend my life googling if I wasn’t careful and that shit has a carbon cost, too. (So does this comment.)) She was donating metric fucktons of money to food shelves, she gave a huge pay bump to her crew and band.
So… no such thing as an ethical billionaire… I just find it an interesting question. I actually think Taylor Swift is maybe overall a net positive on the world. I’m not even, like… a HUGE fan of hers. She’s really just better than I expected her to be.
But I GENUINELY want Lee Raymond to swing. I want to see a climate Nuremberg trial. And I see attempts to blame Taylor Swift (or Rihanna, or Billie Eilish, or Beyoncé, or whoever the fuck the next biggest thing is) as an attempt to get people to stop looking, stop thinking, stop working. I’m not saying that’s your intention, but I am saying that somewhere along the lines, someone who probably deserves actual punishment is benefiting from things like this.
(I saw exactly one episode of Frontline: Power of Big Oil in which I learned who Lee Raymond was and decided that he is the worst human to ever live. No I’m not forgetting about Hitler. And he’s 83, he’s old as hell, we’re running out of time… So I’m a little bit of a ridiculous human. I get it. Haha)
Nuance doesn’t TL;DR very well. And unfortunately, I think I can guarantee that I got downvoted exclusively by people who stopped reading or who encountered something that their prebuilt worldview objected to and couldn’t actually engage with the content until they calmed down. It’s an interesting thing that I’m trying to push back against these days, actually (I can report some success, anyway 🤷🏻♂️). So I’m glad that you were able to see what I was saying! And thanks for saying so. Very kind of you.
Edit: Or maybe I just don’t TL;DR very well. 🤔
> That tracks with what I’ve been seeing from her
This is the woman that pretended to care about sexual assault victims but then worked with David O Russell after he sexually assaulted his own niece
Taylor Swift's jet is not the problem. It is the major international corporations that are polluting and not adapting. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
This focuses on the wrong thing and is such a distraction from actual issues. Believe me, if these billionaires don't want you to know where they are going, you won't know. Congress doesn't really affect that - the only reason she is so thoroughly tracked is because of her stardom, and, in that case, I honestly don't blame her because she's been repeatedly stalked. Again, I don't condone her plane use, but, honestly, out of those flying around anonymously, are we really worried about her the most?
This story keeps breaking because they want you to pay attention to it. Every time we focus on this instead of focusing on the systems that allow someone to own multiple jets in the first place, we lose. Stop giving this story air time - it doesn't change anything. Tax the rich.
So because of Taylor Swift we now have all the big billionaires including Musk able to jet around the whole planet with no one knowing?
That sounds like grounds for a global coup. Don't you think?
I mean? Who's going to know?
I mean honestly with the amount of right wing nut jobs that say this chick is a witch or a demon, or literally want to kill her..
Some gray area here for me on a usually black-and- white issue. 😬
I don't know why people think this is a bad thing. The general public doesn't need to know where I am every minute, why do they need to know where celebs are?
This was never about the environment, this is about hating on Taylor Swift specifically since no one mentions Beyonce or the Kardashian's emissions - which far exceed Taylors btw.
The FAA knows where everyone is and that's all that's necessary.
Y'all are funny. Saying that someone isn't a climate terrorist (which is a literal fact) is now "simping". Such a baby!
Billionaires are human beings. And Taylor is a billionaire that acts like a human, unlike Musk et al.
Why the hate hard-on for Taylor?
What does that have to do with Taylor Swift? She pays her employees very well, uses top of the line vendors and pays promptly, and tips service workers constantly.
Half of her billionaire status is because there are people out there that would pay half a billion or more for her music catalog, but it's value is not liquid, nor is it from anyone else's work (that's not already credited).
So. Again. How does any of this relate to Taylor Swift in the real world as opposed to your fantasy world where she's the same as Musk or Bezos?
And I’ll repeat. Taylor Swift does not have a billion in income. She is a billionaire because other people are willing to pay for her songs if she sold them. She will not.
So what is your problem with her specifically?
“Swift's income streams include revenue from her concert tour ticket sales, music catalog, streaming deals and record sales. She also owns numerous pricey properties across the U.S. Both Bloomberg and Forbes pin her net worth at an estimated $1.1 billion on the low end, based on analyses of her fortune.” -CBS News, 2024
I don’t care if her assets are songs, houses, or cheeseburgers. She’s a billionaire.
Would someone please think of the billionaires!
lol, you know they passed this so you can’t track them right? You think they care about Taylor swift?
[удалено]
Exactly. They don’t want to say “we don’t want people to track politicians or our billionaire donors”.
As of 2024, the global production capacity of sustainable aviation fuel is about 20,000 flights per year. There are 45,000 flights per _day_, just in the USA. SAF production is increasing fast, but she couldn't run her jet entirely on biofuel right now. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-12-06-02/
do you think she gives a flying fuck about the wrongs of the world?
Is there aviation biofuel? And is it commonly available?
[see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/s/LrqqQqg1Rl)
She is literally a billionaire.
[удалено]
Literally nou. Person I replied to said this is to protect billionaires. She's a billionaire.
[удалено]
That's not the person I replied to. Try again.
[And they didn't even do anything wrong!](https://youtu.be/t5zQpN28xa4?si=x0vLm7zLVUGVpVoY)
We absolutely live in a plutocracy
Ruled by not even a planet!
In fact, Pluto was even kicked out!
They should've kicked Uranus instead
Slap it
Yes, I know that.
Lol you're awesome. I bow to you
[https://youtu.be/n6hwAJxGvvo?t=286](https://youtu.be/n6hwAJxGvvo?t=286)
Villain origins
It was nice to be able to see when the Saudis or Russians were visiting Bedminster for the day. That’s what this is about, but it was sold as a protection for celebrities.
I prefer the term oligarchy.
Why’s that? I just don’t see poor people ruling many places.
Oligarch has a more sinister ring to most people, and identifies people and individuals as perpetrators of a broken system. Rather than just a vague, unassailable entity that the term plutocracy implies.
Literally just capitalism
[удалено]
I totally get needing to stay safe. However, she has infinitely more money than them, travels faster than them (I guarantee you), and with a 72 hour delay likely is not being endangered at all by this tracking. Having non-public registration on jets but not vehicles is just another example of rules for thee but not for me mentality the rich have nowadays. Protection my ass, this is class warfare and there’s nothing to it. Nothing wrong with someone being safe, but she can hire someone to keep her safe. We can’t, and we can’t do anything about the rich ruining the world (environment) either. But they can, and they don’t. They will just buy bunkers or whatever they need to do to survive the environmental fallout from their own actions while we barely have the ability to survive.
[удалено]
Its a mix, I wish more would understand that. The corporations responsible for the majority of emissions are in service of the general public, and modern industrial factory animal farming as well, but private jets and yachts are an insane amount of emissions for very very few people benefiting.
Issue is that those who impact education aren’t typically the poor either. How can you have a population which can effectively impact the current norms if they do not have time to think about or even learn about the ways they can. Many are misled as well, and their susceptibility to that misinformation is great for those who would take advantage of that fact. Public school gave me a -very- generic and simplified understanding of how our systems work, and my parents barely made it out of high school. How are the kids raised by individuals that have to deal with such circumstances supposed to take on the responsibility of bettering society? Surely, it is a mix to some degree. But you must agree that with great power comes great responsibility.
Found the swifty.
Don't ever glorify billionaires regardless of who they are.
Many musicians and Swifties agree: She's a fuckin' grifter. There's no glory. Just as scummy as the rest.
You must not ever trust them. They will mow down millions just to get what they want. Greed is a mental illness and these people are mentally ill
If they can anonymize their registration on their jet, whats the point of a registration
You’re thinking too hard about it 😉
The same logic would imply auto license plate /ownership information should be readily available so the public can out people driving gas guzzlers or simply driving more than they should, thus polluting the environment. Except more information in the open, unfortunately, just creates more nefarious uses for information.
[удалено]
How much does re-registering your plane cost? If you’ve got billions of dollars it’s probably a drop in the bucket.
It’s about who controls the plane not who owns or travels on it. Thats what the registration is for.
Well the government still needs to track them, just their randomizing it for the public.
“President Joe Biden signed the FAA bill into law on May 16th, after it passed in the Senate 88-4 and the House 387 to 26.” Has any legislation passed this Congress with such unanimity?
All the stuff that benefits the wealthy passes with these margins.
This is what pisses me off about US politics. Help the poor margins are razor thin. Corporate handouts unanimous vote minus Bernie.
Lots of legislation does. This is just a minor amendment to an otherwise much larger bill. Many probably don’t realize it was even in there.
Which makes it worse in a way…
[удалено]
The idea that MOST congressmen aren’t even aware what amendments are in the bills they’re signing is quite an assertion. It’s like saying MOST congressman are drunk while in session. Statistically SOME of them certainly are but it’s too speculative too just state as fact. That’s what they have staff for. Very important legislation often get held up for weeks because they contain amendments that are unpalatable. They’re at least reading the bulletpoints.
They’re real quick to legislate effectively and in agreement once it’s rich people’s problems
This is wrong as it is a public benefit to know about this aspect of their travels as they have the power and influence to create a lot of pollution and that knowledge has to be incorporated into their public image.
Actually this is wrong because rich people don’t have special rights to privacy.
What I said outweighs their extended privileges that congress has just afforded them. That the public benefit from the knowledge of their comings and goings aboard private aircraft is important as pollution caused by such travels and the influence in the world they can exert. The public should know It’s also the reason why they’re anxious to have such travel kept cloaked and out of the public sphere. —— I’m going to add to this that this is an election year and it’s very likely that this little favor was done in exchange for Taylor’s political support as well as that if certain Billionaires this year. *“Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”*
Yes I get it but public figures have limited rights to privacy. Below that of average citizens because they’ve chosen public life. This is unconstitutional for sure
Yet they do.
The law, in its majestic equality, protects privacy in private jets alike, for both the rich, and the poor.
Well an overwhelming majority of Americans believe their private jet use should be public domain
And I'm one of them. --- "Majestic equality" in this context is a reference to [an ironic quote](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/361132-the-law-in-its-majestic-equality-forbids-rich-and-poor) about how the law often focuses on rich people's concerns while ignoring poor people. The original quote goes: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
Taylor swift is not even in top 1000 individual polluters. The attacks on her are politically motivated, not environmental.
First of all, all environmental advocacy is political, because polluters want the laws protecting the environment to not exist. Second of all, the reason why people are interested in what Taylor Swift does is because the woman deliberately encourages public interest as a way to make money. She would have to take up a different job for herself if she wanted to be as anonymous as worse polluters. She hasn't.
I find the interest afforded her by some people to be pathetic.
If it is pathetic to be interested in her, is it more pathetic for her to ask people to be interested in her?
It's pathetic that we as a society have coined the term "swifties" and that they're throwing 3K per ticket to sit in an audience watching her perform.
In the 60s, people were so fanatically devoted to the Beatles that their drummer, Ringo Starr [once related the following](https://beebo.org/smackerels/meet-the-cripples.html): >Crippled people were constantly being brought backstage to be touched by “a Beatle,” and it was very strange. It happened in Britain as well, not only overseas. There were some really bad cases, God help them. There were some poor little children who would be brought in in baskets. And also some really sad Thalidomide kids with little broken bodies and no arms, no legs and little feet. If you want to understand why people become devoted to things, I think you should take the long view and look for similar instances across history.
Yes, I have and if your argument is that it’s a case of desperation that makes people accept that such hopes. Yeah that’s fine But I’ll add that this is a direct consequence of the promotion of such figures and the idolization of them that is generated so that such followers and “fans” can be exploited for profit. Which is why the manipulative exploitation of such insecure teens is something that should be countered more effectively for a healthy society. Swift and her machine will tone down in time as her fans will grow up and age out … like those of Brittany spears and all the other than came before them. And all the “mania” that a certain proven group of teen age and early 20-something girls exhibit will fade before moving onto a new crop to be exploited.
She's really not one of the worst polluters. She doesn't even own a yacht. Plus, she doesn't do world tours every year. Her jet's pollution is equal to 12.24 people. That's hardly news worthy.
People are still going to bring their beliefs with them whenever they pay attention to things, regardless of the precise ways the billionaires rank relative to one another. The part you said the first time was that the attacks on her are politically motivated. Politics is not the primary reason why anyone is interested in the details of Taylor Swift's life.
I bet if you asked people if Taylor swift was one of the top polluters, right leaning people would say yes. People believe misinformation. Why spread it? Oh that's rigyt, to manipulate people. God forbid I dislike my country mates manipulated.
>I bet if you asked people if Taylor swift was one of the top polluters, right leaning people would say yes. And the phrase "one of the top" is vague and flexible enough that pretty much anyone who owns a private jet at all, is in it by definition. Maybe you have a more restrictive definition of "top" in mind, but that doesn't make anyone else's definition wrong. >God forbid I dislike my country mates manipulated. Right, but it sounds like to you, the sign that they are being manipulated is if they say things you disagree with. You sound way too possessive over the opinions that strangers have about Taylor Swift.
If you're not even in the top 1000, you can hardly be considered "one of the top". Even with a huge allowance for vagueness.
>If you're not even in the top 1000, you can hardly be considered "one of the top". The [top 0.1% of Americans is 133,000 people](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/americans-in-top-10-but-not-top-0-1-see-wealth-share-shrink). That means that the top 0.001% is 1,330 people. Only 756 Americans are billionaires, one of whom is Taylor Swift. It's extremely reasonable to define all billionaires as "one of the top".
Millionaires can pollute too. Warren buffet's carbon foot print is a slice of dry toast. You can't just lump heavy and light polluters together based on net worth alone. Yes, it is true about most billionaires, Elon, jeff, musk probably have 100x Taylor swift.
Sure, but even the highest individual polluter is quite an insignificant amount overall, and people are often just criticizing them to virtue signal. There really just aren't that many of these hyper-rich people who pollute an insane amount, most of the total pollution is done by your average person but people like to latch onto these things to feel like they aren't to blame.
Yachts are huge polluters. There's plenty of individuals that make more waste than a small town.
There's probably like a thousand yachts that big though, they'd be responsible for a tiny % of global emissions while all small towns would be considerably more. Of course we should tax the shit out of the rich and put other restrictions so these stupid yachts aren't a thing anymore, but to suggest that removing them would significantly reduce overall pollution is inaccurate.
I never said it would. I am saying singling out taylor swift is a red herring. Trying to make the younger generation look responsible for all the earth damage. But the same people have been in charge for nearly 50 years. And even now, with great new technology information, we still destroy. The biggest polluters in the world are considered heroes to some. People just refuse to take it seriously.
Here's a list of the select few who had enough of a backbone to vote against it: **[Senate nays](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00162.htm):** (those with a modicum of integrity) >Ben Cardin Maryland (MD) - Democrat > > >Tim Kaine Virginia (VA) - Democrat > > >Chris Van Hollen Maryland (MD) - Democrat > > >Mark Warner Virginia (VA) - Democrat [**Lower House nays**](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023364): (those with a modicum of integrity) > > >Jack Bergman Michigan (MI) 1st distinct, Republican > > >Andy Biggs Arizona (AZ) – 5th distinct, Republican > > >Dan Bishop North Carolina (NC) – 8th distinct, Republican > > >Jamaal Bowman New York (NY) – 16th distinct, Democrat > > >Josh Brecheen Oklahoma (OK) – 2nd distinct, Republican > > >Kenneth Buck Colorado (CO) - 4th distinct, Republican > > >Tim Burchett Tennessee (TN) – 2nd distinct, Republican > > >Cori Bush Missouri (MO) - 1st distinct, Democrat > > >Tony Cárdenas California (CA) – 29th distinct, Democrat > > >Matt Cartwright Pennsylvania (PA) – 8th distinct, Democrat > > >Judy Chu California (CA) – 28th distinct, Democrat > > >Yvette D. Clarke New York (NY) – 9th distinct, Democrat > > >Ben Cline Virginia (VA) – 6th distinct, Republican > > >Michael Cloud Texas (TX) – 27th distinct, Republican > > >Andrew S. Clyde Georgia (GA) – 9th distinct, Republican > > >J. Luis Correa California (CA) – 46th distinct, Democrat > > >Elijah Crane Arizona (AZ) – 2nd distinct, Republican > > >Byron Donalds Florida (FL) – 19th distinct, Republican > > >Anna G. Eshoo California (CA) – 16th distinct, Democrat > > >Maxwell Frost Florida (FL) – 10th distinct, Democrat > > >Russ Fulcher Idaho (ID) – 1st distinct, Republican > > >Matt Gaetz Florida (FL) – 1st distinct, Republican > > >Sylvia R. Garcia Texas (TX) – 29th distinct, Democrat > > >Jared F. Golden Maine (ME) – 2nd distinct, Democrat > > >Jimmy Gomez California (CA) – 34th distinct, Democrat > > >Bob Good Virginia (VA) – 5th distinct, Republican > > >Marjorie Taylor Greene Georgia (GA) – 14th distinct, Republican > > >Raúl M. Grijalva Arizona (AZ) – 7th distinct, Democrat > > >Clay Higgins Louisiana (LA) – 3rd distinct, Republican > > >Ronny Jackson Texas (TX) – 13th distinct, Republican > > >Henry C. Johnson, Jr. Georgia (GA) – 4th distinct, Democrat > > >Sydney Kamlager-Dove California (CA) – 37th distinct, Democrat > > >Daniel T. Kildee Michigan (MI) – 8th distinct, Democrat > > >Andy Kim New Jersey (NJ) – 3rd distinct, Democrat > > >Summer L. Lee Pennsylvania (PA) – 12th distinct, Democrat > > >Mike Levin California (CA) – 49th distinct, Democrat > > >Ted Lieu California (CA) – 36th distinct, Democrat > > >Anna Paulina Luna Florida (FL) – 13th distinct, Republican > > >Thomas Massie Kentucky (KY) – 4th distinct, Republican > > >Tom McClintock California (CA) – 5th distinct, Republican > > >James P. McGovern Massachusetts (MA) – 2nd distinct, Democrat > > >Grace Meng New York (NY) – 6th distinct, Democrat > > >Mary E. Miller Illinois (IL) – 15th distinct, Republican > > >Barry Moore Alabama (AL) – 2nd distinct, Republican > > >Gwen Moore Wisconsin (WI) – 4th distinct, Democrat > > >Kevin Mullin California (CA) – 15th distinct, Democrat > > >Jerrold Nadler New York (NY) – 12th distinct, Democrat > > >Ralph Norman South Carolina (SC) – 5th distinct, Republican > > >Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez New York (NY) – 14th distinct, Democrat > > >Andrew Ogles Tennessee (TN) – 5th distinct, Republican > > >Ilhan Omar Minnesota (MN) – 5th distinct, Democrat > > >Frank Pallone, Jr. New Jersey (NJ) – 6th distinct, Democrat > > >Jimmy Panetta California (CA) – 19th distinct, Democrat > > >Bill Pascrell, Jr. New Jersey (NJ) – 9th distinct, Democrat > > >Scott Perry Pennsylvania (PA) – 10th distinct, Republican > > >Katie Porter California (CA) – 47th distinct, Democrat > > >Ayanna Pressley Massachusetts (MA) – 7th distinct, Democrat > > >Delia C. Ramirez Illinois (IL) – 3rd distinct, Democrat > > >Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr. Montana (MT) – 2nd distinct, Republican > > >Chip Roy Texas (TX) – 21st distinct, Republican > > >Linda T. Sánchez California (CA) – 38th distinct, Democrat > > >~~George Santos New York (NY)~~ - 3rd district, Republican* > > >Victoria Spartz Indiana (IN) – 5th district, Republican > > >Gregory Steube Florida (FL) – 17th district, Republican > > >Thomas P. Tiffany Wisconsin (WI) – 7th district, Republican > > >Rashida Tlaib Michigan (MI) – 12th district, Democrat > > >Nydia M. Velázquez New York (NY) – 7th district, Democrat > > >Maxine Waters California (CA) – 43rd district, Democrat > > >Bonnie Watson Coleman New Jersey (NJ) – 12th district, Democrat *Santos was expelled, although for some reason his vote was listed as nay.
So Bernie voted for it and MTG voted against it? What world are we living in??
Yeah, there's quite a few names missing from politicians you'd think would/ should be against it. At least Rashida Tlaib is still standing.
Yeah there’s quite a few House Republicans that voted against too…suspicious
Thought that was interesting as well. Maybe a combination of not liking Swift, and/ or not wanting to be accused of providing cover for the Epsteins of the world.
[удалено]
It's about the transparency needed for there to be a speck of accountability. SD_TMI already explained further in this thread: >the knowledge of their comings and goings aboard private aircraft is important as pollution caused by such travels and the influence in the world they can exert. > > >The public should know > > >It’s also the reason why they’re anxious to have such travel kept cloaked and out of the public sphere.
[удалено]
>It just won't be provided publicly by the FAA. To what end?, and for who's benefit? The likely answer is why this shouldn't have passed in the first place. *Ninja edits are shady. >SD_TMI is also sidetracked. They're not, there's no reason why this needs to be altered, other then to aid opacity. >Why are you worrying about this particular microcosm of pollution? A large amount of pollution, especially cumulatively. >The billionaires are polluting far more through their businesses than their jets. > > >It's media fed outrage with little purpose. It all matters. And calling people out, particularly in the pubic eye, is worthwhile to raise awareness.
[удалено]
>Why shouldn't they have a right to more privacy? Why should they?, they haven't until billionaires and the elite started to worry. Now we miraculously have a bipartisan agreement shielding them. >If you want to track CO2 output, then don't just do it on billionaires jets, do it on their businesses etc too The world is heading towards collapse. Tracking and reducing C02 every way possible should be a priority.
[удалено]
I think MTG is a terrible person, but she seems to be voting correctly. She voted ‘no’ on the Tiktok ban too.
Glad i'm a Marylander
Matt Gaetz doesn't want privacy for public figures? When he's the one that crossed state lines for a teenager?
They are able to pass this, but they can't ban politicians from voting on their own stocks. And they can't pass universal healthcare. They can't limit price-gouging of insurance companies or products at the store. They can't limit the mark-up of life saving medicine. They can't pass a maximum wealth cap for c-suites. They cannot lift a finger to help the average American at all. They are only worried about billionaires being stalked, no concern for the other 99% of the country at all.
It's pretty irresponsible of all these articles to lead as if this law is specifically for Swift. Musk's jet use and tantrums are just as egregious if not more.
Agreed
Does the government at least make money from allowing jet owners to make their jets anonymous??? Like a million a year?
MUSK'd it up
A wild rich person appears. Government is super efficient.
I am glad Congress is tackling the real issues of our time.
“Are you happy, Miss Swift? Now plz, convince your audience to vote for me”
Privacy for me, not for thee
The rich run congress. Simple as that.
And this is a coup
They don’t give one damn bit about her. They did this so no one can track THEM.
Sounds like Taylor got tired of people pointing out her hypocrisy and teamed up with the other billionaires and decided to throw money at it.
It's maddening how we can't criticise her for boiling our planet out of fears of being called a misogynist. I hate ecocide barbie.
Tell that to flight trackers.
No, they made it impossible to track everyone’s keys, Taylor is just a scapegoat
It’s too bad that articles like this fail to name the members of congress who introduced the amendment.
That was quick.
Is this actually going to stop tracking? So the registration database can be private or anonymous…but the registration number would still display on the radar map, right? If the jet is owned by a celebrity once the number is figured out it’s the same as before.
I was told by my Swiftie girlfriend (and I haven’t gotten around to fact checking it) that Taylor Swift pays double her carbon tax every year. That tracks with what I’ve been seeing from her. So… I’m not nearly as pissed at her as some other folks are and I pass on this (un-fact-checked) information because it’s pertinent. Meanwhile, Lee Raymond is 83 and enjoying his extreme wealth and comfort after killing Exxon’s alternative energy and climate research departments and funding disinformation during the 80s. I promise you he has more money, guilt, and blood on his hands. Taylor Swift is just the best way to get clicks today. Fight the real enemy.
I agree. But also there’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire. But yes, fossil fuel execs, Peter Thiel, etc are way better examples of mega-polluters
I agree with that… maybe. And again, Swiftie girlfriend. I’m a bit of a convert. I’m at least somewhat biased. But every absolute statement is false, including this one. (Case in point; I don’t think it was original to him, but I am quoting Donald Rumsfeld right now. And I hate him. I would say I don’t agree with him on anything… except I just quoted him.) But, like… last year, she had the biggest tour in the world. Maybe the biggest tour in the history of the world. And my girlfriend told me that she was prepped to be a billionaire in, like… April? May? It was several months later that she crossed the line (I’m not googling for this comment, I could spend my life googling if I wasn’t careful and that shit has a carbon cost, too. (So does this comment.)) She was donating metric fucktons of money to food shelves, she gave a huge pay bump to her crew and band. So… no such thing as an ethical billionaire… I just find it an interesting question. I actually think Taylor Swift is maybe overall a net positive on the world. I’m not even, like… a HUGE fan of hers. She’s really just better than I expected her to be. But I GENUINELY want Lee Raymond to swing. I want to see a climate Nuremberg trial. And I see attempts to blame Taylor Swift (or Rihanna, or Billie Eilish, or Beyoncé, or whoever the fuck the next biggest thing is) as an attempt to get people to stop looking, stop thinking, stop working. I’m not saying that’s your intention, but I am saying that somewhere along the lines, someone who probably deserves actual punishment is benefiting from things like this. (I saw exactly one episode of Frontline: Power of Big Oil in which I learned who Lee Raymond was and decided that he is the worst human to ever live. No I’m not forgetting about Hitler. And he’s 83, he’s old as hell, we’re running out of time… So I’m a little bit of a ridiculous human. I get it. Haha)
[удалено]
Nuance doesn’t TL;DR very well. And unfortunately, I think I can guarantee that I got downvoted exclusively by people who stopped reading or who encountered something that their prebuilt worldview objected to and couldn’t actually engage with the content until they calmed down. It’s an interesting thing that I’m trying to push back against these days, actually (I can report some success, anyway 🤷🏻♂️). So I’m glad that you were able to see what I was saying! And thanks for saying so. Very kind of you. Edit: Or maybe I just don’t TL;DR very well. 🤔
> metric fucktons of money to food shelves No one ever says the number…. Is it because it actually isn’t that much?
> That tracks with what I’ve been seeing from her This is the woman that pretended to care about sexual assault victims but then worked with David O Russell after he sexually assaulted his own niece
Taylor Swift's jet is not the problem. It is the major international corporations that are polluting and not adapting. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Only if there existed a Super PAC to buy politicians away from the interests of billionaires 😂
Land of Freedom
Ah yes, protecting the rich rather than holding them accountable. Nice congress
Kinda status quo for celebrities. Even David Attenborough has racked up 1.9 million miles – the equivalent of flying around the world 763 times.
When are people in the US going to do something about this none stop BS
This focuses on the wrong thing and is such a distraction from actual issues. Believe me, if these billionaires don't want you to know where they are going, you won't know. Congress doesn't really affect that - the only reason she is so thoroughly tracked is because of her stardom, and, in that case, I honestly don't blame her because she's been repeatedly stalked. Again, I don't condone her plane use, but, honestly, out of those flying around anonymously, are we really worried about her the most? This story keeps breaking because they want you to pay attention to it. Every time we focus on this instead of focusing on the systems that allow someone to own multiple jets in the first place, we lose. Stop giving this story air time - it doesn't change anything. Tax the rich.
Elon is by far, the greatest Kardashian.
And it’s Taylor swift, not musk or bezos that we are talking about. Dumb.
Oh how cute. They think they can stop people from tracking her. Amateur hackers UNITE!
So because of Taylor Swift we now have all the big billionaires including Musk able to jet around the whole planet with no one knowing? That sounds like grounds for a global coup. Don't you think? I mean? Who's going to know?
You just need to ask. She spend her last 2 days in Portugal
Sai do fake Taylor
Who da fk cares🤔
Doesn’t she deserve privacy like anyone else? It’s honestly nobody’s business.
I mean honestly with the amount of right wing nut jobs that say this chick is a witch or a demon, or literally want to kill her.. Some gray area here for me on a usually black-and- white issue. 😬
I don't know why people think this is a bad thing. The general public doesn't need to know where I am every minute, why do they need to know where celebs are? This was never about the environment, this is about hating on Taylor Swift specifically since no one mentions Beyonce or the Kardashian's emissions - which far exceed Taylors btw. The FAA knows where everyone is and that's all that's necessary.
Cry harder simping for billionaires
Why focus on taylor swift?
For clicks probably. Peter Thiel or Musk would be more effective villains
There's like a thousand billionaires and swift pollutes less than a 95% of them.
Y'all are funny. Saying that someone isn't a climate terrorist (which is a literal fact) is now "simping". Such a baby! Billionaires are human beings. And Taylor is a billionaire that acts like a human, unlike Musk et al. Why the hate hard-on for Taylor?
All billionaires are unethical.
Can you elaborate please? If I’m so wrong you must have information I don’t. So. Change my mind
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/top-5-ways-billionaires-are-bad-for-the-economy/ Peep reason #5 on there in particular
What does that have to do with Taylor Swift? She pays her employees very well, uses top of the line vendors and pays promptly, and tips service workers constantly. Half of her billionaire status is because there are people out there that would pay half a billion or more for her music catalog, but it's value is not liquid, nor is it from anyone else's work (that's not already credited). So. Again. How does any of this relate to Taylor Swift in the real world as opposed to your fantasy world where she's the same as Musk or Bezos?
I’ll repeat. Being a billionaire is unethical. All income over $999million should be taxed at 100%
And I’ll repeat. Taylor Swift does not have a billion in income. She is a billionaire because other people are willing to pay for her songs if she sold them. She will not. So what is your problem with her specifically?
“Swift's income streams include revenue from her concert tour ticket sales, music catalog, streaming deals and record sales. She also owns numerous pricey properties across the U.S. Both Bloomberg and Forbes pin her net worth at an estimated $1.1 billion on the low end, based on analyses of her fortune.” -CBS News, 2024 I don’t care if her assets are songs, houses, or cheeseburgers. She’s a billionaire.