Use data from a popular twitter account which tracks the movements of celebrity jets based on publicly available information, the report says celebrity-affiliated planes emit an average of more than 3,376 metric tons of CO2, about 480 times more than the annual emissions of a average person. The report, which has not been peer-reviewed and has a significant disclaimer regarding its analysis, includes the names of a handful of celebrities, at least two of whom have publicly challenged the report. list, claiming that the flight data affiliated with them does not reflect their actual 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 over 8,293 metric tons. A plane affiliated with boxer Floyd Mayweather came in second, emitting an estimated 7,076 metric tons of CO2, with a recorded trip lasting just 10 minutes.
Jay-Z, who could not be reached for comment, was ranked third. After the publication, a lawyer for Jay-Z told The Washington Post that the rapper did not own the private jet in question; Rolling Stone reported that the flight data used in the analysis came from an aircraft linked to Puma and attributed to Jay-Z for his relationship with the brand.
Kylie Jenner gets grilled for flaunting a private jet in the climate crisis
In a statement to the Post, a spokesperson for Swift said, “Taylor’s jet is regularly loaned out to other people. Attributing most or all of these trips to him is obviously incorrect. Representatives for Mayweather did not respond to a request for comment.
Although the analysis notes that its list is “inconclusive” and that there is “no way to determine whether these celebrities were on all recorded flights”, the authors stressed that the purpose of the report is to “highlight the harmful impact of private jets”. usage” – a reality that is extremely 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 rely on private jets, including politicians, government officials, athletes, business executives and wealthy individuals.
“A short jump with a private jet requires flying a 10-20 ton jet through the air and then moving it from point A to point B,” said Peter DeCarlo, associate professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University. studies atmospheric air pollution. “I know nobody likes being stuck in traffic, but you don’t launch your car into the air. … Taking a huge piece of metal and putting it in the sky is going to create a huge carbon footprint that really isn’t necessary, especially for these kinds of short distances.
And while DeCarlo and other experts have acknowledged that a blanket ban on private jet travel, which can meet essential transportation needs in some situations, is not the solution, they have encouraged people – especially celebrities with significant social influence – to consider the environmental impact of their choice and the message they could send.
“There are valid statements that grounding private jets probably won’t do what we need to move in the right direction when it comes to climate change, but that’s just really bad optics,” said DeCarlo. If people look up to celebrities as role models, “they want to emulate that behavior. Then a private jet becomes a status symbol and something that people yearn for, and that’s not what we need right now in the context of climate.
Count the environmental cost
A report released last year by Transport & Environment, a leading European campaign group on clean transport, found that a single private jet can emit 2 metric tonnes of CO2 in just one hour. To put this into context, the average person in the EU produces around 8.2 tonnes of emissions over the course of an entire year, according to the report.
But while these jets are often widely criticized for their environmental impact, it’s important to think about their emissions relative to other forms of transportation, said Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. ‘Stanford University.
Compared to fuel-efficient commercial aircraft and climate-friendly cars, such as hybrid or electric vehicles, emissions per passenger-mile are significantly higher for private jets, which typically carry fewer passengers and fly shorter distances. , Field said. But, he noted, the fuel economy of a private jet with a reasonable number of passengers could be comparable to that of a single person driving a Ford F-150 pickup truck.
“There is a certain level of environmental irresponsibility in someone driving an F-150, and certainly the same could be said about corporate jet travel,” he added.
Environmental concerns about private jets largely stem from how often they have become and how they are used, for example, making short trips or flying empty planes to more convenient airstrips, said Colin Murphy, deputy director of the Policy Institute for Energy. , Environment and Economics at the University of California, Davis. Not only do private jet users travel a lot, “but they generally do so less efficiently than if they were sitting in a coach seat in a 777 or one of the conventional commercial airliners.”
You can buy a private jet subscription at Costco with your paper towels in bulk
Fast travel in a private jet emphasizes “the least efficient parts of the aircraft’s duty cycle,” Murphy said, noting that a huge amount of fuel is burned during takeoff and lift. of an airplane. “You have all the emissions from taxiing, engine warming, takeoff and climb and not so much from cruising where you actually cover the distance.”
In response to criticism of flights lasting less than 20 minutes, rapper Drake commented on Instagram, writing, “They’re just the ones moving planes to whatever airport they’re stored for anyone interested in the 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 you’re burning many hundreds or thousands of gallons of jet fuel to save a car full of people or a few cars full of people in a few hours,” he said. “Is this really the compromise we want to say acceptable in a world where climate change is no longer a future crisis, but a present crisis?”
Compare private to commercial
According to experts, small planes generally consume less fuel than large planes. “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 significantly more people, and all passengers on the flight share in the trip’s overall fuel consumption, DeCarlo said. But keep in mind, Field said, that sitting in first or business class can often have a higher carbon footprint compared to an economy seat.
However, one of the main advantages of private flying is convenience.
“We live in a society where, among the very wealthy, convenience trumps everything else,” Field said, “and we would all benefit from keeping the focus on convenience in perspective.”
Getting rid of private jets is not the answer to our climate problem, experts say. While the per-capita emissions from private travel are significant, they’re still not as significant as those produced by the much larger commercial aviation industry, DeCarlo said.
Additionally, there are situations in which this type of air transport is necessary, such as during medical emergencies or when transporting donated organs, Field says. “Sometimes having the right team in the right place at the right time is really critical, 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 number of unnecessary trips.
What 150,000 miles in a private jet reveals about his ‘excruciating’ year
“You can imagine political levers that force you to avoid it, you can imagine economic levers that would make it so expensive it’s not worth it or the kinds of regulatory things that make it so complicated,” Field said. . “I’m in favor of anything that is effective in reducing truly frivolous trips without eliminating trips that really make a difference.”
There’s probably no benefit to “demonizing business jets,” Field said. Rather, he said, people should take responsibility for their actions and consider the environmental footprint of what they do in their decision-making.
While electric aircraft prototypes are still being developed, private and commercial aviation should take advantage of high-quality carbon offsets and more sustainable alternatives to biomass, algae or plant-based jet fuel. , Field said. Currently, most of these fuels are generally better than petroleum, but Murphy noted that “they don’t produce zero emissions.”
Beyond reducing travel, private jet users should consider changing the way they fly, Field said. Longer flights carrying more passengers can help overall efficiency, he said, and flying straight instead of stopping for connections can make a difference.
While finding a long-term sustainable solution for private and commercial air travel is only one piece of the puzzle, experts have encouraged aviators to do their part.
“It’s going to be really hard to imagine a world in which we largely succeed in limiting climate change to not too many degrees above historical averages, while people are still flying in private oil-fuelled jets at the rate they currently are,” Murphy said. said.
#Celebrities #overuse #private #jets #climate #nightmare