IMHO that critique is fundamentally flawed. She's selling a service (concerts) and for that she needs to fly. So all that CO2 is caused by the concert goers. Without the concert goers she wouldn't need a jet. Of course, then it's also a negligible amount. And presumably she isn't flying to jets like side by side, but only uses(used) one at a time.

About the other suggestion in that article, I do not want billionaires to use their money for political purposes. This is responsibility of the voters and the government. Ideally billionaires shouldn't exist but at the very least they should not control our politics with money.

But the real fundamental flaw is that this is a distraction. We need sweeping systematic change and focusing on individuals works against discussing that. Where is the manhattan project to R&D our industrial processes and services to not require carbon? Instead we get this kind of propaganda and "let the free market solve it". Well what Swift does is the best the market offers. Well maybe she could switch to a Celera 500L. But maybe the concert goers should just go to concerts of local artists instead, or superstars that fly low energy jets. Lol.

I honestly have to give props to FOX news. Or the think tank that came up with this strategy to focus on Swift.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Bro, she flies home after almost every concert instead of staying in a hotel.

She needs to fly? Sure. She needs to fly this much? Nope.

[–] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 6 points 9 months ago

Sure, I don't give a shit about Swift or her music either. My problem is the overly (hypocritical) focus on her, the strong language ("hate her"), the reason why this critique works so well (misogyny) and that it distract from climate action, and that it's propaganda started on fox news.

This is an example of why we won't do shit about climate change. We'll burn every last bit of fossil fuel and do nothing about adaptation and then have a bunch of wars and genocides. These are the mechanisms why. That's what's pissing me off.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

She needs to pollute so she can keep singing isn’t the defense you think it is. If anything it’s evidence of her own selfish belief that the environment shouldn’t affect her money train.

I’m sure streaming residuals and the metric tons of marketing deal money are more than enough for her to slow down and find an ethical way to travel.

[–] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

She needs to pollute so she can keep singing isn’t the defense you think it is.

No, concert goers are doing the polluting. If Swift retires then you'd get other superstars using Jets instead.

It's a systemic problem, so the strategy is to distract from the immensity of change needed. We're not even remotely talking about what would need to be done. Basically focusing on taylor swift isn't much different from greenwashing or outright climate change denial. Criticizing swift helps PREVENTS action on climate change.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

It’s not the person organizing the event and flying people out. It’s those poor peasants that dared attend. What an argument to make.

Someone else would fly the jet is also, not a coherent defense because someone else isn’t doing that. She’s flying her own private jet right now.

It’s a systemic problem, yes. So criticize all aspects of the system to show how inherently flawed it is. All private jet travel by all celebrities should be criticized. Suddenly when it’s not Elon tons of defenders need to tell us how we should look the other way and how there’s nothing important here in this identical situation.

If anyone is trying to prevent anything, it’s Taylor sycophants throwing themselves to defend her from valid criticism.