Climate Advocates Need To Calm Down About Taylor Swift’s Jet

Upon learning that Taylor Swift flew to visit Travis Kelce at least 12 times in the past three months, news outlets resurfaced one of the climate movement’s favorite punching bags: a celebrity’s private jet. Yes, Taylor’s jet has a large climate footprint. But this story has been blown way out of proportion.

Last month, Newsweek, the Daily Mail, UNILAD, and others reported that Taylor’s trips produced 138 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, equivalent to the energy used by 17 houses in one year. These articles built upon a snowballing narrative about the pop sensation’s environmental damage, from concerns over the Eras Tour to Taylor being named Yard’s biggest celebrity polluter after racking up 8,293.54 tons of CO2 emissions in her jet in 2022. But fixating this intensely on Taylor’s jet reinforces a misconception that climate action is always a sacrifice, and that Taylor must choose between the planet or her career and love life.

Of course, Taylor’s actions matter. Everyone can do their part. But if slashing CO2 is the ultimate goal, Taylor’s emissions—0.00002 percent of the world’s annual 40 billion tons—are an insignificant and infeasible place to start. By talking about them as much as they do, climate advocates are wasting time and distracting the public from far more exciting climate solutions that would grow economies, cut emissions, and require no personal sacrifices.

While 8,000 tons of CO2 is an enormous amount for one individual, there are better ways to address climate change than Taylor ghosting Travis and canceling her tour. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that out of 38 climate solution categories, 16 actually start out saving money—this includes solar, wind, and nuclear energy; fuel-efficient vehicles; public transportation; bikes and e-bikes; optimized shipping; and curbed fluorinated gas emissions. These solutions are low-hanging fruit. They’re not always perfect or easy to implement, but if done right, they can cut billions of tons of CO2 while offering economically preferable alternatives to the status quo.

Although carbon-free jets remain elusive, there are several existing aviation solutions that bring both environmental and economic benefits. Sustainable aviation fuels are already entering the industry, and hydrogen-powered aircrafts could soon follow. Airlines could try the hub-and-spoke system, which is proven to reduce emissions and lower costs. Reforming or repealing the Jones Act—a U.S. maritime shipping regulation that has created a situation where only 2 percent of U.S. freight is carried by ship—could shift our cargo from planes to boats, substantially reducing pollution and transportation expenses.

On the flip side, there exists no economically competitive alternative to jetting Taylor around the world for the Eras Tour. With millions of people spending money on tickets, merchandise, travel, lodging, clothing, food, and drink, the Eras Tour is estimated to have an economic impact of up to $80 billion. This spending has uplifted local businesses, allowed individuals to start friendship bracelet stores, and even generated tax revenue—Cincinnati estimated that it resulted in $3.8 million in new taxes for the city, money which could wind up getting invested into public transit, resilient infrastructure, or other urban climate solutions. Taylor has also donated to food banks at every tour stop, paid unprecedented bonuses to employees, and helped fund climate projects by purchasing carbon credits.

Climate experts often discuss the problem of “hard-to-reach” sectors such as steel or cement, where it is currently financially or technologically infeasible to go carbon-free, but worth pursuing lower-hanging fruit in the meantime. The Eras Tour belongs in that category. Today’s airplanes require fossil fuels, Taylor can’t sensibly or logistically do the tour via boat, and if she instead stayed home and just released the Eras Tour movie, the economic loss would be staggering. In fact, the in-person tour’s economic impact may exceed the annual economic output ($63.8 billion) of the entire U.S. movie theater industry. Taylor could likely improve her personal footprint—perhaps by reducing waste and energy inefficiency on tour, using sustainable fuel blends, and ensuring her carbon credits are reliable (many aren’t)—but any course of action that grounds her jet simply couldn’t generate economic activity comparable to the real thing.

Even Taylor’s Travis visits have brought irreplaceable economic boosts. Travis’ jersey sales spiked 400 percent after the first game the pop star attended, ticket sales for Kansas City Chiefs home games tripled for the rest of the season, and Taylor’s attendance at the Chiefs-Jets game brought two million new viewers.

Beyond the NFL, local Kansas City businesses are generating new sales following visits by the power couple, New Balance saw a 25 percent revenue boost after Taylor wore their sneakers to a game, and Google search inquiries for Heinz jumped 61 percent after it launched a condiment inspired by one of Taylor’s in-stadium snacks. It is hard to fathom a green alternative to Taylor and Travis’ dates that could generate such massive economic activity.

With millions of Swifties admiring Taylor’s lifestyle, it is frustrating to see her air travel’s ballooning climate impact. But unlike most climate solutions, there is no way to ground Taylor’s jet without sacrificing tremendous happiness and economic growth. So let’s shake off the desire to name Taylor Swift the anti-hero, and instead focus our energy on bad-blood-free climate action.

Ethan Brown is a Writer and Commentator for Young Voices with a B.A. in Environmental Analysis & Policy from Boston University. He is the creator and host of The Sweaty Penguin, an award-winning comedy climate program. Follow him on Twitter @ethanbrown5151.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.