r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 2d ago
Psychology Taylor Swift fans lower climate concerns to justify her carbon footprint. When confronted with news about the excessive pollution generated by her private jet, highly identified fans tend to rationalize the behavior, with a decrease in their personal intentions to engage in climate-friendly actions.
https://www.psypost.org/taylor-swift-fans-lower-climate-concerns-to-justify-star-s-carbon-footprint/6.5k
u/klitchell 2d ago
I imagine you’d find this with almost any intense fanbase about almost any issue. People still defend Chris Brown.
Fandom in itself is problematic because you twist yourself into believing the image YOU create about whatever it is you’re a fan of.
1.5k
u/AhabFlanders 2d ago
I think the interesting part here is the lowering their personal intentions in response. That would be like not only defending Chris Brown but also saying and I might smack my wife around a bit later.
531
u/CaptainMagnets 2d ago
But there are 100% people who would say this about being a Chris Brown fan tho
138
u/AhabFlanders 2d ago
True, but how many would've already been abusers or at least predisposed to it? The real question is are there Chris Brown fans who would've been against abuse, never would have done it, but the defending him lowered the taboo around it to the extent that they themselves started committing DV. To be honest , I wouldn't be that surprised if the answer was yes.
189
u/BigLuffyEnergy 2d ago
True, but how many would've already been abusers or at least predisposed to it?
I feel that's the point of this study, to point out that some people don't have strong moral convictions and will adjust their beliefs for something as mundane as celebrity fandom.
It helps explain and understand more extreme cults of personality.
→ More replies (2)20
u/serpiccio 2d ago
Yeah I think that's the interesting takeaway. When somebody you really like does something evil, you feel just a tiny bit more likely to do the same thing.
→ More replies (4)9
u/Ratnix 2d ago
There are definitely people out there who would totally change their behaviors in order to emulate someone they're obsessed with. Not a lot, but there are some.
→ More replies (1)60
u/k0fi96 2d ago
Not entirely, the irony of the Chris Brown situation is that most of his fans are women.
→ More replies (8)22
u/CaptainMagnets 2d ago
Women can also abuse their partners
31
u/k0fi96 2d ago
Obviously they can, but my point is that most Chris Brown fans are just women who either don't care or were too young to know what was going on
→ More replies (1)47
u/ForgotMyLastUN 2d ago
Not any sly towards you, but how could they be too young to know, when he has been beating people since 2009? Like it wasn't just Rihanna that he abused.
He has had a case against him almost every year since 2009 for assault.
→ More replies (1)201
u/horse_you_rode_in_on 2d ago
That would be like not only defending Chris Brown but also saying and I might smack my wife around a bit later.
It goes in the other direction: "I wouldn't mind being smacked around a bit if it was Chris Brown doing it".
19
u/funguyshroom 2d ago
I think it simply goes even further in the same direction. Those people don't see anything wrong with DV even when they're on the receiving end of it. Needless to say it's practically guaranteed that they're in abusive relationships themselves.
→ More replies (1)32
u/ShodSpace 2d ago
I wouldn't mind being shot if it was Luigi doing it
29
20
u/The_Bucket_Of_Truth 1d ago
Yes and I unfortunately couldn't help but think of that one political leader that sucks up so much of our mental space right now that has seemingly made culture and some people actively worse than they already were. With great power comes great responsibility and unfortunately many do not heed the call in the way we need.
53
u/swagharris31 2d ago
Yeah I'm sure some super fans of CB are like "You know what, CB isn't a bad person, and those women probably shoulder some of the blame for his actions"
48
u/cajolinghail 2d ago
A lot of people have no trouble believing that even without being fans, unfortunately.
→ More replies (1)25
→ More replies (1)6
29
9
8
u/carlitospig 2d ago
It’s the same psychology that makes a people vote against their own morals. Before everyone flips out about making it political, I’m not. We have had really good data for decades on how people can shift away from a closely held belief if someone they highly respect disagrees with that belief. It’s why politicians can shake all the hands they want - who your friends and family vote for are a larger impact on your voting choices. Her fans are super charged parasocials. To them it’s basically their priestess saying that climate change isn’t really that important, so they deprioritize it in their own views in order to align better with her.
She has a lot of power, and she uses it to make money instead of changing the world. It’s a shame.
→ More replies (20)4
u/DrMobius0 2d ago
Accepting the behavior in their personal heroes probably has the effect of normalizing it, or even encouraging it.
177
u/TheWhomItConcerns 2d ago
To add to this, people tend to place a lot of their own identity and ego into the things they choose to occupy their time with - whether that be celebrities or anything else. If it's to be accepted that Taylor Swift's attitude towards her carbon output is morally impermissible then that by extension complicates the act of supporting her financially or otherwise.
This isn't just about fandom, but also that her fans feel that a condemnation of Taylor Swift is also a condemnation of themselves. You see people get defensive about things they enjoy all the time, and they will often resort to self-evidently weak arguments in order to do so because they can't handle acknowledging that they're engaging in something which has further moral implications.
96
u/ghanima 2d ago
You see people get defensive about things they enjoy all the time, and they will often resort to self-evidently weak arguments in order to do so because they can't handle acknowledging that they're engaging in something which has further moral implications.
I've noticed this too. It's true of car culture, crypto culture, fandoms, dietary choice, etc. It's exhausting. I feel like a core aspect of responsible child-rearing ought to be to educate our children of the fact that simply making an external aspect to oneself part of one's 'identity' leaves them open to cognitive bias and manipulation. So few people seem to even notice it's happening.
30
u/jaymzx0 2d ago
My guess is that it has to do with our inherent tribalism, and our brains rationalize things that would typically be poisonous to the tribe for the sake of cohesiveness.
If a scandal erupted within an ancient hunter-gatherer tribe and it fell apart, it could mean death for those members or at least the inability to find a partner and reproduce. So there's this moral elasticity, of sorts.
7
u/lordlaneus 1d ago
Adding to that, if your really into hunting mammoths, you might make that part of your identity, but then if people in your tribe started talking about the moral implications of hunting mammoths, that would represent a very real threat to your continued existence, since a tribe that stops hunting mammoths, wouldn't need any mammoth hunters, and your gonna have to scramble to learn how to hunt wolves, or weave baskets, or whatever.
We've evolved to treat threats to our identity, as if they were threats to our survival.
→ More replies (3)16
u/snoopmt1 2d ago
But it also happens in the opposite direction. People use one ounce of someone else's imperfection to justify their entire lifestyle. "Bill Gates spent $2B on helping the environment, but he owns a private plane, so why should I recycle?"
→ More replies (4)44
u/TheOtherHobbes 2d ago
Swift's ability to create this level of parasocial identification is a kind of genius. I understand it's actually her mother who handles the marketing, but it's still a uniquely successful experimenting in building a cult product with extremely intense user buy-in.
20
u/Metalsand 2d ago
It's worth noting a significant portion of this value also comes from being self-managed as well as those involved being very capable. No one to get short-term greedy or otherwise take too big of a chunk of the pie. One of the most notable examples of this - when she was approached to promote NFTs, she heard the whole spiel and correctly called them out as unregulated financial products, refusing to promote them at all. At the same time, many other celebrities, even those who are pretty high profile fell for the scam and had a pretty deep cut into their reputation following NFTs collapsing.
She comes from a strongly educated and wealthy background, without a dysfunctional family, and she herself is very intelligent. At the same time, she's been able to appeal to a massive crowd and despite her wealth, maintain her connection to her audience. She's just a very fascinating example that you just don't normally see.
→ More replies (6)14
→ More replies (1)10
406
u/fx2600 2d ago
I feel like rationalizing a superstar flying in a private jet is pretty easy relative to one committing felony assault.
88
u/Friendly-World-5273 2d ago
Pop into Kpop fandom and watch the fans defend rapists. Extreme fandom behavior is very similar to extreme cult behavior, and it’s kind of alarming how little it takes to get someone to that level.
→ More replies (4)11
u/Metalsand 2d ago
Yes, there's an argument that more rabid fans will have a lower threshold to adopt the behavior. Not being a psychologist myself, I wouldn't be able to name it, but there's a specific concept related in which people who have a specific moral standard and would otherwise reject something have their threshold for that behavior reduced relative to their reverence for a major figure in their life.
This is to say - we would expect that more people per capita would be willing to excuse her use of a private jet than would be willing to defend her against much more serious allegations. At the same time, while it would be less people, you could absolutely find people who would defend her regardless of the accusations - that's just how fandom works. Fan is short for "fanatic", and you need only have enough of them to be able to find someone especially dedicated.
6
u/PiccoloAwkward465 2d ago
It relates a bit to the fundamental attribution error. Wherein a simple example is if your coworker is late to work, you might think of them as lazy. Whereas if you are late to work, you may think it was because of unavoidable, unexpected traffic. So that uses the dynamic of you vs. other people. But in this case, let's change that to celebrities you admire vs. other people.
130
u/Leelze 2d ago
Exactly. You can make the argument that from a logistical & security perspective that it makes sense for a megastar to not fly commercial. I don't know how you can argue it's ok to assault a woman.
35
77
u/Aditya1311 2d ago
As a frequent flyer I am SO glad these people fly private. Can you imagine trying to take a flight from an airport that Taylor Swift was going to be at? her and her entire entourage trying to get through security not to mention the crazed fanbase that would show up?
35
u/BadAtExisting 2d ago
I know at least at LAX celebrities have the Private Suite where it’s their own terminal and waiting area with their own TSA. Then they are shuttled to their commercial flights. Most of them do fly commercial
13
u/retatrutider 2d ago
Interesting. On the one hand it sounds like privilege and special treatment, but when you think about it the logistics of it likely help the entire airport function more smoothly, even if they were to offer it for free.
I wonder how they gauge whether you are famous enough to need this service? Or is it just pay for play?
→ More replies (1)19
u/BadAtExisting 2d ago
You pay through the nose for it, frequent fliers can also buy a “membership” and it’s not really privilege or special treatment. You can use it if you want to cough up the money. It is designed to streamline the experience for everyone and for them to not be bum rushed in the terminal and be able to make their flight
44
u/anatomizethat 2d ago edited 2d ago
I agree with your stance, celebrities absolutely should not be flying commercial.
That doesn't excuse the excessive use of private planes though. They use them like cars and that's the problem.
→ More replies (3)13
u/ibribe 2d ago
celebrities absolutely should not be flying commercial.
There are a lot of celebrities, and most of them fly commercial most of the time.
→ More replies (2)16
u/javier_aeoa 2d ago
Green Day rented an entire Boeing for their world tour, so that way they could fly with their entire crew. I have no clue how many people fly around with Swift, but I am certain they can all be cramped in business or first class.
41
u/Dottsterisk 2d ago
OTOH, if they’re actually filling the plane then it’s not as wasteful. It’s legit transport.
The issue mostly comes when a star uses a private jet as a jet just for them. Then you’re putting out all of those emissions for one person.
If Green Day fills the plane with crew or Swift fills it with staff, it’s no different than if they’d filled all the seats on a regular plane, except less inconvenience for other travelers.
21
u/Cautious_Honey_4097 2d ago
Touring flights aren't the problem, there will be similar emissions whether they fly commercial or private for their tour. Maybe a little bit lower commercial.
It's the flights to go to a spa you really liked 500km away or for a friend to go to a sports event and back. Or getting takeaway food from a different country.
→ More replies (13)29
u/HelloCanadaBonjour 2d ago
You're misunderstanding the problem with her.
The issue is that people like her fly way too much (and she's the worst among celebrities)... like going flying across a continent to spend less than a day in NYC, and then going back.
Like "anonymizethat" said in another reply to you, some people like her use their private jet the way a normal person might use a car.
But that's an egregious abuse of the environment.
Don't be a "swiftie" and mindlessly defend her.
→ More replies (14)23
u/HelloCanadaBonjour 2d ago edited 2d ago
The issue isn't just about not flying commercial.
The issue is that she flies far more than necessary.
For example, I remember a case where she was doing a tour (maybe in Brazil or Europe) and performed one night, but then she had paparazzi shots in NYC having dinner... and then was back in Brazil or Europe the next night.
I don't remember the specifics of it, but it was along those lines -- going to another continent for less than a day. And the bottom line is that she really does fly way too much.
And apparently she influences how her lemmings act regarding the environment.
→ More replies (21)8
u/jtnto100 2d ago
But you're trying to assign logic to an inherently emotional state of mind. I've found that generally just doesn't happen as much
101
→ More replies (31)8
u/your_true_self 2d ago
I would agree that maybe it's more about where those planes are flown and for what reason. When you fly the plane to entertain thousands of people, you could argue that those people share the guilt of that carbon footprint and it may not be as excessive when divided among all those people. When you fly the plane to a private island to do the things people do on private islands, the emissions are concentrated to very few people and victims. The amount of people benefiting is very low in one case but not the other. One solution might be to invite an audience to the private islands as spectators to offset the carbon cost, but it may be difficult to do so without causing further carbon emissions, and besides it wouldn't be that private by that point anyway.
39
u/HyperactivePandah 2d ago
Well, the root of the word 'fan' is 'fanatic'.
So they're inherently unstable/irrational about that particular topic.
43
u/Emeraldmirror 2d ago
Fanaticism in all forms tends to be bad
7
u/Wrong_Swordfish 2d ago
I wonder if fandom is similar to religion in the way it occupies the brain: do thoughts have to pass through it like a filter?
→ More replies (1)3
39
u/sarcastic24x7 2d ago
People defend and justify this Administration. Case in point.
→ More replies (2)17
11
20
u/MuchSwagManyDank 2d ago
For anyone who enjoys metal, its best not to look into the personal lives of nearly any band member.
→ More replies (6)16
u/IceNein 2d ago
Feels weird that you’re singling out metal when I bet this also applies to country, rap, rnb, pop….
→ More replies (2)6
u/HankTuggins 2d ago
Let’s be honest, the issue is musicians, I worked for a music venue when I was younger, and found that somewhere between 50 and 100 percent of musicians were complete scumbags
3
→ More replies (135)9
u/TWVer 2d ago
Yes, it’s typical cult-like behaviour.
When the person (or team, or party) is seen as a more important part to the construct of one’s ego, than abstract principles are, principles become flexible in the face of supporting the idols in whatever they do.
5
u/gmorf33 2d ago
I don't think it's exclusive to just cult-like behavior though. I think humans have this tendency with anyone in their "in-group" (which can include parasocial relationships imagined as a part of their in-group). Like families or other small communities who discover a molester amongst their ranks, only to defend them because they know they are a good person and they deserve a 2nd chance. The whole "we judge those we like more by how we view them as a person and less by the action itself, we judge those we don't like purely by the action itself without any consideration of circumstance or character". Crappy bias, but i can see why humans evolved that way in times past. Its good to call it out and be aware of it though.
1.3k
u/machinedog 2d ago
I think people are missing the bit where people are reducing their own intentions to engage in climate friendly actions. That part is the most interesting. You can be rational and excuse Taylor Swift’s use of private planes because otherwise she wouldn’t be able to do as many shows as she does, but it doesn’t make logical sense to then change your own behavior.
350
u/FeloniousDrunk101 2d ago
I have definitely become a bit more jaded in general around my own actions to curb climate change, though not tied directly to my support of any individual person. It's more that governments and corporations can do many times more to impact these things that I as an individual cannot un-do. Additionally, learning about how plastic recycling is often just thrown away as well as feeling like the burden has been guilted onto us individually by those corporations who do nothing makes it feel all a bit like a sham. I can see someone coming to a similar conclusion through the lens of fandom I suppose?
90
u/thereisnosub 2d ago
I strive to be a better environmentalist than 80-90% of my peers (but I don't strive for perfection). If everyone (or even most people) did this, we'd see a steady improvement. Most important though is to vote for the most environmentally friendly candidate in every election (and vote strategically, e.g. if it's first past the post general election, vote for the dem).
189
u/devonathan 2d ago
You could spend your whole life living as strictly as possible and it would be undone in 0.5 seconds by one of the mega polluters. Makes it hard to care.
161
u/hear2fear 2d ago
It’s about collective care. 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million individual people can change the needle in a better direction. 1 million+ people speaking with their wallets can change corporate actions and gov policies.
But thousands of people reading your two posts above could be discouraged and join your apathy. Not that your frustrations aren’t valid or justified though
Together we have more power than you think we do. Join your local chapter of CCL (Citizens Climate Lobby) even if it’s just to subscribe to their news letter. Make a small difference, and with millions making a small difference we can move that needle.
32
u/No-Draft-4449 1d ago
There’s a YouTuber I watch who says “you can’t do all the good the world needs, but the world needs all the good you can do” and I really like that when I’m feeling a bit bleak.
→ More replies (4)48
u/imapetrock 2d ago
100%. I always get so frustrated when people say "well I can't do anything, this other entity needs to be the one to make change". The problem is that everyone always wants to push the responsibility to someone else and no one wants to be accountable. But everyone should play a part in accountability, not blame someone else and then complain that that someone else is doing exactly same (blaming someone else).
Guess what, governments also can't force what people don't want to do. One of the main drivers of many environmental problems is agriculture. One of the main ways to reduce this impact would be to reduce meat consumption so that we need less land to feed the population. Can you imagine the government mandating a reduction in meat consumption? All hell would break loose.
Flying too. If we were restricted to how much we can fly, people would likely protest and act like it's a human rights abuse.
Some possible regulations to reduce our impact would also lead to a price increase on products (e.g., banning fast fashion). Again, people will throw a fit. Many people already throw a fit when governments try to implement policies to discourage driving and encourage more environmentally friendly forms of transport.
Etc etc. I'm currently doing a master's program in environmental management and literally one of the first things we talked about is: it's really hard to fix anything when people don't want to change their behavior.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Twisted_Cabbage 1d ago
Former employee of the US Forest Service here. My conclusion after 20+ years of being in the environmental space is rhat most people want to see change but very few people, even environmentalists, are willing to do what is really necessary to make those changes happen...a complete overhaul of our government, lifestyle, consumption habits, status symbols, and mating dynamics (which drives spending and consumerism).
Very few environmentalists even recognize most of the problems we face from a systems perspective (tipping points, EROEI, etc) or accept that we can't meet our goals without absolutely radical change that doesnt rely on magical tech to pull off. Change that will be a war call to those who want the statas quo. A war that we cant afford to have with the time we have to fix the problem.
But what do i know, i'm an collapsenik ( r/collapse ) now. Being in the government made me realize how little the environmental movement has accomplished in the last 50 years. I'm doing the things, but I have no faith that it will mean anything in the long run. We have FA and now it's time to FO. Exponential growt and tipping points are on our doorstep.
→ More replies (2)35
u/EstablishmentLate532 2d ago
Do you not vote because one vote never made a difference? Collective action matters in the aggregate.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (4)5
u/FleetingBeacon 1d ago
YouTuber I watch bought a private jet, and undone the efforts that me and my entire city made in renewables in about 5 flights.
→ More replies (2)4
u/kipperzdog 1d ago
100% this. I'm all for making changes that'll have a significant impact, so much of the shame people direct though is peanuts compared to what massive corporations get away with for pennies of more profit
40
u/peon2 2d ago
It's obviously not a good thing but I can see how it can lead to apathy or disinterest. When a cause you support focuses on the wrong thing it isn't uncommon for people to get annoyed and disengage because they don't agree with what the cause they support is putting their energy in to. For instance there's plenty of people that consider the amount of attention paper vs plastic straws got vs all the other plastic waste. It doesn't mean I'm going to start throwing plastic into the ocean to spite them, but it can breed the resent of "if this is main lever we're trying to pull, it's a lost cause"
19
u/lavaliere90 1d ago
I would like to understand why the meme is even about Taylor, who is number 38 on the celeb emissions list, and not Elon at number 2, Zuck at number 3, Tyler Perry at 10 or Kim K at number 20. I think I've only ever seen Elon criticized on it once, 10 years ago.
→ More replies (2)8
u/stillalone 1d ago
This feels like the general way people are pushed away from climate action. For a while anytime anyone talked about dealing with climate change, people would keep pointing to China to discourage any discourse. Now people keep pointing to private jets.
5
u/Gimme_The_Loot 1d ago
It’s pretty funny how these narratives keep shifting around climate action. Blaming individual behaviors, like flying on private jets, really distracts from the urgent need for systemic changes. Personal choices definitely matter, especially at the scale of behavior that someone like TS has, but that shouldn’t overshadow the push for policies that hold corporations accountable for their emissions. The collective "personal decisions" for the vast majority of us are one grain of sand while these corporations are the rest of the beach.
I mean, it’s almost comical to think recycling and turning off the lights when you're not in a room is going to make a dent in the climate crisis. I got involved with Citizens’ Climate Lobby because I believe focusing on those larger solutions is crucial. I'm probably a bit biased as that's the one I picked but they're a lot of really good organizations out there, the environmental voter project is another one, and I highly recommend everyone finds a way to get involved. Because that IS the kind of thing that can lead to actual policy changes which it will be far more effective then something like trying to shame Taylor Swift into flying less.
60
u/timok 2d ago
I have a bit of a conspiracy theory that these stories get pushed by oil companies etc.
In the grand scheme of things her emissions hardly matter, but these type of stories cause millions of people to not adapt their behaviour and keep burning fuel and eating hamburgers, because they have somebody else to point fingers at.
19
u/AbsenceVersusThinAir 2d ago
100% this. I am genuinely starting to believe that "everything is the billionaire's and oil companies' fault and personal change makes no difference" is actually the new oil company psyop.
I've lost count of how many times I've been accused of defending billionaires or pushing big oil propaganda by saying that it actually is up to us to stop voluntarily and unnecessarily using so much oil (directly and indirectly) in our personal lives. In addition to pushing for structural and legislative change of course, not instead of it.
And I can't help but scratch my head. I'm the one saying we should boycott billionaires and oil companies wherever practicable, while also pushing to further tax and regulate them. The people accusing me of being pro big oil are the ones saying we should continue voluntarily giving them all of our money and do nothing in the hope that someone else will fix things somewhere down the line. It only makes sense if it's a psyop and/or people eager to point fingers at someone else so they don't have to examine how their own lifestyles are destructive and unsustainable.
26
u/EightWhiskey 2d ago
I think there's something too that. It also seems kind of short-sighted to act like Taylor Swift has other options. Is she supposed to book a seat on a commercial jetliner? She'd probably be dead in a week from some psycho fan. And if not, every airport she set foot in would be a mad house, security nightmare, delays, etc. But it's easier for people to direct their angst at a single target than confront deep-seated cultural habits.
18
u/EstablishmentLate532 2d ago
You’re presupposing that she has an almost inviolable right to maintain the same touring schedule she has now. Why is the only question “private jet or commercial flight”?
She could tour more slowly, schedule geographically sensible legs, use rail where practical, or take slower transportation between continents. Why does she need to be in Japan one day and the U.S. the next?
If reducing emissions requires ordinary people to accept some inconvenience or consume less, I don’t see why “Taylor Swift might have to do fewer shows or structure her tours differently” is somehow off the table.
→ More replies (24)18
u/notaredditer13 2d ago
If reducing emissions requires ordinary people to accept some inconvenience or consume less, I don’t see why “Taylor Swift might have to do fewer shows or structure her tours differently” is somehow off the table.
Part of why this study is problematic is that in this context, Taylor Swift is not a person, she's a corporation. The narrative implies that she's an otherwise normal person who happens to be far worse than most regarding carbon emissions.
A more objective analysis would be to view her company's carbon emissions as compared to other companies, say, per dollar of economic output.
Her show taking a train or ship instead of flying isn't just a personal inconvenience for her, it reduces the output of the show: reducing value for fans, pay for the workers on the tour, and local economic impact on the tour sites.
→ More replies (4)13
u/SocranX 2d ago
This whole thing started shortly after she started encouraging people to vote and implied that climate change should be one of the issues they should be voting for. Imagine if she had successfully pushed enough people to prevent Trump from getting re-elected. That would've outdone whatever damage she could personally do to the environment by an order of magnitude. But instead, climate activists are pushing the news that Swift is anti-environment, while Swifties are seeing the news that climate activists are anti-Swift. If the oligarchs didn't have a hand in pushing things in that direction, then they're very lucky it turned out the way it did.
→ More replies (2)3
u/ThisOtterBehemoth 2d ago
Yes they are being pushed. It's just hard to prove without deeply analyzing online numbers. Likes and comments can be bought (or generated for free if you happen to own a social media platform) Articles like these get published from contract journalists and then distributed by social media posts. The posts get pushed and by that public agreement is being faked. Stupid people believe anything with 1000+ hearts/comments. I truly believe this is the sole recipe how far right parties get pushed so successfully.
17
u/turandokht 2d ago
That’s what I find most interesting. Do they reduce their own intentions as a conscious effort to be more like her? Is it an unconscious understanding that as long as we have mega billionaires and corporations flooding the planet with emissions, any personal responsibility to the environment means next to nothing? Is it to try and like “stand” with her against the people who criticize her emissions?
Honestly I’m completely fascinated by that part.
→ More replies (1)23
u/retatrutider 2d ago
I’d speculate that, in order not to have any cognitive dissonance around the person they are idolizing, they start to view the behavior as “not that bad” which then makes them more likely to engage in it themselves.
→ More replies (21)12
u/Savilavila 1d ago
People were also likely to defend ICE and concentration camps when defending Taylor Swift for her wedding guests. It was scary af to witness, and I say this as a fan of hers.
Hope people's response to this is to donate to climate organizations and refugee and immigration rights organizations.
→ More replies (1)
989
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
154
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (10)61
2d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
62
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (14)39
→ More replies (40)41
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (5)30
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
24
→ More replies (14)24
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
31
41
→ More replies (3)18
374
u/Boysenberry 2d ago
Obviously not a phenomenon limited to any one celebrity’s fan base, or even to celebrities/entertainers in general. I’m old enough to remember the debates over Al Gore’s carbon footprint.
37
u/Brain_Dead_Goats 2d ago
Yeah, people were specifically doing that to discredit him while he was talking about climate change unfortunately. It was a "well he has a bigger carbon footprint than me so it can't really be a serious thing" hypocrisy hunting kind of argument. It was immensely frustrating at the time and has only become more so as we've seen the effects start to take hold.
The frightening thing about this article is the whole "they're less inclined to care about climate activism as a whole" as a result. That's really an indicator that she needs to speak up about it because her fans are apparently hanging off her every word.
41
u/TheWhomItConcerns 2d ago
It's also not just limited to carbon output either - just look at the Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Primetime or Leaving Neverland. Not only will fans defend their favourite celebrities, but they'll coordinate and actively sabotage any attempt to criticise them.
→ More replies (2)42
u/KarIPilkington 2d ago
I guess it's always an easy out for people who want to belittle those who bring attention to climate problems. It's far easier to just call someone a hypocrite for, well, existing in society where you need to use natural resources, than face up to this problem.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (18)35
u/AnalMinecraft 2d ago
Hey, you leave Al out of this. He deserves that carbon footprint for inventing the Internet.
→ More replies (1)19
u/fieldsofanfieldroad 2d ago
But then he also invented AI (it's even named after him) so it's a mixed scorecard.
→ More replies (1)13
639
u/Mabel_Waddles_BFF 2d ago
Not a fan but I am consistently intrigued as to why Taylor Swift gets the most criticism for this when there are celebrities/billionaires who have higher carbon footprints. Or Leonardo DiCqprio who used a private jet to fly between engagements where he spoke about climate change.
152
u/FewMost8547 2d ago
Last year list of most usage of private jets didn't even have TS in top 10. But for some reason she got memorized as one of the biggest pollutors which just isn't quite the case.
→ More replies (24)80
u/RuinedEye 2d ago
Celebrity private jet tracker site (if it is to be believed) doesn't even list TS in the top FIFTY of polluters
Literally, there are 50+ other people that the bored ass media could be having a seizure over about their jet pollution.
I'm not even a fan, it just... makes absolutely no sense.
25
u/Trevski 1d ago
Someone else in the thread pointed out that site didn't have a flight for her since March 2025 but this article had her jet doing 81 flights in three months of 2026
→ More replies (5)11
u/StarGaurdianBard 1d ago
TS also got the reputation because of the tracker when the tracker just tracks the planes usage, not usage by the person. She was letting other people use the plane when she was being tracked as super high usage so she just stopped letting people use it when she got the bad rep and what do you know now shes not even top 50, because she never truly was top 50
→ More replies (1)185
u/BeautifulDstr 2d ago
I’ll never get over Judy Judy topping the list and never getting a mention. But anyway, let’s have Taylor Swift fly commercial. I’m sure nothing inconvenient or negative will happen.
99
u/inqte1 2d ago
Its not even her flights. Her plane gets leased out like any other private jet when shes not using it. Thats what racks up the miles. If she doesnt lease her plane, it will just be some other plane logging those miles.
→ More replies (4)43
u/greiton 2d ago
also she doesn't fly by herself. I wonder how much of her team is loaded up on those flights. certainly security and PAs are present.
52
u/notaredditer13 2d ago
Summary: in this context, TS is not an individual she's a business, so comparing her purported carbon footprint to individuals is spurious to begin with.
→ More replies (1)10
u/joebleaux 1d ago edited 1d ago
Let see what businesses generating comparable money are doing carbon footprint wise. I bet she's not anywhere near the top. But as you said, it's not specifically her, but her company that just happens to be based around selling her as the product.
As a company, she outperformed lots of known brands over the past few years. She brought in more revenue than Planet Fitness. More than Shake Shack. YETI. Dutch Bros. Likely with less employees than most of those too. Who knows what the carbon footprint of Shake Shack is
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)29
u/NotEmmaStone 2d ago
Her many, many dangerous stalkers would love that! Oh yeah and the ISIS guys who tried to blow up one of her concerts
→ More replies (18)44
u/Whirlywynd 2d ago edited 2d ago
It’s also that the last time she flew commercial (in Japan) the commotion cause by her presence actually delayed flights
86
u/Rocketboy1313 2d ago
Focusing on Taylor Swift felt like a trick by other rich people to get her fanbase to defend pollution.
I pointed out on some communism r/ how much of a waste of time it was to focus on actors and singers when it comes to this sort of thing and got banned for liberal apologia.
42
u/EstablishmentLate532 2d ago
It's not some trick by other rich people. It's mostly a consequence of her fame. Taylor Swift has vastly more public visibility than people like the Waltons, so her behavior gets vastly more scrutiny. You don't need a conspiracy to explain why one of the most famous people alive gets disproportionate attention.
→ More replies (3)12
u/dimechimes 2d ago
Also not a fan. I'd be interested to see how much a tour like hers puts out in pollution compared things like Las Vegas residencies where fans flock in nightly on thousands of planes throughout the year.
→ More replies (1)100
u/dreacos 2d ago
Because neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor the other celebrities/billionaires have anything even remotely resembling the gargantuan fanbase that she has. Her fanbase is also mostly on the younger side and more left-leaning, which makes studies like this highly relevant given how climate-conscious that demographic normally is.
43
u/iuabv 2d ago
Beyonce is higher than Taylor Swift on most of the lists. With Jay Z listed separately.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)33
u/SoftSalty3282 2d ago
It’s all click bait. Put her in a headline, good or bad, and get more engagement.
→ More replies (3)72
u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 2d ago
Also she at least offsets her emissions. I know we can debate on the quality and true impact of carbon offsets but at least it's something.
I don't care for Swift at all but it always just screams outage culture to me
24
u/Rufus_L 2d ago
How does she offset emissions? Serious question.
31
u/Stupidstuff1001 2d ago
Normally you donate x dollars and they are used to plant x trees which capture the carbon you have used on your flight.
20
u/dexters_trap_house 2d ago
They just live forever as a perpetually traded futures asset that are never exercised. There is no law stating when a credit has to be used. They can be traded freely and indefinitely.
It solves nothing.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (6)8
u/luluhouse7 2d ago
The problem is that carbon offsets are often just companies thoughtlessly spamming the same tree species in a grid. There’s a fair amount of research showing that monoculture forests don’t do much compared to biodiverse ones. So a lot of the time carbon offsets are mostly just lip service.
3
78
u/SuspiciouslySuspect2 2d ago
The big problem she faces is: how else is she gonna get from city to city? Everywhere she goes, a deluge of people follow. She can't just slap on sunglasses and a hat and jump in a first class seat, she'd be a literal airport security disruption.
Like it or not, she has the resources to go where she wants, ultimately what we should be doing instead is just applying a massive carbon tax to private aviation on top of optional carbon offsets. Like enough to make a regular person weep. But billionaires like her would pay it with an eyeroll, and it would be enough money to actually make a difference. Something like 10/lbs of CO2 produced.
→ More replies (28)15
u/dividezero 2d ago
Boop! That's the actual answer. Oil makes the government run so we'll never see it unfortunately
→ More replies (1)5
u/EstablishmentLate532 2d ago
A lack of government regulation doesn't morally absolve a person from taking advantage of the unregulated environment to the detriment of everyone else.
→ More replies (3)13
u/kaybsie 2d ago
Carbon credits don't do anything. They're just a way for the elite to write off their outsized impact on the environment.
9
u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 2d ago
Not true. I work in sustainability.. they help fund projects that either reduce or remove carbon from the environment
→ More replies (2)61
u/twinpop 2d ago
Not a fan either but agree with you. I’ll even say this is just drummed up hate. I guarantee you Ken Griffin uses more in a month than Swift uses in a year.
Also, the saying about the few companies producing 80-90% of emissions is still true. Exxon along uses 10,000 times more emissions than Swift, and it’s just one company.
7
u/EstablishmentLate532 2d ago
In 2022, Ken Griffin used slightly more than twice as much CO2 than Taylor Swift did flying.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)34
u/BabyLegsDeadpool 2d ago
Thank you. This is what bugs me more than anything. The amount of emissions she puts out in an entire year is a single day for Walmart. If she never flew again, she'd wipe out maybe a month of Walmart's emissions. Putting emissions on the lap of the individual is one of the greatest accomplishments of the big corporation propaganda.
→ More replies (10)4
15
u/Deceptiveideas 2d ago
I noticed she got a lot more hate the minute she started criticizing Trump back in 2020.
47
u/CW1DR5H5I64A 2d ago edited 2d ago
Also if I recall correctly her private jet is chartered out when she is not using it (a very common practice for private planes). However, when these kinds of articles total the emissions from that plane they attribute all use to her personally as the owner of the plane. It’s a very disingenuous statement to claim every mile flown by her plane counts against her carbon footprint and not the other rich people chartering its use.
→ More replies (1)10
u/FelixEvergreen 2d ago
She’s a much more public and popular celebrity than most. Plus, she has a notoriously rabid fan base that utilizes social media which drives engagement and publicity. The more out there something is the more critics it naturally draws.
→ More replies (96)28
u/Diablo689er 2d ago
People bring up Leo and his jets/yachts all the time.
59
u/qaddosh 2d ago
they do? everything i hear about him just has to do with his partners never being older than 25. Literally nothing about his private jets or yachts.
→ More replies (1)21
242
u/Zegram_Ghart 2d ago
As someone who doesn’t really care about her, it’s weird she gets singled out for this when every celebrity does it, and every celebrity combined is probably still something daft like 1% of the output of even a semi-industrial nation
10
20
u/Frederf220 2d ago
People sort list by "something to be mad about, descending" and then skip down the list until they find the person they want to beat up. Not them, not them, certainly can't call them out, there, that guy #12, let's get 'em!
22
u/r3dd17sux69420 2d ago
It's just cause she's a famous name and generates engagement. There are hundreds of people who fly private but most of them are boring business people who aren't famous
That said what I find funny is people get soooo furious (rightfully) at the flying, but have no idea the emissions put out by sooooo many tours
if people knew how many vehicles alone were used on the average arena or stadium tour they might vomit.
Dozens and dozens of tractor-trailers, easily. For the 360 Tour, U2 had up to 200 trucks. That's trucks, not even including the tour busses
6
u/butpretzelday 2d ago
My sister’s boss would fly private literally anywhere she could. Like to the point where it took longer to get on the plane and take off abd land then if she just had her driver take her.
→ More replies (1)14
u/InevitableAvalanche 2d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah, there are much worse problems when it comes to climate. It seems this is more a distraction than people actually caring about it. The anti fans are as bad as the fans.
→ More replies (3)29
u/MuglyRay 2d ago
Pretty sure her level of fame is unique. She probably travels twice as much as most performers. That being said she def is the scapegoat of this
23
u/Clear-Depth-7455 2d ago
Wasn’t she like not even in the top 10 of celebrities with the highest emissions? I know she’s been up there before but not nearly as much as people say she is. That’s mainly why I get confused why people focus on her, yes she used jets a lot on tour but she wasn’t even that high on the list. I’ve also heard she buys carbon credits, but to be entirely honest I’m not sure what those do in terms of negating things.
→ More replies (1)10
u/ross128b 2d ago
Not even in the top 10. I want people to be equally mad at the Kardashians and the likes who are way above the list.
33
u/JustGotOffOfTheTrain 2d ago
Her level of fame might be unique, but there are a lot of other celebrities with more private jet time than her.
8
u/Competitive-Point-62 2d ago
I remember meeting someone who works in rather niche parts of the insurance industry, and one of the things he mentioned to me was how anyone particularly “high profile” basically gets told they must fly privately or else a bunch of their personal coverage such as life insurance gets invalidated for supposedly unreasonable exposure to risk
Some celebrities indeed do love excess, but like many things in life, the insurance industry is part of the problem too -_-
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (12)23
u/Bukaw0_0 2d ago
A couple years ago, it came out that miss TS produced the most carbon dioxide of any celebrities out there. The article, maintains the same. Plus, it’s mostly about how her fan base reacts to this right? The celebrity who produces the most greenhouse gases is not held accountable
→ More replies (22)20
u/cornandcandy 2d ago
It was later correct her planes do! But she rents them out when not in use so kinda hard to fully tell. Also imagine the pandemonium if she flew out of airports all the time? People would go nuts
→ More replies (1)
60
u/lofgren777 2d ago
This feels like a framing issue.
If people were not presented with Swift's actions as if they need to choose being a Swifty versus being environmentally aware, then they would probably not perceive those opinions as conflicted.
This really just demonstrates how you can cherry pick facts in order to persuade people to temporarily change their stated beliefs – a fairly well-established phenomenon.
In their daily life, I doubt these people see a persistent conflict between being a fan of Swift and taking environmental action, and I suspect that over a relatively short time (like by the time they get out to the parking lot) their environmentally conscious behaviors have reasserted themselves.
Because I doubt that many people are rationalizing letting their car idle in the parking lot for ten minutes because celebrities fly in jets.
→ More replies (4)10
u/Murky-Relation481 2d ago
It's also not a binary choice dictated by one problem statement. You're not compromising your belief that something has to be done about climate change if you realize there are also exceptions to the rule based on other circumstances.
The life span of popstars, especially female ones, amongst the general public is not exactly high. Her not using commercial airliners is understandable. That doesn't mean I don't think climate change needs to be addressed, it just means that the circumstances of her carbon footprint are not as egregious as the other people who use more than her and are basically unknown rich people the vast majority couldn't pick out of a first class boarding line at the airport.
→ More replies (1)
38
u/jerrolds 2d ago
Uh oh.. Negative Taylor news is trending.. Ed Sheeran slightly relieved
→ More replies (1)11
63
u/Daenarys1 2d ago
Fanbases will justify criminal actions and abuse let alone private jets.
→ More replies (2)
12
u/RPS93 2d ago
Wait until you hear about the number of 'feminists' who listen to Chris Brown religiously.
This is just how people are - 'Rules for thee but not for me'.
→ More replies (1)
28
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (8)14
u/bullcitytarheel 2d ago
That's because it's an article recounting a study, not the study itself. But you can find the study here: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2027-69376-001?doi=1
→ More replies (1)
33
u/SquarePegRoundWorld2 2d ago
Late stage parasocial relationship. Celebrity worship will be our downfall. People should really stop supporting celebrities in every manner.
→ More replies (3)
60
u/GM-hurt-me 2d ago
It’s weird to me how everyone is talking about her footprint specifically and hers is the only one you ever hear about.
Why are people so morbidly fascinated with this woman
14
u/TheMalibu 2d ago
I was thinking the same thing. I don't listen to her music, and don't follow her escapades. Is her private jet particularly bad, or is it the use of private jets in general?
→ More replies (2)6
u/BlgMastic 1d ago
They are so full of hate in their heart they need to hate on something new all the time. Ed Sheeran hate is so last week.
→ More replies (7)15
u/Any-Association-4299 2d ago
Yes, exactly. I am self admittedly (i wouldn’t say a swiftie), but a casual fan. It feels like her haters are almost just as obsessed as some fans and Reddit seems to have an obsession with hating on her. I’m not typically above criticizing people I like but the hate towards her seems so disproportionate at times that I feel myself needing to defend her because a lot of what people say isn’t true.
→ More replies (1)6
41
u/MrJohnnyDangerously 2d ago
Why is she the only person held responsible for their carbon footprint? She is one of MANY at that scale of emissions but she's the only one we hear about. The argument is disingenuous
10
u/TooCupcake 2d ago
Her name gets clicks, no question. There is not a person on this planet who is neutral about Taylor Swift. And if someone actually is, they will also come on here and tell you how much they don’t care about her. Everyone wants to engage with the discourse when her name comes up. It’s just that simple
→ More replies (20)7
u/hymen_destroyer 2d ago
I think she's just conveniently emblematic of this phenomenon. You could replace her with most entertainers but she's one of the biggest in the world at the moment, and has recently taken some very high profile and completely unnecessary trips on her plane
→ More replies (9)12
11
u/Knighth77 2d ago
This is why we can't get enough people behind fixing real problems. People tend to let go of their principles to satisfy some nonsensical need or desire. It happens all the time and across the board from entertainment to politics. It typically ranges from "this brings me joy, I don't care," to a fully fledged cult of personality. They're called the ignorant masses for a reason.
3
u/Kasern77 2d ago
You can apply this to to any person, ideal or thing that people look up to. Religion, patriotism, other celebrities, etc.
8
u/ThoughtsandThinkers 2d ago
A good example of dissonance reduction theory. When our beliefs (environmentalism) are incongruent with our actions (following a musician), it can be easier to change our beliefs (justification) than our actions
This is also a reason why people like Swift should lead by example. They have a disproportionate ability to influence society and create positive change
12
u/TwoStepToo 2d ago
Ya don’t say. I’m guessing that if you ask any human in a situation where their carbon footprint is questioned they’ll rationalize it to fit their individual needs. It’s part of the human condition.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Bituulzman 2d ago
That's the interesting part of the article to me, that the other comments seem to miss. Beyond rationalizing the behavior on behalf of their idol, their view of the behavior itself and its value/role in their own lives becomes diminished.
But if we were to generalize, would a super fan begin to think that assault itself is not as big a deal in their own life, bc they are willing to excuse it for Chris Brown (or whatever politician they idolize)? I am thinking that it's more unique to climate-friendly behavior alone, for reasons as you suggest.
13
u/rtduvall 2d ago
Nope. She's a billionaire and part of the problem.
Dolly could have been a billionaire but she kept giving her money away.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Latter-Possibility 2d ago
People are hypocrites and principles can’t stand in the way of rooting for your “team”
6
u/TechnicalAd6932 2d ago
I don't have strong feelings either way about her in general. But what are her alternative modes of interstate transportation? Arguably the most famous woman in the world sitting in first class on my American Airlines flight? That sounds miserable for everyone involved. Okay, then maybe buying every seat on that plane? Well then we are back to the private jet problem.
When someone is that famous, going anywhere is a logistics problem for her team. Someone that famous seems to have a better argument for taking a private jet everywhere vs random Jonny-millionaire.
Too many billionaires and millionaires in the world taking too many private jets. I do agree with that. But one of the most famous people in the world feeling the need to take one is a different issue to me.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/taylor-swift-fans-lower-climate-concerns-to-justify-star-s-carbon-footprint/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.