At this point in the climate crisis, we need everyone to start making planet-friendly choices. So, why have people started shaming celebrities for flying commercially rather than via private jet?
When Lil Nas X, a US rapper, shared a video from a plane to the social media platform X, he was bombarded with messages asking him if he was “broke.” Meanwhile, Jennifer Lopez was spotted on a commercial flight — in first class, naturally — to Paris from Naples, Italy. Tabloid news organization TMZ ran photos with the headline “JENNY FROM THE CABIN!!!” while social media users on Instagram accused her of “trying to look humble.”
These are some weird double standards. Celebrities such as Taylor Swift and Kylie Jenner have been widely criticized and ridiculed for their private jet use. It seems celebrities are damned if they do, damned if they do not — something not lost on Lil Nas X.
Illustration: Yusha
These incidents are part of the weird, transient world of social media in which talking points bubble up and then disappear. Most people are probably pleasantly surprised to see stars on their flights — though, it should be noted that only a small proportion of the global population flies. A study published in 2020 estimated that only 2 to 4 percent of humans flew internationally in 2018, while 1 percent caused half of the emissions from commercial aviation.
Private aviation takes that inequality, and turns it up to 11. Private planes account for 2 percent of total aviation emissions, but benefit just a handful of extremely wealthy people. Research from the think tank Institute for Policy Studies and campaign group Patriotic Millionaires found that the median net worth of a jet owner is US$190 million, while fractional owners — those who own a share in a jet — have a median net worth of US$140 million. These centimillionaires make up 0.0008 percent of the global population. Private jets are five-to-14 times more polluting per passenger than regular flights, and 50 times more polluting than trains, an analysis by research firm Transport and Environment (T&E) showed.
So we really ought to be encouraging more celebrities to travel with the rest of us. Indeed, it is not that unusual for famous people to hop on a standard flight: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Holland, former US president Bill Clinton and former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and even the Prince and Princess of Wales are known to take standard aircraft.
However, demand for private jets is booming, spurred by a growth in high net-worth individuals.
Ideally, people would simply fly far less often. However, given that direct commercial flights exist for 72 percent of private-aviation flights, getting wealthy frequent flyers to board regular planes would be an easy start.
The emissions saved by a small number of A-listers and billionaires switching to regular flights would be minute in comparison to the wider industry — and global emissions as a whole — but it could send a message. A couple of decades ago, Hollywood stars were being ridiculed for their embrace of the Toyota Prius, the first mass-produced hybrid vehicle. However, they stuck with it, created a trend for conspicuous eco-consumption and helped pave the way for broader electric vehicle acceptance.
Likewise, a poll by Mercury Insurance found that 39.4 percent of respondents said they would be “more likely to engage in sustainable travel practices if celebrities and public figures reduced their use of private jets.”
One key reason cited for the use of private jets is the desire for anonymity and privacy. That is already largely possible — many airports offer the option of private terminals, invitation-only airport lounges and services for elites to get whisked through security before being chauffeured straight onto the plane.
Of course, there are benefits impossible to replicate. Commercial flyers are still beholden to a fixed schedule and routes — no doubt seen as inconvenient for a busy executive or superstar. Efforts to make commercial flights feel more exclusive might simply spur growth in the luxury sector (normies, meanwhile, deal with extra fees for basics, delays and crowded airports) while doing a limited amount for decarbonization.
Ultimately, regulating private jets would be the most important and effective way to control the segment’s emissions. Done in the right way, they could even help spur the innovations needed to decarbonize the rest of the aviation sector.
Jets are taxed far less than their commercial counterparts. In the US, 17 percent of flights managed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are private jet flights, yet they only contribute 2 percent of taxes that fund the FAA. In the EU, jets fall below the threshold for inclusion in the Emission Trading System while fuel is tax free. T&E suggests introducing a ticket-and-fuel tax on conventional private jets, scaled with flight distance and aircraft weight. By 2030, regulators should ban private jets that are not powered by electricity, green hydrogen or sustainable aviation fuel.
This would not put billionaires off their private jets, but the extra money raised by taxes would be welcome funding for the challenge of decarbonizing air travel. Perhaps the money could even be put to work improving and expanding high-speed rail.
Until governments decide to tackle private jet regulation, social pressure would be important. After all, celebrities are status-aware individuals — much of their power and income is drawn from their public status. I would hazard a guess that one reason Swift continues to be addicted to her jets is that the criticism has not impacted her album and ticket sales.
Criticism can backfire — as my colleague Chris Bryant pointed out in 2022, LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault retreated to renting jets to avoid scrutiny — but it at least puts the pressure on. In the meantime, celebrities opting for the more sustainable options — a commercial flight, perhaps, or even better, the Eurostar — deserve to be left in peace.
Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
When a recall campaign targeting the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators was launched, something rather disturbing happened. According to reports, Hualien County Government officials visited several people to verify their signatures. Local authorities allegedly used routine or harmless reasons as an excuse to enter people’s house for investigation. The KMT launched its own recall campaigns, targeting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers, and began to collect signatures. It has been found that some of the KMT-headed counties and cities have allegedly been mobilizing municipal machinery. In Keelung, the director of the Department of Civil Affairs used the household registration system
RSS