110
submitted 10 months ago by iraq_lobster@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

A full breakdown of the top 10 celebrity CO2e offenders:

  1. Taylor Swift: 8,293.54 tonnes (per year), or 1,184.8 times more than the average person's total annual emissions.

  2. Floyd Mayweather: 7,076.8 tCO2e (tonnes of CO2 emitted, per year)

  3. Jay-Z: 6,981.3 tCO2e

  4. A-Rod ( J-Lo's ex-fiance and baseball player) : 5,342.7 tCO2e

  5. Blake Shelton: 4495 tCO2e

  6. Steven Spielberg: 4,465 tCO2e

  7. Kim Kardashian: 4268.5 tCO2e

  8. Mark Wahlberg: 3772.85 tCO2e

  9. Oprah Winfrey: 3,493.17 tCO2e

  10. Travis Scott (Kylie Jenner’s Beau) : 3033.3 tCO2e

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The addendum is interesting:

... this finding broadly assumes that all celebrities were using the same grade of private jet, whereas, in reality, there are some jets on the list which emit far more emissions than others. Therefore, revisiting calculations, taking into account the specific jets being used, rather than use a broad estimate of CO2e, we have the consumption of jet fuel during each of these trips, and then identified the CO2e per gallon of jet fuel.

Interestingly [with] these different calculations, we see that the jet owned by Drake uses an average of 1,722 gallons of jet fuel per hour, whereas Taylor Swift’s jet uses a much lower 347 gallons per hour.

taytay's jet is 5x more efficient than Drake's, which makes Drake look like an irresponsible fuckhead (surprising no one). His plane is basically rolling coal. Even with the adjustments, Swift still tops the list:

  • 1 Taylor Swift 2,971.50
  • 2 Drake 2,904.25
  • 3 Floyd Mayweather 2,205.22
  • 4 Puma/Jay-Z 2,107.72
  • 5 Kim Kardashian 1,752.51
  • 6 A-Rod 1,731.10
  • 7 Steven Spielberg 1,485.69
  • 8 Mark Wahlberg* 1,443.27
  • 9 Blake Shelton 1,357.85
  • 10 Jack Nicklaus 1,129.66

Which means she's flying a lot more miles than everyone else.

[-] Cosmicomical@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

When are we going to introduce tokens to handle externalities like this? It shouldn't be possible or at least easy to abuse resources like this.

[-] TheBiscuitLout@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Maybe by getting onto the list, you earn a Manpad token, and have it delivered during your next flight

[-] iraq_lobster@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

i see, time for ~~food~~ calorie stamps i guess ..

[-] Cosmicomical@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's not what i'm suggesting, and the limits and costs associated with externalities could be tuned so that the life of a normal person would not be altered if not in the sense that you would get additional tokens that you can keep or sell depending on your needs and personal values. I can elaborate if it's unclear.

The real change would be that if a billionaire wants to live that kind of lifestyle, they would have to gather enough tokens from the market. This would really enable some sort of trickle down because they would have to buy the tokens from you and you would always be able to tell them "no" and keep them from polluting.

[-] Cosmicomical@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

To clarify, these tokens would be in addition to money, not a replacement for them. It's a concept more similar to the carbon markets but they would be at the level of the citizen.

[-] iraq_lobster@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

sure, since its not a single person planet: everyone should have a say on someone's behaviour toward the climate

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 7 points 10 months ago

So I get how a popular musician who hosts massive concerts all around the world takes first place, but how in the world does a baseball player manage to make fourth?

[-] lurch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Aren't they renting them out most of the time, making their customer the main culprits?

[-] loki@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

China and India are renting out their factories to create shit ton of things for the whole world. When the statistics come out, they get blamed for it regardless of the countries profiting off their pollution. why should this be different?

[-] thrawn@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The money from renting it out doesn’t go towards the environment to my knowledge. It’s still not beneficial to anyone but themselves, thus the list makes no distinction.

They’re also not forced to rent them out. They make the decision to trade climate damage for money which is doubly dubious when they probably do not need the money.

this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
110 points (98.2% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5222 readers
538 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS