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 return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS