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.
Aurelijus Vijunas’ recent opinion article “An accurate term for ‘Taiwanese’” (Aug. 3, page 8) argues that ‘Taiwanese’ (the common name for Hoklo) is not a suitable name for the Southern Min variety spoken in Taiwan. He presents three main points: Taiwanese is mutually intelligible with some Southern Min varieties, especially in China; the name was coined by Japanese officials without linguistic basis; and Taiwan is a multilingual and multicultural society. Vijunas’ arguments are flawed based on global language naming. First, he conflates language naming with linguistic classification. While Taiwanese is a Southern Min variety, many languages are named independently of their typological
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on Sunday delivered a speech in Bangkok discussing cross-strait tensions and his recommendations for promoting peace between Taiwan and China. He said little new, reiterating the need to “trust” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and to concentrate on negotiations with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He repeated his appraisal that Taiwan could not win in a war against the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), nor could it rely on military intervention by the US. Some would ask why people need to listen to what Ma thinks, a washed-up politician, out of power for the best part
With polls in as many as 76 countries, 2024 is the biggest election year in history. This year’s raft of elections has already produced a left-leaning government in Britain, political gridlock in France, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s return to office for a third term, and the elevation of the pro-sovereignty William Lai (賴清德) as Taiwan’s president, but with his Democratic Progressive Party losing its majority in the legislature. But no election will have a greater global impact than the one in the US. Whether American voters elect Kamala Harris or Donald Trump as the next president, and whether the Republicans
There is an old saying in Chinese that essentially means that when an academic tries to reason with a warrior, they might as well be talking to a wall. Times have changed, and military men are far more reasonable now than when this saying emerged. Retired army general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰) is a good example of this. Today, academics are now often the ones who cannot be reasoned with. Alice Ou (區桂芝), who teaches Chinese Literature at Taipei First Girls’ High School, and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), who is also an associate professor at National Tsing Hua