Celebrity Climate Hypocrites
Spoiler alert! She was later subjected to sneering headlines when it turned out the trip increased carbon emissions because her crew needed to fly to New York to sail it back. (1)
Flying is in general the most carbon intensive way to travel per mile. Private plane travel is at an all time high; demand continues to outpace supply, and it’s more accessible than ever.
You’ve seen the headlines: celebrities’ love of private air travel is an environmental nightmare. Yet as the ultra rich enter image-recovery mode–shifting responsibility to sponsors, friends, and renters–it’s still business as usual when it comes to flights by private jets. (2)
How does Greta get around to all her speaking engagements on behalf of the planet? She came to the US by boat. and not just any boat–we’re talking about a zero-emissions sail boat called the Malizia II, which took her weeks. The boat has solar panels and underwater turbines that generate electricity onboard.
Experts say that the Malizia II offers the lowest carbon way to cross the Atlantic.
That’s the picture that Greta supporters would like you to focus on. But there’s another side to this eco-friendly journey. Two crew members had to fly across the Atlantic to New York to bring the boat back, and two of the crew members that made the original voyage had to fly across the Atlantic from the US to return home.
That’s four flights to keep Greta from making two.
In a nutshell, the 5,337 kilometer flight times four people generated 2,134,800 grams of CO2 just for the flights alone. (1)
The real trouble with air travel is those flying privately. Private jets have a disproportionate impact on the environment. Private jets are the worst offenders for emissions per passenger.
It’s a particularly popular form of travel among celebrities, who often opt for incredibly short-haul flights instead of choosing a more environmentally friendly alternative.
Leonardo DiCaprio made headlines in 2021 year for flying commercial to COP26 in Glascow.
While he may have (finally) ditched the private plane, DiCaprio then rang in 2022 aboard another climate calamity, a luxury super yacht that generates an estimated 7,018 metric tons of emissions per year.
If Leo’s holiday super yacht tells us anything, it’s that we can’t rely on the CO2 self-restraint of even the most well intentioned millionaires (or billionaires). (2)
Harrison Ford has frequently traveled via private jet in recent months despite his well-known climate change activism.
Ford’s private jet, a multimillion-dollar Cessna Citation Sovereign, has made at least eight trips stretching roughly 5,284 miles and emitting about 35 metric tons of carbon dioxide in less than two months. (3)
Ford has made regulate appearances at global climate conferences, calling upon individuals and government leaders to support efforts to reduce emissions and prevent disastrous global warming. Ford owns 10 airplanes and at least as many cars and motorcycles.
In the first half of 2022, 10 celebrities planes released a staggering 3,376 metric tons of carbon emissions. That’s about 482 times more than the average person’s annual emissions. Average flight times came in at just 71.77 minutes with an average 66.92 miles traveled per flight.
Here are the 10 celebs with the worst CO2 emissions based on how often they use their private planes: Taylor Swift, Floyd Mayweather, Jay-Z, A-Rod, Blake Shelton, Steven Spielberg, Kim Kardashian, Mark Wahlberg, Oprah Winfrey and Travis Scott. (4)
A number of celebrities don’t ‘walk the walk’ when it comes to ‘climate change’—they just ‘talk the talk’.
These prominent personalities demand people scale back their lifestyles and accept spartan living, all the while these same celebrities enjoy rich and lavish lifestyles in huge mansions, private jets and yachts (5)
References
1. Bjorn Lomborg, False Alarm, (New York, Basic Books,2020)
2. Beatriz Barros & Richard Wilk, “The outsized carbon footprint of the super-rich,” tandfonline.com, February 8, 2021
3. Thomas Catenacci,, “Harrison Ford is a huge climate hypocrite,” realclearenergy.com, August 30, 20
4. Leslie Finlay, “Here’s how bad Taylor Swift’s and other celebrities private jet emissions really are for the environment,” buzzfeednews.com, August 16, 2022
5. Pierre Gosselin, “Shameful celebrities preach low-energy lifestyles but in fact have monster carbon dioxide emissions,” notrickszone.com, March 7, 2016
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Elle
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Wisenox
| #
DiCaprio is a Young Global Leader.
Reply
D. Boss
| #
Yes, they are all hypocrites. But (commercial) air travel is no worse than travel by automobile. Since this is supposed to be a scientific site, let’s do the numbers from reality, not from copying other’s claims without cross checking, shall we: (only need some elementary chemistry and simple math)
Jet fuel is a mixture of various hydrocarbon species, but the bulk or median is C12H26, so lets use that for a balanced chemical formula of combustion. Likewise, petrol or gasoline comprises a range of species, but let’s use the formula for Octane, which is C8H18.
(2 C12H26 + 37O2 => 24CO2 +26H2O) Jet combustion
(2 C8H18 + 25O2 => 16CO2 +18H2O) Petrol combustion
Molecular weight of each is 170 g/mole for Jet fuel, and 114 g/mol for Petrol. Thus with complete combustion Jet fuel produces 3.106 times more CO2 by weight than the fuel’s weight, and Petrol produces 3.088 times more weight of CO2 than the fuel weight. (extra weight is added by the huge amount of oxygen addition via combustion)
Let’s compare 3 aircraft against a common petrol car:
Car = 22 miles per gallon, fuel is 6.3 lbs/gallon (US gallon), 4 passengers, cruise speed 60 MPH = 0.2864 lbs fuel per mile, 4 passengers = 0.072 lbs fuel per passenger mile.
Car generates 0.072 x 3.088 = 0.221 lbs CO2 per passenger mile
737-800 = 6000 lbs/hr fuel at cruise; 140 passengers; cruise speed 600 MPH = 10 lbs fuel per mile. 140 passengers = 0.071 lbs fuel per passenger mile.
737-800 generates 0.071 x 3.106 = 0.222 lbs CO2 per passenger mile!
747-400 = 18500 lbs/hr fuel at cruise; 400 passengers, cruise speed 600 MPH = 30.83 lbs fuel per mile, 400 passengers = 0.077 lbs fuel per passenger mile
747-400 generates 0.077 x 3.106 = 0.239 lbs CO2 per passenger mile.
Gulfstream G550 (business jet) = 2640 lbs/hr fuel at cruise; 14 passengers, cruise speed 600 MPH = 4.4 lbs fuel per mile, 14 passengers = 0.314 lbs fuel per passenger mile.
The G550 generates 0.314 x 3.106 = 0.976 lbs CO2 per passenger mile.
Note, the 737-800 engines are several decades more advanced than the 747-400 engines, hence are more efficient. The newer 747-800 or 777 or 787 engines are even better.
As you can see flying commercial is comparable to driving an automobile in terms of fuel burn and CO2 emissions. Private jet travel is 3-4 times higher fuel per passenger mile as well as CO2 emissions. (but the G550 engines are about as powerful as those on a DC-9 or MD-80, but carries only 14 instead of 100 people)
And note, these are average fuel consumption values – flying against 100 knot headwinds or driving up mountains will alter the fuel consumption, but it’s a useful comparison.
However all the tooth gnashing about CO2 emissions, is nonsense – CO2 is the essence of life, and below 150 ppm all plant life dies, meaning all life on planet earth dies. The ecosystem has been sequestering CO2 into rock and sea sediments for millions of years and we almost got to extinction of all life in the last Ice Age reaching 180 ppm.
So mankind burning some sequestered carbon and returning it to the atmosphere is actually SAVING the planet’s life, so flying your private jet is actually helping to save the planet! (can we get the elites to understand this and stop this decarbonizing suicidal narrative???)
Reply