Homethings-Why celebs needs a lesson in jet-iquette.

Why celebs needs a lesson in jet-iquette.

Why celebs needs a lesson in jet-iquette.

Celebs have been ‘jet setting’ for as long as jets have been around. But with an increase in climate awareness and flight information becoming available on the internet, it was only a matter of time before members of the public started taking a closer look at the trips that celebrity-owned private jets were making (and keeping tabs on the emissions).

University of Florida student (and planespotter) Jack Sweeney has been keeping an eye on celebs’ private jets for years, but a recent discovery about Taylor Swift’s flying habits have really shaken things up. It’s time to Dish the Dirt…




It’s no new news that traveling by plane isn’t great for the planet. But whilst the lack of legroom isn’t ideal, packing a plane full of passengers can massively help. A 1.5hr flight on a commercial airline produces 174 lbs of co2 emissions per passenger, versus a whopping 7913 lbs on a 1.5hr long private jet trip. 

Because of this massive jump in emissions, private jets belonging to a group of just 200 celebs, CEOs, and billionaires produced the same volume of emissions as the TOTAL carbon footprint of 40,000 Britons in 2022.

And whilst the top offenders tend to be CEOs and billionaires (rather than celebs), they’re not so concerned with covering up this not-so-eco behaviour. Celebs, on the other hand, have more of a reputation to protect, leading to many of them trying to enrol in programmes that help hide their plane ID numbers.



Since Sweeney discovered Taylor Swift's jet (which had an undercover plane ID) even Swifties have been surprised by her flight history (which includes OVER 170 trips between Jan and August 2022). Some have been insanely short, like a 13 minute journey from one side of a city to the other (that would’ve been a 30 minute drive) and a 26-minute flight from Missouri to Illinois (which would have been just a couple of hours drive). Some trips have also been deemed ‘unnecessary’, like flying in from around the world whilst on her tour to watch her NFL player boyfriend’s matches in person.  

This year her total flight footprint will likely be 1184x more than the average person’s TOTAL annual emissions. And whilst she does buy carbon offsetting credits, whether these really help the environment is up for discussion (read more about that here). 

On top of this, a cease-and-desist letter from her lawyers hasn’t gone down particularly well – describing Sweeney’s posts around her flight patterns as “stalking and harassing behavior” and threatening further legal action. Even some of her biggest fans have commented that going after an eco-conscious uni student who was sharing (completely legal) information was taking things a bit too far.


Whilst there is an argument for regular airplanes posing a security risk to A list celebs and busy tours mean that a private jet might be much more convenient… there are some celebs that are still happy to take the environment into account. Coldplay planned their entire world tour to minimise air travel and optimise the shipping of their stage equipment to decrease emissions… so it clearly CAN be done. Even Harry Styles was more than happy to travel by Tour Bus as much as possible, only hopping on the jet for traveling between countries.

And even if Taylor wasn’t willing to give up the private jet, a lot of fans are asking her to, at the very least, speak openly about how much she flies - and where she’s buying her carbon credits from. It’s no secret that she has a massive influence on her fans - a few years ago, she mentioned the importance of voting and got 3-5 million young people to register from just ONE Instagram post. Swift is in the position to really enact change - and transparency when it comes to sustainability is key. 


By making our Things waterless, we massively reduce their carbon footprint – as water-based products are heavier + take up more space (meaning more emissions during transport). It was also means that we can remove the need for single-use plastic. It makes sense.