OPINION:
Taylor Swift’s Instagram endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday was perhaps the least surprising thing to happen thus far in the 2024 campaign.
No courage is displayed when a celebrity toes the liberal line. Unlike the handful of entertainers who express alignment with the Republican Party, Ms. Swift risks losing none of the adoring media coverage and access to establishment power centers critical to maintaining status at the top of the A-list.
Siding with the Democratic Party machine is easy for someone who will never have to face the consequences. A billionaire who has twice earned the title of world’s highest-paid musician won’t be staying up late at night, worrying about the latest surge in supermarket prices.
Armed guards surround the superstar 24/7, ensuring that her cats — Meredith Grey, Olivia Benson and Benjamin Button — are never threatened by hungry illegal immigrants from Haiti bused into her hometown by the Biden-Harris administration.
On the other hand, this particular endorsement is a grand exercise in hypocrisy, considering Ms. Swift’s carbon footprint exceeds that of almost anyone else on the planet. Researchers from Indiana University estimated the emissions generated by the mansions, private jets and yachts of the world’s wealthiest.
Ms. Swift’s net worth doesn’t yet qualify for that list, but comparisons are possible. The Yard digital marketing agency used flight-tracking data to tally the 8,293 tons of carbon dioxide emitted from her private jet’s engines in the first half of 2022. The total doesn’t include the purported climatic poisons emanating from her mansions or chartered yacht trips.
Crisscrossing the planet aloft on a hectic concert tour schedule helped the singing phenomenon generate more carbon dioxide exhalations than plutocrats such as New York Times shareholder Carlos Slim, X owner Elon Musk, Amazon Executive Chairman Jeff Bezos or the founders of Google. For people who say they care about such things, this should be a big deal.
Concert tours are a massive business, and ensuring the headline act arrives at each venue on time and rested creates economic value. Ms. Swift’s sold-out performances employ thousands, so private travel makes more business sense than flying first class on commercial flights, any of which could be delayed.
Had the singer endorsed the candidate who actually understands business, this argument would make sense. Instead, she embraces Kamala Harris, who said last year: “So, every day, all across our nation, we feel and see the impact of the climate crisis. … It is clear that the clock is not only ticking, it is banging. And we must act.”
If Ms. Swift were to act as Ms. Harris urges, she would insist on traveling solely by means of clean energy. Doing so doesn’t mean sacrificing luxury.
Mr. Bezos, for instance, reduced his carbon footprint by building a posh, 417-foot sailing yacht that generates no carbon dioxide. Such emissions are transferred to the gas-guzzling 246-foot support ship that follows to ensure the sailboat never runs out of caviar flown in by helicopter daily.
While a sailboat might take a bit longer to cross the Atlantic than a $50 million jet, a true progressive would say sacrificing a little velocity today is worthwhile if it means — under her worldview — the planet will be here tomorrow.
Or it means Ms. Swift is just making the endorsement she’s expected to make.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.