Amidst criticism for her frequent private jet use, Taylor Swift made a noteworthy move by purchasing double the required carbon credits to offset emissions from her record-breaking tour. If executed thoughtfully, Swift’s approach could catalyze efforts to combat deforestation and biodiversity loss, scale up carbon removal technologies, and support indigenous communities.
Swift's flight from Tokyo to Las Vegas for boyfriend Travis Kelce's Superbowl appearance has intensified scrutiny of her carbon footprint for obvious reasons. A 2023 Institute for Policy Studies study revealed that private jets emit at least ten times more pollutants per passenger than commercial airplanes.
To be clear, purchasing carbon credits alone will not quell the criticism faced by the billionaire singer amid a race against time. Recent reports indicate the world has - for the first time - exceeded a 1.5-degree Celsius rise in temperature over a 12-month period, serving as a 'warning to humanity.' There is now, thus, a reasonable expectation that offsetting must be accompanied by efforts to reduce emissions for a sustainability policy to be credible. Frameworks like the Science-Based Target Initiative offer guidance on the optimal standards corporate sustainability initiatives should aim to achieve. In Swift’s context, this might also be coupled with increased investments in sustainable aviation fuel (biofuel) to reduce emissions from aviation as a whole.
However, this truth does not negate the impact or the necessity of increased revenues from carbon credit sales as far as biodiversity and climate efforts are concerned. After all, if we are in a race against time, we need all solutions on the table. In this respect, Swift's use of carbon credits can have a meaningful impact for three key reasons:
One example of everyday activities funded by carbon credits is efforts to prevent deforestation, which accounts for up to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions; in contrast, aviation accounts for 3.5% of global emissions. Reducing deforestation is critical in keeping carbon locked in mature forests. Since trees take many years to grow to maturity, we should not underestimate the value of protecting what we already have.
Beyond these immediate 'carbon benefits,' carbon credits also yield broader biodiversity advantages. Safeguarding forests from destruction positively impacts the ecosystems they encompass, including the diverse species and habitats within them.
It is estimated that at least $15 billion is needed annually to address deforestation. And yet, at the end of 2022, forest protection efforts received just 2.2% of global climate-related financing. However, if all Fortune 500 companies followed Swift’s example and purchased carbon credits to cover their unabated emissions, this could generate $25 billion annually. Allegedly, this figure represents just 1.5% of their collective corporate profits.
The funds generated by carbon credits can contribute to human economic development activities, providing a revenue stream for communities dedicated to preserving the world’s forests. Notably, many of these communities are indigenous, comprising 5% of the world’s population yet safeguarding 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. As this open letter highlights, carbon credits have the potential to serve as a vital funding source for these communities.
Unfortunately, too many sustainability approaches fail to assign real value to the work done by these same communities, thereby leaving too many forest stakeholders short-changed. In recent years, many communities have refused to sign contracts to sell carbon credits via third-party intermediaries (so-called “carbon cowboys”) because they perceive they are not getting a fair price for their work. In response, the United Nations and others have called for the price of carbon credits to be increased to at least $100 a ton - far higher than what they can currently often be purchased for on the voluntary carbon market. Here, Swift has the potential to set a benchmark for best practice by ensuring a significant portion of the proceeds from her carbon credit purchases flow to those communities actually doing the conservation work that underpins the value of the credits in the first place.
Fortunately, a number of frameworks, such as Equitable Earth and the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative, provide guidance for companies on how to implement their carbon credit programs. A prudent buyer of carbon credits, especially those of a significant number like Swift, must also ensure they have substantial human rights due diligence processes in place to ensure that the local communities involved are not exploited.
Climate scientists emphasize that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 requires not only emission cuts but substantial investment in carbon removal technologies. John Doerr's book, Speed & Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now, underscores this need, revealing that even with successful emission reduction strategies by 2050, around 10 billion tons (17% of global emissions) of residual emissions must be removed, along with much of the carbon we’ve already pumped into the atmosphere.
However, current carbon removal technologies, like Direct Air Capture, have so far only sequestered a small fraction of what's necessary. Furthermore, the high cost of carbon sequestration hinders the growth of a market for new removal techniques, as Doerr points out, stating, 'The practical issue with carbon removal is a lack of any real incentive to pay for it. Why would anyone fork over six hundred dollars or even three hundred dollars to erase a ton of carbon from the air?'
Swift has a significant opportunity to make an impact by investing in carbon credits that support crucial yet nascent carbon removal technologies. However, this endeavor requires considerable investment, considering carbon credits (of dubious quality) can be bought for as low as $3-4 per ton.
An illustrative example of whats possible comes from Climate Company Spiritus, which took it upon itself to voluntarily offset the carbon emissions of Taylor Swift's potential private jet flight from Japan to Las Vegas for the Superbowl. The estimated cost to offset this trip using current removal technologies is $28,000, calculated at $700 per ton of removed carbon dioxide. The CEO of Spiritus, Charles Cadieu, emphasized the symbolic significance of this action, stating, “Taylor Swift’s flight to the big game provides a platform where the power of music and the urgency of climate action converge. By removing the carbon emissions of her flight from Japan to Las Vegas, we at Spiritus are supporting an icon and leveraging the team camaraderie of American football to highlight we’re all in this together. It’s a symbol of how every action, no matter the stage, can contribute to a more sustainable world.'
Carbon credits are a polarizing topic, but their impact depends on how they are applied. When used responsibly, adhering to high standards, they can greatly aid nature conservation, support frontline communities, and advance carbon removal technologies. Of course, this does not negate the urgent need to find all possible ways to slash emissions. But by being willing to pay for high-quality credits, Taylor Swift has the opportunity to supercharge at least 3 positive impacts for both people and planet. It is crucial that those leading her sustainability efforts do not bundle this chance by managing Swift’s carbon portfolio in the wrong way. The whole world is watching.
