Taylor Swift sparks backlash after info about recent trip goes public

A post in the r/TaylorSwiftJets subreddit highlights the pop icon's continued use of private air travel and sparks yet another wave of concern about the environmental impact of short-haul jet flights.

This isn't the first time. — Photo Credit: Reddit

The post showed a flight map of Swift's Falcon 7X landing after a short flight from Tampa, Florida. The caption read: "Taylor Swift's Falcon 7x Landed in Orlando, Florida, United States. Apx. flt. time 28 min." That's a trip of roughly 80 miles, a drive that takes about 1.5 hours.

Private jets are some of the most polluting forms of transportation, emitting up to 2 tons of carbon dioxide in a single hour. That's more carbon pollution than the average American generates in an entire month.

Short flights like this may be routine in the world of luxury travel, but to many, the flights feel tone-deaf with a warming world and more climate-driven disasters.

This isn't the first time Swift's jet use has sparked backlash. Her jet-tracking history has been under scrutiny for years.

While her team has said that the pop star loans out her jets to others, climate advocates say the problem goes beyond who's on the plane. It's about a culture of excess that normalizes burning massive amounts of fuel for convenience.

Watch now: How bad is a gas stove for your home's indoor air quality?

Swift's team has stated that she purchases carbon offsets to balance out her jet use. But critics argue offsets are not a solution and are often used to justify planet-warming habits.

Luckily, governments are taking promising steps to reduce the harms of short-haul flights. France, for example, has banned flights that can be replaced by rail. Canada has enacted a luxury tax on private jets, yachts, and luxury cars to help limit the pollution from frivolous travel.

And more travelers are opting for cleaner alternatives like biking, taking public transit, or buying electric vehicles.

The original poster added more stats in the comments, stating: "1,205 lbs (547 kg) of jet fuel used. ~ $1,007 cost of fuel. ~ 2 tons of CO2 emissions."