here are some hyper-polluting individuals:

  • the Rolling Stones’ Boeing 767 (5,046 tonnes of CO2)
  • Lawrence Stroll (1,512 flights)
  • Thirty-nine jets linked to 30 Russian oligarchs – (30,701 tonnes of CO2)

relevant quote:

But I will say this, a movement can’t get along without a devil, and across the whole political spectrum there is a misogynistic tendency to choose a female devil, whether it’s Anita Bryant, Hillary Clinton, Marie Antoinette, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or J.K. Rowling [or Taylor Swift]. And there’s always gonna be people who seize on any opportunity to be misogynistic. So I would advise trans people and our allies [or environmentalists] to keep in mind, that J.K. Rowling [Taylor Swift] is not the final boss of transphobia [anti-environmentalism]. She’s not our devil. The devil is the Republican Party, the Conservative Party.

—Natalie Wynn (emphasis and bracket text mine)

edit: if you can’t respond to this without using the c*nt expletive it is not helping your case lmao. mods are we okay with this? in any case, please don’t feed the trolls.

edit 2/FAQ: “but why did she threaten legal action against that college kid though?” still shitty, but refer to this comment for a good explanation of the context behind that decision.

She only threatened legal action since those memes started before when her flight movements got the attention of the right in an attempt to make her less credible of a voice speaking out against trump. And knowing how batshit insane trump cultists can be and how she’s basically the single most hated person of his base I’m not surprised that she feared for her security. Those records were public for years but the legal action only happened after someone created that meme and even fox news suddenly cared about plane emissions…

sources/timeline for the above:

  • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    It doesn’t matter how easy the search is to you or I… The people who have found this tool (or made it, I don’t know. Don’t want to accuse the student of anything untoward) are distributing it to people who would have otherwise:

    1. never even knew such a possibility exists,

    2. had no fucking idea how to even begin finding that information themselves regardless of how simple it may seem to you and I, and,

    3. not have even had the idea to use the information that way in the first place.

    This is basic transparency on the part of the FAA. They disseminate this information to keep track of things, and for research purposes. It was never intended to be used in this way.

    In fact, if anything significant comes out of this, it would be to limit what info the FAA makes public (and it will skew toward private jets of course). So in the long run this will probably have the opposite effect of what you want.

    • Red Army Dog Cooper@lemmy.ml
      0·
      10 months ago

      While yes it will likely remove public access that is more so because that is what capital has been wanting for a while, not only that but I would argue that this is part of the intended use case, to keep track of who is using our air ways and how often. Just because its not often thought of does not mean it is not right proper or intended.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      0·
      10 months ago

      The corporate bootlicking here is insane

      Are you also anti union because a unionized stage crew threatens swifts profits and thus her ability to hire security?

      Do you think margret thatcher has girl power?