I am not a Swiftie by any means. I do not listen to Taylor Swift’s music, I do not keep up with her life and, quite frankly, I do not want to. But even from that distance, I think the conversation surrounding her has become absurd.

Following her 632-day Eras Tour, Swift came under fire for traveling primarily by private jet. While it doesn’t surprise me that she would be criticized, I find it odd that she is criticized much more intensely than the people who do the very same things, both intentionally and at a scale that actually affects the world.

Yes, Swift has frequently used her private jet. Reports claim her jet usage in 2022 produced around 8,300 tons of carbon dioxide, nearly 1,800 times the annual emissions of an average person. Although her publicist clarified that Taylor buys carbon credits to offset her travel, the backlash she faced was relentless. The internet dissects every mile flown and even criticizes her for flights she has not taken yet. If we’re going to treat jet travel as ecological terrorism, then what do we call Amazon’s 68.25 million metric tons of carbon emissions in 2024, a six percent increase from 2023? Swift has attempted to offset her emissions, yet Amazon allowed its shipping and delivery pollution to rise by 75 percent after 2019. However, I have seen no commitment to tracking Amazon flights or fits of outrage over what Jeff Bezos ought to do for the environment. Why do we shame a recording artist when the world’s largest retail tycoon, whose job actually entails environmental regulation, operates an air fleet that makes Swift’s carbon footprint seem inconsequential? I think we have become too comfortable blaming a woman for existing within a system rather than holding the men who built and capitalized on it accountable.

The accusations of greed don’t stop at Swift’s fuel consumption, though. She has been criticized for releasing variants of her albums with bonus covers and tracks. Fans often buy multiple copies enthusiastically, but I still see plenty of accusations that Swift baits her supporters into spending money. When male artists such as the Weeknd or Harry Styles release album variants, no one treats it as a moral failing or cash grab. If anything, it is seen as savvy marketing. Swift’s versions follow the same pattern, so how is she the only greedy one?

The hypocrisy becomes even clearer when Swift is compared to corporations. Apple, for instance, seems to release a new iPhone every year with extremely marginal differences in hardware and appearance. Coca-Cola sells practically identical formulas under 32 flavors, and how many of the 232 Oreo flavors would taste the same if we ate them while blindfolded? These companies rely on repetition as their business model, but it’s the pop star who’s branded as exploitative for releasing new editions of her music. Her album rollout might encourage consumerism; however, it cannot compare to the trillion-dollar corporations with 10 times her resources but 10 times less artistry. Swift is not a paragon of capitalist excess. 

It must ultimately boil down to scale and visibility. Swift’s every move is visible and easy to moralize about. Her carbon footprint, her pricing and her marketing strategies are transparent since the very concept of celebrity operates under a microscope. Our ability to engage in discussions about Swift, whether positive or negative, is largely what sustains her. By contrast, corporate figures live behind their public relations teams and are not personified in their quarterly reports. We do not look at brown Amazon packages and see Jeff Bezos’ face, but when we look dead in Swift’s eyes on her album covers, her celebrity is easily accessible. I suppose it’s easier for us to channel our anxiety about inequality and climate change towards a famous woman, rather than the industry that weaponizes her fame. But the fact that this approach is easier does not make it excusable. We shouldn’t take an uncalculated shot just because our primary target is moving.

Again, I don’t think Swift is above all criticism. In many ways, she is as intense a participant in the culture of consumption as Jeff Bezos is its overlord. But we need to draw a line somewhere. It is not fair for the masses to hold Swift to a higher moral standard than the CEOs who own the entire infrastructure of the modern world. That isn’t justice, and it certainly isn’t commendable. It is a misdirection. You wouldn’t celebrate an archer for landing an arrow if he had mistakenly hit a volunteer in the head rather than the apple on their scalp.

So no, I’m not a Swiftie, but I cannot ignore that when the internet makes her its punching bag (as it often does), it’s usually avoiding a more difficult task. It is not Swift’s fault that the world runs on fossil fuels or that her mode of travel requires that they be burned. It is not her fault that other billionaires hoard their wealth. If we really do care about emissions and excess, then maybe we should stop shouting at Taylor Swift and start demanding change from the people who actually have the power to effect change.