SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Maybe in the DOGE boys' video game simulations, it doesn't matter if they lay off hundreds of staff from the FAA. In the real world, however, it will make flying less safe," said Public Citizen's Robert Weissman.
As the Trump administration began firing hundreds of Federal Aviation Administration employees amid a surge in plane crashes, a leading U.S. consumer advocacy group warned Monday that the slash-and-burn approach of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is making the "next air travel disaster more likely."
While Musk recently said that DOGE will "aim to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system," critics have countered that the Trump administration's termination of FAA personnel, including critical air traffic control maintenance staff, poses major risks.
"Maybe in the DOGE boys' video game simulations, it doesn't matter if they lay off hundreds of staff from the FAA. In the real world, however, it will make flying less safe," Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said in a statement. "Just like having fewer people safeguarding the nation's nuclear arsenal will make the risk of a nuclear accident much greater."
Elon’s DOGE rampage will be a wake up call for what a decimated government really means. Cuts to FAA? Higher risk of plane crashes. Cuts to Forest Service? Higher fire risk. Cuts to the CDC? Higher pandemic risk. Cuts to the EPA? Higher toxic exposures risk — and on and on.
[image or embed]
— Public Citizen (@publiccitizen.bsky.social) February 17, 2025 at 11:03 AM
Weissman continued:
The Musk rampage through government is making it virtually certain that we will suffer through otherwise avoidable health, safety, and economic catastrophes. Cutting the Forest Service increases fire risk, cutting the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and blocking information-sharing risks worsening infectious disease outbreaks, cutting the [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] guarantees Big Bank and predatory loan ripoffs, cutting [Food and Drug Administration] staff increases the risk for dangerous devices, drugs, and food additives, cutting the [Environmental Protection Agency] will increase the risk of mass toxic exposures, and on and on.
"If permitted to proceed, the mindless Musk-Trump governmental annihilation is going to touch every American community, imposing tragedy upon tragedy," Weissman added.
In a Monday social media post, U.S. Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.) said that "mass firings of FAA workers—at a time when they already have serious staffing problems—would be dangerous at any time," but "Musk and Trump doing this weeks after the deadliest crash in years is stupid beyond belief."
Public Citizen's warning came on the same day that a Delta Air Lines flight from Minneapolis to Toronto crashed and overturned on landing. The FAA said all 80 people aboard the flight were rescued. At least a dozen people were injured in the crash, three of them critically, according to the Toronto Star.
While the FAA firings were not a factor in Monday's accident, the Toronto crash was the latest in a recent surge in air disasters. Last month, 67 people were killed when an American Airlines jet and an army helicopter collided at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C. According to initial reports, only one air traffic controller was working both civilian and military flights when the crash occurred.
On January 31, seven people died when a medical transport jet crashed near Philadelphia, 10 people were killed in a February 6 Bering Air commuter flight crash in Alaska, and one person died when a private plane belonging to Mötley Crüe singer Vince Neil crashed during landing in Arizona last Monday after its landing gear failed to properly deploy.
We condemn the decision to fire these safety inspectors. Everywhere I go I am asked, “is it safe to fly?” My response is yes because thousands of frontline workers ask that all day long. If federal workers can’t do their jobs, we can’t do ours. 1/2 www.passnational.org/index.php/ne...
[image or embed]
— Sara Nelson (@flyingwithsara.bsky.social) February 15, 2025 at 1:59 PM
David Spero, national president of Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, the union representing more than 11,000 FAA and Defense Department personnel who install, inspect, and maintain air traffic control systems, said in a statement Saturday that the Trump administration's terminations "will increase the workload and place new responsibilities on a workforce that is already stretched thin."
"This decision did not consider the staffing needs of the FAA, which is already challenged by understaffing," Spero added. "Staffing decisions should be based on an individual agency's mission-critical needs. To do otherwise is dangerous when it comes to public safety. And it is especially unconscionable in the aftermath of three deadly aircraft accidents in the past month."
Research and analysis of a dozen different roadmaps for aviation decarbonization through the large-scale adoption of SAFs demonstrate a negative environmental outcome.
In 2021, the aviation industry made a very commendable pledge. It decided to join the climate fight and developed a strategy to decarbonize the sector with the aim of net zero emissions by 2050.
The sustainability program is highly dependent on the development of jet fuels made from renewable feedstocks. Indeed, sustainable aviation fuels, or SAFs, are expected to do much of the heavy lifting in reducing the industry’s carbon footprint—it is estimated to account for two-thirds of their emission reduction plan.
On the surface, the choice to rely on SAFs for green aviation makes all the sense in the world. Unlike hydrogen- or battery-powered aircraft, SAFs can be easily integrated into the existing infrastructure of air transport and support long-haul flights of six hours or more.
But there are two fundamental problems with this approach.
The best and most effective way to lower the carbon footprint of the aviation sector is simply to fly less.
The first is that the aviation industry has an unreliable record of meeting SAF production targets. The International Air Transport Association (IATA), for example, announced in 2007 its goal to produce close to 9 billion gallons of SAFs by 2017. But this proved to be wishful thinking, and IATA proceeded to adjust its production targets lower and lower with each passing year to no avail. Even the aim of 2% production share by 2025 is still too grand. SAFs currently represent a negligible 0.2% of total jet fuel supply, causing a majority of airline executives to be skeptical about their ability to meet their self-declared climate goals by mid century.
Part of the challenge in bringing more SAFs to market is the costs associated with its production. SAFs are more than twice as expensive as their petroleum-based counterparts. The aviation industry, producers of alternative energies, and their representative bodies are depending on the government to play a more active role in making the price of SAFs more competitive and expanding its availability on the international market through subsidies and tax incentives.
But this ignores the second problem: the rapid expansion of SAFs actively undermines the goal of achieving net zero.
That is because biogenic and biomass feedstocks are needed to immediately increase SAF production, requiring land-use changes and the destruction of nature-based solutions to climate change. In other words, agricultural land would prioritize the energy demands of an ever-growing aviation sector instead of growing crops to feed the planet. It will also disincentivize the regrowth of trees that remove and store carbon from our atmosphere.
Research and analysis of a dozen different roadmaps for aviation decarbonization through the large-scale adoption of SAFs demonstrate a negative environmental outcome. It paradoxically sabotages its own aspirations for achieving net zero due to the decades-long lag in biological carbon sequestration. Even putting those concerns aside, research and expert opinion dispute the ability of SAFs to meet the growing needs and demands of the aviation industry.
This puts the Biden administration’s SAF production target of 3 billion gallons per year by 2030—from the current 24.5 million gallons produced in 2023—into a new perspective. The World Resources Institute has condemned the administration’s new guidance for allowing the inclusion of crop-based biofuels like ethanol to qualify as a SAF feedstock. Corn-based ethanol is not sustainable and its inclusion directly undermines the government’s stated climate goals. And since the administration is preparing to grant lavish subsidies and tax credits to SAF producers, this has the potential to be a massive misallocation of public resources.
The best and most effective way to lower the carbon footprint of the aviation sector is simply to fly less. This is especially true for private aviation; a mode of transportation that fully epitomizes carbon inequality. It is the ultrawealthy who fly in luxury private jets and, as a result, emit 10 times more pollutants per passenger compared to commercial air travelers.
A more efficient use of our public resources is to invest in the decarbonization of other vital sectors of the economy. The electrification of our bus fleet and the construction of green public transportation are low-hanging fruit. Those are some of the many steps we need to take to usher in the much-needed green transition and save our planet from climate catastrophe.
The planes tracked by a new Guardian report belong to celebrities, billionaires, CEOs, and their families, among them the Murdoch family, Taylor Swift, and the Rolling Stones.
The private jets of just 200 rich and famous individuals or groups released around 415,518 metric tons of climate-heating carbon dioxide between January 2022 and September 22, 2023, The Guardian revealed Tuesday.
That's equal to the emissions burned by nearly 40,000 British residents in all aspects of their lives, the newspaper calculated.
The planes tracked by the outlet belong to celebrities, billionaires, CEOs, and their families, among them the Murdoch family, Taylor Swift, and the Rolling Stones. All told, the high-flyers made a total of 44,739 trips during the study period for a combined 11 years in the air.
"Pollution for wasteful luxury has to be the first to go, we need a ban on private jets."
Notable emitters included the Blavatnik family, the Murdoch family, and Eric Schmidt, whose flights during the 21-month study period released more than 7,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The Sawiris family emitted around 7,500 metric tons, and Lorenzo Fertitta more than 5,000.
The Rolling Stones' Boeing 767 wide-body aircraft released around 5,046 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is equal to 1,763 economy flights from London to New York. The 39 jets owned by 30 Russian oligarchs released 30,701 metric tons of carbon dioxide.
For comparison, average per capita emissions were 14.44 metric tons in the U.S. for 2022, 13.52 metric tons in Russia in 2021, and 5.2 metric tons in the U.K. the same year.
Taylor Swift was the only celebrity or billionaire in the report whose team responded to a request for comment.
"Before the tour kicked off in March of 2023, Taylor bought more than double the carbon credits needed to offset all tour travel," a spokesperson for the pop star told The Guardian.
Swift appears to have responded to public pressure to reduce private jet use. Her plane averaged 19 flights a month between January and August 2022, when she received criticism after sustainability firm Yard named her the celebrity who used her plane the most. After that point, the plane's average monthly flights dropped to two.
The Guardian's investigation was based on private aircraft registrations compiled by TheAirTraffic Database and flight records from OpenSky. Reporters calculated flight emissions based on model information found in the ADSBExchange Aircraft database and Planespotters.net and emissions per hour per model found in the Conklin & De Decker's CO2 calculator and the Eurocontrol emission calculator.
The report was released the day after an Oxfam study found that the world's richest 1% emitted the same amount as its poorest two-thirds. Given their high carbon footprint and luxury status, private jets have emerged as a rallying point for the climate justice movement.
"It's hugely unfair that rich people can wreck the climate this way, in just one flight polluting more than driving a car 23,000 kilometers," Greenpeace E.U. transport campaigner Thomas Gelin said in March. "Pollution for wasteful luxury has to be the first to go, we need a ban on private jets."
In the U.S., a group of climate campaigners is mobilizing to stop the expansion of Massachusetts' Hanscom Field, the largest private jet field in New England. An October report found that flights from that field between January 1, 2022, and July 15, 2023, released a total of 106,676 tons of carbon emissions.
"While plenty of business is no doubt discussed over golf at Aberdeen, Scotland, or at bird hunting reserves in Argentina (destinations we also documented), this is probably the least defensible form of luxury travel on a warming planet when a Zoom call would often do," Chuck Collins, who co-authored the Hanscom report, wrote for Fortune on November 14.