The jets of the rich pollute as much as four people in a year And it's a problem

"You just do it to be a pain in the a*s". With these words, said live on La Zanzara, Fedez dismissed the proposal from Ester Goffi, activist for Ultima Generazione, who called for the abolition of private jets. According to the singer, those who attack the use of private flights by the ultra-rich are not driven by true environmental urgency but by moralism or simply a desire to provoke. "Aviation contributes 2% to global emissions, and private jets are a fraction of that," he claimed. And he added, "Even without private jets, the world would still go up in flames." But is that really the case? Are private jets just a drop in the ocean, or are they a powerful symbol of climate injustice?

The real environmental impact of private jets

Let’s start with the numbers. It’s true that global civil aviation is responsible for "only" around 2.5% of CO₂ emissions, as reported in the 2025 European Aviation Environmental Report by EASA. But this aggregate data hides huge disparities. According to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), in 2023 private jets alone emitted 19.5 million tons of greenhouse gases, equivalent to 4% of the entire civil aviation sector. A small number? Maybe, until you consider per capita emissions. A single private jet flight can emit up to ten times more CO₂ per passenger than a commercial flight. One private jet can generate the same annual emissions as 177 cars. The kicker? Only 0.0008% of the global population actually uses them.

Not just Taylor Swift: Italy’s golden (and dirty) skies

In 2023, nearly 60,000 private jet flights departed from Italian airports. Italy ranks as the third highest user of private jets in Europe, and sixth worldwide, making up 1.5% of global traffic. France leads the way with over 80,000 flights, followed by Germany and then Italy. Most of these trips? Short-haul or ultra-short-haul: the ICCT reports that 50% of private jet routes are under 895 km. Distances easily covered by high-speed trains in Europe. So yes, it’s about comfort, not necessity.

The (bad) example of celebrities

As much as I’m a fan, it has to be said: Taylor Swift has become, unintentionally, a symbol of this issue. In 2024 alone, she took 98 flights on her Dassault Falcon 7x, burning over 300,000 liters of jet fuel to travel between concerts, homes, and visits to boyfriend Travis Kelce. According to activist and student Jack Sweeney, who tracked her flights on X, some trips were just to return to Nashville or Kansas City. Jannik Sinner also came under fire recently for flying private after a victory. But the most outrageous example? The wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez in Venice last June, which saw more than 95 private jets bring guests. That’s 5,000 tons of CO₂. You’d need to plant 80,000 trees for ten years just to offset it.

An unjustified environmental privilege

The real issue here isn’t just pollution, it’s climate justice. Private jets are the most blatant symbol of an environmental injustice that’s no longer sustainable: a tiny few emit massively, while the poorest face the fallout, from desertification to floods to forced migration. And even if private jets only account for a “small” percentage, why not start cutting emissions there? This is luxury-level consumption, not a necessity, and can be replaced by trains or commercial flights.

What could be done (and isn’t)

The ICCT report proposes three concrete solutions:

1. Shift short-haul traffic to trains, as already done in France;
2. Cut emissions by enforcing stricter energy efficiency limits and requiring sustainable aviation fuel (as outlined in the European “ReFuel EU” strategy);
3. Introduce a global fuel tax on private jets: a €0.40/liter tax could raise $3 billion per year to fund green aviation transitions.

The sky belongs to the rich

So if we talk about this so much, why is nothing changing? The truth is that the private jet industry is protected by a network of power, money, and lobbying. Their main clients? Celebs, CEOs, big investors. People who can pollute without worry and without being noticed. You can even hide your jet by registering it under a trust, as Taylor Swift reportedly did. That’s why Fedez is wrong. Criticizing those who pollute more than others isn’t rhetoric, it’s a valid and necessary fight. Not against a person, but against a model of environmental privilege that needs to be challenged. If today you’re rich enough to fly with zero consequences, tomorrow you’ll be rich enough to buy a way out of climate collapse. The rest of the world? Not so lucky. So yes, we should “be a pain.” Because if we don’t start with billionaire jets, where do we start?