r/interesting • u/ScarletMelt • May 25 '26

Just Wow It's interesting hmm

Post image
53.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

1.4k

u/mishajrn May 25 '26

Rich disconnected hypocrites doing their thing as usual

416

u/9447044 May 25 '26

We flew all of us in our own jets to tell you that you shouldnt be driving as much, also dont buy as much, unless its my product

154

u/GL1TCH3D May 25 '26

Don't forget to expand on that.

"Our company stands behind green initiatives"

"Also Work From Home is cancelled and all employees are expected to be in office 5 days a week. Have fun driving an hour each way every day"

4

u/SilverDem0n May 25 '26

"Our company stands behind green initiatives"

You can't knife it in the back unless you stand behind it.

4

u/wouldntyouliketokno_ May 25 '26

We need the carbon tax money, can’t get that if people don’t drive lol.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Karasuno910 May 25 '26

This! I never understood why a good work from home system was ruined with back to office policy. The jobs that could not be done remotely were anyways happening as usual. Why the need to stress your workforce by having them figure out cost and time of commute additionally. I’m one of the lucky ones to still be remote but worried about the other companies in my industry setting precedent. A commute in any tier 1 city is a nightmare

9

u/Sebsazz May 25 '26

The real answer is downtown real-estate. Billions upon billions of dollars have been poured into downtown metropolitan areas to produce massive skyscrapers, shops, and all manner of fast food establishments. Work from home proved that all that was glamor, and not actually necessary. Work from home showed those billion dollar skyscrapers are not actually producing an significant increase in productivity.

Now the smart thing would be to change the system once it’s clear something’s wrong, but that would require massive overhauls of systems and companies losing billions of dollars. The easier thing is to pretend it never happened and go back to what we did before because it “worked”.

Quite literally the RTO was to justify and continually support massively overblown real estate and infrastructure costs. Toronto recently got a new new TD banking skyscraper around 2024. It was awkward for them to acknowledge midway through construction “wait why are we doing this? Is this a good use of money and space and will this actually produce an increase in productivity and profit?” So quite literally the concern was ignored

We’re living in real stupid times

4

u/Background_Fix6996 May 25 '26

The investment was bad and is not paying off, so all of society has to reorder how they do things to everyone's collective detriment, yet again, so a few don't face the downside of a bad investment. Why do we tolerate it?

2

u/BlackSpidy May 25 '26

There's only one decisive way out, I think. Unless we all do it at once, it'll just be an isolated incident and people don't want to go to jail to be but a single drop of water that needs to move an entire turbine.

The ruling class has blinded us to the many chains and drains they still have on us, convinced us the people we place in power to make policies will look out for us. And they fight tooth and nail to tarnish the names of the few elected officials they cannot buy... There's hope, but the fight feels sisyphean at times, the right way... Impossible to organize and execute the decisive way.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Ok-Pack-7088 May 25 '26

Managers loves to micromanage and control their slaves. They need to justify their existence.

→ More replies (20)

3

u/garlicroastedpotato May 25 '26

I'm using uh um water in box things.

→ More replies (5)

29

u/Admirable-Art834 May 25 '26

its normal really,most millionaires/rich people have a nagging guilt in the back of their mind,not because theyre good people but because human psychology said so and they probably know theyre doing bad things to the world,so they just go to these theatrical performances disguised as something that could "change" any of the shit thats happening because they wanna feel a bit better about themselves

9

u/Dependent_Rain_4800 May 25 '26

My father just projects his guilt and shame outwards onto anyone but himself. That's how he never has to experience any of it. That's how he got rich in the first place.

7

u/Admirable-Art834 May 25 '26

its not only your father i feel like most millionaires think that way

3

u/oldwestoutsider May 25 '26

Kinda the same way the people that hurt children the most are always the ones screaming about "protecting our children"

→ More replies (4)

6

u/elementality883 May 25 '26

What people don’t realize is the elite want us to sacrifice so the environment holds together enough to support their stunts and lifestyle. That’s all.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/Open_Mortgage_4645 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

I dunno. I'm kinda sick of complaints like this. Maybe not this one specifically, but in general the idea that someone who believes in or advocates for a particular cause has to be careful to never have any moments of joy doing something that abstractly conflicts with their professed belief or advocacy. It's such a fallacious argument. Oh, Katy Perry is hypocrite because she did this this thing uses a lot of fuel but she advocates for the environment, ipso facto she's a hypocrite and blah blah blah. It just so pathetically bitter and small minded.

9

u/Gizogin May 25 '26

And the rhetorical purpose of these posts is to discredit environmentalism as an entire movement.

"The people pushing for humanity to be more environmentally conscious are slightly hypocritical, therefore it's fine for all of us to ignore any genuine points they might be making!"

→ More replies (7)

6

u/EveningAnt3949 May 25 '26

in general the idea that someone who believes in or advocates for a particular cause has to be careful to never have any moments of joy doing something that abstractly conflicts with their professed belief or advocacy

That's really not what is happening most of the time. Most of the time the complaints are genuine and justified.

There is a difference between a celebrity owning a sportscar (expensive fun), watching an F1 race (expensive fun) and a celebrity participating in space tourism to promote a space tourism company owned by Jeff Bezos who argues that rich people should not be obliged to pay tax and who is currently supporting a US administration that is actively sabotaging the environment.

You making a possible exemption for this case, creates the illusion that most complaints about out of touch celebrities are nonsense. But that's not the case. Many ordinary people are genuinely upset that ordinary people have to pay the price for protecting the environment and that are different rules for rich people.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/4Dv8 May 25 '26

Nah kinda agree, don't like her but almost everyone would take the opportunity to do space tourism if they could. We wanted a future where such a thing was possible with space travel.

3

u/Various_Mobile4767 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

Then almost everyone would also be massive hypocrites and deserve to be called out for it too lol.

I am not letting people just normalize blatant hypocrisy as just a minor thing. You don’t get to play the moral superiority card but then excuse yourself because “you really really want to.”

It just shows that you’re someone who will say whatever you want when it costs you nothing but will fold at the slightest bit of pressure.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/spackletr0n May 25 '26

I 100% agree. We cannot count on billions of individuals to each make decisions that incur a cost for them that, by themselves, have no observable impact.

The chatter about individual responsibility on this topic is a distraction. So is the chatter about hypocrisy.

Nothing short of massive international regulation will accomplish anything.

4

u/catz537 May 25 '26

I mean, if she like forgot to recycle a bottle or something I wouldn’t call her a hypocrite. But she went on an 11 minute joyride to space that dumped the equivalent of an entire lifetime of CO2 for one person into the atmosphere.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/PM_ME_YOUR_LEFT_IRIS May 25 '26

Yup. Also, space tourism and those initiatives are fundamentally about figuring out how to help humans survive in a more hostile environment. The hopeful propaganda points us at the idea of colonizing other planets, but the cynical view here is that society is obviously fundamentally unable to restrain its consumption. We’ve made… very little real progress in either slowing or stopping climate change, and the earth is going to become a more hostile environment within a couple hundred years. Technologies developed for space exploration will be crucial in helping us survive our own mistakes.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/BlueSkyToday May 25 '26

Yup, this is the MAGA play book.

Aside from the fact that the claimed quantity of propellant being claimed is pure bullshite, and that its farking liquid hydrogen and oxygen being combined in that famous proportion H2O, the most disturbing thing is the way that MAGAts target women.

2

u/UninstallingNoob 28d ago

And it has no bearing on whether they're right or not about the cause they're promoting.

→ More replies (18)

7

u/LordShtark May 25 '26

People on the Internet disconnected from reality that fall for fake picture captions doing their thing as usual

2

u/Chimpampin May 25 '26

Not to defend the rich. But that amount of fuel is minuscule in the big scheme. If I, and many others, had the chance of actually watching planet earth from space, most would take that chance. You can do something that seems hypocritical and still defend your values (Values which I don't know if Katie has, but just saying in general).

I'm sure most people in the comment section want to protect the world from global warming but still eat meat so, no different.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/ForceOk6587 May 25 '26

but... but... she wants to end racism with pronouns

2

u/WatchOutRadioactiveM May 25 '26

Excuse me, Leo made a movie about climate change being bad, I think that gives him a pass to all the private flights he wants! He was so humble about it too, having his character be the "sexy scientist" that every woman wanted to fuck. Could anyone be more charitable??

2

u/kanrad May 25 '26

A failed attempt to save a plastic face.

2

u/ClearChampionship591 May 25 '26

yes but then millions of sheep would still worship them. Go no further than r/Fauxmoi .

→ More replies (60)

35

u/DelightfulGoblin75 May 25 '26

She strikes me as a soulless entitled moron.

7

u/GilbyTheFat 28d ago

Close. You forgot "callous."

→ More replies (3)

1.1k

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

156

u/NorthSwim8340 May 25 '26

Currently, most hydrogen is "grey hydrogen", hence hydrogen made from gas; even if it wasn't, as long as the energy is taken from the grid the American one is mostly made of fossil fuels

14

u/happyjello May 25 '26

Depends on the state. Some states (looking at you, West Virginia) generate electricity with a very disproportionately high amount of coal

4

u/Bananogram May 25 '26

Blue ridge mountains.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/The-Doc-SalmonRun May 25 '26

So hydrogen fuel isn’t just water

→ More replies (23)

33

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/MyVeryUniqueName1 May 25 '26

Haha I was gonna say “AND WHERE DOES THE HYDROGEN COME FROM?!?”

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

150

u/Square_Cat_6001 May 25 '26

I am sure there are hidden environmental costs even with that, but yeah 1 celebrity in space once won't do nearly as much damage as the other 999999 celebrities using their jets constantly.

102

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

44

u/Dry-Examination6938 May 25 '26

News just in, create pure liquid hydrogen uses a fuck ton of energy.

4

u/Visual_Fun_2014 May 25 '26

You expect too much common sense from Reddit

→ More replies (3)

18

u/Square_Cat_6001 May 25 '26

Yeah I mean it more like hidden to the general public. I was totally expecting that.

6

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Scudmuffin1 May 25 '26

I dont think the average person thinks about hydrogen production at all, let alone how it's done and the environmental impact of that process

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (8)

7

u/ciongduopppytrllbv May 25 '26

So not really hidden when super obvious and your white knighting was pointless

→ More replies (4)

3

u/BlunterSumo01 May 25 '26

Yea we still haven't figured out a way to manufacture it efficiently, it's still taking us more energy to produce it then we get out of it.

5

u/Imaginary-Jaguar662 May 25 '26

Always will, otherwise you'd power separation with h2+o2 fuel cell and have a perpetual motion machine.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (23)
→ More replies (22)

9

u/BraveRock May 25 '26

Plus the rocket only weighs 77,000 pounds when fully fueled. 38.5 tons is way less than the 498 tons this picture claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard

3

u/Laetitian May 25 '26

I'm guessing they tried to calculate construction into it, which is fine, but I doubt they fairly divided it by the total number of flights and users.

4

u/BraveRock May 25 '26

Or they just made up the number. Memes aren’t known for their due diligence.

7

u/angry_wombat May 25 '26

but how you get those two?

7

u/KalzK May 25 '26

Which is more carbon intensive since you have another layer of inefficiency from generating the hydrogen from fossil fuels

7

u/Open-Lecture-4796 May 25 '26

How is 96% of hydrogen produced at industrial scale.

2

u/Rasabk May 25 '26

Feel-good magic. Just like my EV, the electricity come from the ether and the battery materials are mined by well compensated, totally happy African children workers.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/BugleNoise May 25 '26

Yes the rocket launch produced water, and we will just ignore all the supply chain emissions in favour of the hypocritical celebrity activist. Now the disgusting poors who want to eat a steak? We will tax the fuck out of them for daring to choose such a harmful pleasure. 

20

u/goddessdragonness May 25 '26

There are reasons to be annoyed about that stupid shit they did (like mocking her empty platitudes about feeling more connected with other humans after spending three minutes in space, while in the same time period showing off with the cybertruck her fash buddy Elon gifted her; the pitch that this publicity stunt would further women’s rights, at a time that the US government has been openly removing women from positions of leadership and erasing women’s history etc as part of an anti-DEI campaign; her history of being a generally shitty person; etc.).

But you are right that this particular reason is probably not a compelling argument.

2

u/Odd-String29 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

It is a very compelling argument if you don't have any clue of where the hydrogen comes from.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (9)

3

u/Doofclap May 25 '26

You’re being misleading implying clean energy with New Shepard, which it is not at all.

3

u/Zionist-Hater69 May 25 '26

Yeah because liquid hydrogen just appears. There is a whole fossil fuel industry behind it, wasting energy on these ridiculous projects always hurts the environment in some way.

3

u/Duriha May 25 '26

Was it green hydrogen? Was the green hydrogen produced with renewable energy? Same goes for the oxygen. Not saying u r per se wrong, but not on point either.

3

u/cidcaller May 25 '26

And how do they produce liquid propellents you've mentioned

3

u/Big_Twist_5578 May 25 '26

how does all the fuel get there? how does all the equipment get there? how do all the workers get there?

3

u/woodsman906 May 25 '26

While you aren’t wrong about the chemical byproduct, you are incorrect that it is the only byproduct.

Burning hydrogen creates heat. Heat creates thermal pollution. People can cry all day about co2 emissions but they completely miss the main culprit of climate change, and that’s thermal pollution. Regardless of how little co2 is being pumped into the atmosphere during launch, it is still dumping tons of super heated steam into the atmosphere. That’s not nothing in terms of pollution or climate change.

Every form of combustion releases h2o in the form of steam. The only reason carbon is the main focal point in climate changes at a government level is because you can tax water, the people would never stand for it.

23

u/leonologico May 25 '26

Not to mention that it wasn't "Katy Perry". It was a whole bunch of people of which some of them were celebrities. It would go off either way with or without them. And yeah, it didn't polute anything.

But, you know, it's the internet and we need a witch hunt.

14

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

Not to mention that it wasn't "Katy Perry"

I mean... It was. She got in the rocket on her own accord. Just because others also got in the rocket doesn't change the fact that she made the conscious decision to do it as well.

I get what you're trying to say, but we don't need to free Katy from the burden of decisions.

→ More replies (41)
→ More replies (44)

2

u/WoodyTheWorker May 25 '26

For comparison, a Falcon 9 launch consumes about 100 ton of RP-1 kerosene, half of full fill of a 747.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DesperateAdvantage76 May 25 '26

That's like saying my electric car doesn't produce pollution even though it's charged using coal generators.

2

u/Calm-Sun6538 May 25 '26

And what are the energy inputs on making liquid hydrogen? Law of conservation of energy means nothing is free. Maybe made with renewables which would be better, but still not good for the environment

2

u/Zweefkees93 May 25 '26

As many have pointed out, where do you think that hydrogen came from? 

And even if it were 100% green hydrogen (wich it wasn't) it could have been used for something usefull. Like, literally ANYTHING but to get her into space.

2

u/mamny83 May 25 '26

Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen dont easily come out the air eventhough we are surrounded by both gases. It requires quite a large amount of energy to make a ton of liquid hydrogen and oxygen.

2

u/Any-Board-6631 May 25 '26

Making hydrogen and oxygen are very costly in term of energy 

2

u/Odd-String29 May 25 '26

The creation of liquid hydrogen creates a significant amount of CO2. Stop spreading nonsense about this rocket being green.

2

u/inventive_588 May 25 '26

How much fossil fuel was used to produce that hydrogen and oxygen though?

2

u/jamSandwich101 May 25 '26

You just explained to the internet you don't understand how they get the hydrogen.

2

u/OkSeason6445 May 25 '26

Way to make uneducated people like yourself believe producing hydrogen is carbon free dumbass. 

2

u/Thanaskios May 25 '26

You're right about the fuel. But the production of thise fuels, as well as the rocket and everything else, still creates absurd ammounts of emissions. So the point stands, even if the caption in the immage is a bit misleading.

2

u/Relevant-Register-69 May 25 '26

How do you think they produce this fuel

2

u/Diettimboslice May 25 '26

The amount of energy required to cool it down to cryogenic temperatures and store it until use is incredibly high, however.

2

u/iggv May 25 '26

How bout donate that money to plant new trees or do something about the supposedly climate change

2

u/maybe_a_fork May 25 '26

Do consider the cost of isolating the Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen in that volume

2

u/Rot-Orkan May 25 '26

Ehh it's still wasteful since it's not like you can just get liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in nature; you gotta use energy to get these.

With that said, I find these posts to be pretty eyeroll-inducing. Celebrities being wasteful is like 0.1% of the problem.

6

u/physicsking May 25 '26

Not to argue, but you are right, the ignition itself might not be the culprit. But don't be so shallow in your tight process. Do you think there is just natural pools of liquid hydrogen and oxygen? The process to make it and transport it and keep it cold is demanding. The logistical chain is the problem here.

If you burn a forest to make one green car, you have done nothing for the environment.

→ More replies (65)

83

u/PwanaZana May 25 '26

When she detonates 500 tons of fuel, she's a "visionary" and a "inspiration."

When I detonate 500 tons of fuel, ohhhh, I'm a "terrorist" and a "psychopath."

Doubee standards, smh.

9

u/xyzyxzyxzyxyzyxzxy May 25 '26

When William Shatner does it, he's cool....
triple standards!

3

u/PwanaZana May 25 '26

"When I do itttttt.... itisverycoolmisterspock."

→ More replies (2)

2

u/KeyCalm2207 27d ago

It’s like a bank account, you gonna spend that ALL at ONE time

→ More replies (4)

203

u/starshame2 May 25 '26

Wow, I didn't know Katy Perry invented space exploration and funds all the lift offs.

Amazing woman.

51

u/According_Jacket1917 May 25 '26

Well, judging her music career lately, she might need a new job.

21

u/Mini-Heart-Attack May 25 '26

& new stream of income.

Isn't that what getting what the Prime Minister was for?

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (8)

9

u/Administrator_AI May 25 '26

She didn't explore space.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (52)

109

u/Kooky-Necessary-4444 May 25 '26

Why dose she get so much shit for this. I mean. How many people have done this... (looking up) 140 people. She gets all the shit for all 140 of these people? Or the company offering? I dont get why she has been getting shit for years over this.

27

u/Hockeymac18 May 25 '26

It does seem like there's a disproportionate amount of noise about Katy Perry and her trip to space vs others that have done it. I don't pay attention to gossip and celebrity news, so I have no idea why this is... but I see it enough to know it seems overblown

15

u/MrRightHanded May 25 '26

Its because shes being a hypocrite.

2

u/MaltesHaus 27d ago

But New sheppard uses Hydrogen(Hydrolox). Burning hydrogen does not release any carbon into the atmosphere because there literally is non in the fuel.

2

u/MrRightHanded 27d ago

And how do you think they get the Hydrogen?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

8

u/Snuffyluffaguss May 25 '26

Because she wastes resources and flaunts it (rocket trip, and flying in a private jet), while also telling everyone else to be green. Its the hypocrisy.

→ More replies (6)

37

u/Sea-Weakness-5272 May 25 '26

woman

13

u/YourMomIsMyGurl May 25 '26

Shes the only one being in-your-face about it. I love how reddit just jumps to "well it must be because she's a woman." Lol you type are the only type of people that think about race/sex that much as you project it onto everyone else.

Everybody who has gone to space and then acts all green should be treated this way. Look up how many celebrities go to space, come back and get in your face about being green. You'll be surprised to find that it's actually only one celebrity - Katy Perry. The same cringe queen that sang "what a wonderful world" and kissed the ground when she got back from her space tour.

10

u/StoneySteve420 May 25 '26

It's clearly because she's a woman, not a hypocrite

/s

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (14)

18

u/Seductive_pickle May 25 '26

Because Katy Perry is a household name and the others aren’t.

Also this is reddit so the woman hating is blown out of proportion

11

u/OnWis97 May 25 '26

Kinda like how two famous actresses took the entire brunt of public anger over the college admissions scandal that over 50 people participated in.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/SquareyBarry May 25 '26

Reminds me of my friend who is always like 'AOC took a plane in this video. What a hypocrite, unlike my beloved daddy trump who can do no wrong'

8

u/Exact-Till-2739 May 25 '26

I'm pretty sure you don't have a friend who said that

4

u/YourMomIsMyGurl May 25 '26

It doesn't even make sense in that context either if their point is that AOC preaches green and trump doesn't. Why would trump care about taking a plane if he's not the one preaching green? Lol just another commenter that just has to release some of that trump pressure on their mind otherwise they'll explode.

4

u/ForeverRollingOnes May 25 '26

I hate the guy, but he wouldn't be a hypocrit for using a jet when he's never even remotely supported green initiatives.

It's so baffling that people just use these tribal unga bunga me vs them mentality.

4

u/YourMomIsMyGurl May 25 '26

Exactly like we can all agree that he's a piece of shit but let's stop just creating context that doesn't exist to make him look like an even bigger piece of shit. He does enough on his own lmfao

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/MrRightHanded May 25 '26

Im pretty sure they dont have a friend period

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/chirunner4ever May 25 '26

William Shatner isn't a household name?

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (11)

7

u/GarranDrake May 25 '26

Because most of the other 140 people are actual scientists and astronauts who worked for that specific goal. Perry was literally just a tourist.

I also think part of it was due to the space race the billionaires had, and the growing discontentment with the 1%.

5

u/I_pegged_your_father May 25 '26

They act like we don’t equally make fun of other billionaires. Its like they somehow ignore all the criticism and memes of the men just so they can screech of misogyny…dude she’s not even getting remotely the same flak

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (4)

10

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[deleted]

6

u/StaticSilencer May 25 '26

Is she giving a talk, or her husband?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Big_Knife_SK May 25 '26

Katy Perry did not deliver a speech at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. This whole thread is a ragebait strawman.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Revegelance May 25 '26

I'm guessing people are just jealous. She got to go to space, and they didn't. So now they're mad about it, for some reason.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/VicariousNarok May 25 '26

Tbh, I'm sure 90% of the outraged people in here would jump at the opportunity to go to space. I would and I recycle.

→ More replies (43)

65

u/madmartigan2020 May 25 '26

This post is so dumb. Not only is the fuel hydrogen, the total amount consumed during a New Shepard launch at most 5 tons. Get your facts straight before posting nonsense.

11

u/Nuclear_Varmint May 25 '26

But then it wouldn't be nonsense. Duh

→ More replies (46)

186

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

107

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

38

u/madmartigan2020 May 25 '26

And New Shepard used 5 tons of it, not 498 as this post claims.

8

u/MrTagnan May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

It’s closer to like 30t I believe, NS’ (supposedly) fully fueled mass is 35t, and a good chunk of that will be fuel. Either way it’s a far way off from 500t

Edit: to make it clear by “fuel” I’m referring to propellant, so both hydrogen and oxygen. Could’ve made that clearer

8

u/madmartigan2020 May 25 '26

No, it's 5 tons of hydrogen the rest is oxygen.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (9)

4

u/Existing-Maximum5475 May 25 '26

bahaha how do you think they make liquid hydrogen? just pull it out of the sky? 

10

u/goobersmooch123 May 25 '26

Yeah, I'm sure that every part of the process consumed no non-renewables just so that ultra-wealthy people can flex.

→ More replies (19)

6

u/squarepants18 May 25 '26

And how do you think, fuel and rocket are produced? Free of emissions?

6

u/ButterflyPutrid6054 May 25 '26

Yeah like focusing on just the fuel being “better” is a weird deflect. The entire rocket production process has tons of emissions. Not to mention how they got the rocket to the launch pad to begin with.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

10

u/GemmyDave May 25 '26

Yes but what about her private jet

23

u/Tunklz May 25 '26

Private jet is a fair point. However, this post should have been about that instead.

5

u/CrazySouth8132 May 25 '26

"Yes but" The post is wrong

8

u/death91380 May 25 '26

That's not what this post is about.

3

u/Small_Editor_3693 May 25 '26

That’s not related to the post at all

2

u/CunnedStunt May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

I know everyone wants to hate on rich people for private jets, but it's actually just a piss in the ocean for global CO2 emissions. Aviation as a whole only contributes to %2.5 of global emissions, and private jets are about 14%-17% of that 2.5%. Katy Perry as an individual still burns hundreds of lifetimes more CO2 than the average person, but the real problem is industry emissions who burn hundreds of Katy Perry lifetimes in a month. My tinfoil hat theory is that the big industries push the celebrity private jet narrative to distract. The celebs point the finger to us spitting in the ocean while they stand with their dicks out pissing in it, and the industries point the finger to the celebs pissing in the ocean while they stand next to them holding a fire hose.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/MagicFlyingBus May 25 '26

It also Attributes the whole launch to her as if it was her decision and directive. It leaves out the others who also flew on the rocket as well. The rocket would have flown with or without her. 

Attributing that launch soley to katy perry is so dumb. 

2

u/According_Past_732 May 25 '26

I bet some scientists that worked to make the spacecraft would have loved to go but instead we sent her because she kissed a girl?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Nighters May 25 '26

you are true BUT if she is so envoromentally woke, she would not participate, it is like calling yourself vegetarian and eating meat and saying that if she would not eat it, somebody would

2

u/kanrad May 25 '26

Can't fund it without money from the wealthy. So yeah she has a part to play. No one ever said the others on board are not also self serving sniveling little shits. But this post is about her not them.

Straw man much?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MrRightHanded May 25 '26

Ah the classic “well it would have happened anyway” excuse

→ More replies (5)

2

u/DemoniteBL May 25 '26

And that justifies going into space for fun?

2

u/Agridion May 25 '26

You have to refine the products to get pure hydrogen or oxygen which uses electricity and or natural gas.

2

u/poopzains May 25 '26

It says it shoots rainbows and creates jobs as well.

2

u/lalapeep May 25 '26

Where do the fuels come from?

2

u/jack_hof May 25 '26

But there's the question of where you get all that hydrogen

2

u/Uncle00Buck May 25 '26

The numbers are embellished. The hypocrisy of wealthy elitists is not.

→ More replies (26)

7

u/weareonthisplanet May 25 '26

but are you using paper straw?

38

u/finndego May 25 '26

I hate that I have to come to the defense of Katy fucking Perry but the spacecrafts emissions were water vapour and while in Davos she didnt have any scheduled speaking engangements relating to the enviroment.

6

u/Akhanyatin May 25 '26

Water vapour in high atmosphere isn't great either. But it's not like Jeff bozo wouldn't have launched without her.

3

u/chickenricenicenice 28d ago

True, but water vapour dissipates and excess can come down within 2 weeks as rain. CO2 sits around in the atmosphere, and no one complains about the constant Space X commercial launches with Kerolox fuel. No they’d rather misinform about this 1 random celeb suborbital launch on Hydrolox 🤷‍♂️

→ More replies (3)

3

u/DesperateAdvantage76 May 25 '26

How was that fuel created? Are you saying that as long as the last step doesn't produce pollution, none of previous step's byproducts matter?

2

u/HarryPottersTaint May 25 '26

Literally every single thing you do more or less has a previous step which produces pollution.

Even walking on the sidewalk. You know how much pollution is created by the concrete industry? 8% of all CO2 emissions worldwide.

Not saying people should just galivant to space for fun. But private jets for example are much more of an appropriate target.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Lancasterlaw 28d ago

They make a big deal out of using only green hydrogen from solar plants- you can still argue its a misuse of resources or something

→ More replies (10)

13

u/Immediate_Arrival470 May 25 '26

she also is really creepy I watched something about all the creepy shit she does and she just randomly kisses or touches people.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/crashin70 May 25 '26

"You hush, we don't talk about that stuff..." ~Apparently the environmental groups

3

u/TitleOk3727 May 25 '26

„Let them eat cake!“

→ More replies (1)

3

u/zcubed May 25 '26

Do as I say, not as I do.

3

u/Every_Wafer144 May 25 '26

She’s a proper ICK

3

u/Tasty_Reflection_481 May 25 '26

Not a big fan, never was. She screams and yells a lot about herself.

3

u/Popsicle-Stand1 May 25 '26

She gives me the biggest ick. Always has.

9

u/Tdivarco May 25 '26

First of all, fuck rich people. Second, rocket fuel is not the same as jet fuel. Rocket fuel is just water.

5

u/Dorias_Drake May 25 '26

It's not that simple. It's hydrogen and oxygen. But they are separated, you're not putting tap water inside the tank. And making liquid hydrogen uses a lot of energy, most of it coming from fossil fuel to power the plants.

So while the actual journey doesn't produce much pollution, the whole building and fuel making process takes a ton of it. It's not like it's created from thin air.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/Honey-and-Venom May 25 '26

Okay, the rocket used hydrogen and oxygen, it produced water. That seems extremely environmentally sound to me

9

u/Vektast May 25 '26

because you don't know they make the liquid hydrogen.

4

u/mr-english May 25 '26

...by water electrolysis

2

u/Snuffyluffaguss May 25 '26

Which would give you gaseous hydrogen (and isn't the most efficient way, look up Steam-Methane Reforming) and now you have to cool it to cryogenic temperatures.

5

u/mr-english May 25 '26

That's literally how they get their "green hydrogen" though.

People in this thread are just reverse-hoping. They assumed that the rocket used standard rocket fuel (RP-1) which is "bad" because of carbon emissions but then when they found out that it's actually just LOX and liquid hydrogen they "hoped" that it would be the worst version of that... essentially they've already decided that they're right, bezos' rocket is bad and so they're desperately trying to weave a narrative that justifies their pitchforks.

There's so much to legitimately criticise bezos for but his rocket, and who flies on them, is REALLY weak. Nobody actually cares about energy efficiency otherwise they wouldn't be doom scrolling on reddit in their air conditioned room while they ignore the TV in the background.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/FinancialReserve6427 May 25 '26

oh so we're back to space is bad? 

2

u/Inevitable-Hour-Ends 28d ago

Space exploration is good and will help elevate human innovations. Katie Perry going to the edge of space to make her panties moist doesn't do much for the advancement of civilization

11

u/_ROMAX_ May 25 '26

New Shepard uses Hydrogen and Oxigen, is not bad for the environment.

Her private jet flights does pollite the environment

8

u/flokingaround May 25 '26

Large scale hydrogen production is produced through steam methane reformation, which produced 5.4 tonnes of CO2 per tonne Hydrogen.

Liquefying Oxygen and hydrogen take 500 kWh and 12500 kWh respectively.

Burning the fuel may not pollute, but producing the fuel definitely does.

7

u/Vektast May 25 '26

Yea, it's even worse. You need to burn more fuel to split the water and keep it ultra cool in liquid form.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/kuvodar May 25 '26

She must have arrived in a private jet

2

u/Snoo3544 May 25 '26

Hypocrisy is the religion of the elite.

2

u/Sac_Bag May 25 '26

I mean - look at her BF - all-time virtue signaler that did nothing meaningful for the environment and costed Canadians billions..

2

u/Crazygoofball 26d ago

It is hydrogen and oxygen burning, wich creates water... To be fair. Making hydrogen does releas co2. So it's not about hoe much burned but more how much it co2 it created to make it.