Starbucks just appointed a new CEO, but the buzz isn’t about who he is—it’s about how he will commute to work. Brian Niccol, who is set to join Starbucks on 9 September, currently resides in California. As a part of his agreement, he will now reportedly travel nearly 1,600 km by private jet at least three times a week to the Starbucks headquarters in Seattle, all to comply with the company’s hybrid working policy.
Now, I’m all for the hybrid model as the future of work, but this isn’t the way to do it. Hybrid work is meant to combat climate change, not aggravate it. If there is such a strong ‘work from office’ culture at Starbucks, and if they can pay for this kind of commute, there are surely alternatives that make more sense—for the planet and for the rest of us, who have resigned ourselves to imbibing bits of paper straw with our cold coffee.
Niccol’s arrangement adds him to an ever-growing list of billionaires and big companies who blatantly disregard their carbon emissions and impact on society. Meanwhile, the rest of us get side-eyed every time we’re caught with a plain old plastic straw or a single-use plastic bag. We’re expected to weigh the emissions pros and cons of carpools and public transport for our commutes, while the rich and famous get away with treating the sky like their personal playground. And they don’t even have to factor in traffic.
Celebrities like Taylor Swift, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Leonardo DiCaprio also feature in this list with their reckless use of extravagant vehicles like private jets and yachts. The biggest issue here is that the only serious consequences for these carbon crimes have been for the student who tracked and exposed them. Jack Sweeney, a student at the University of Central Florida and a part time climate vigilante, has received multiple cease-and-desist orders from Swift’s and Musk’s teams for publishing their travel details and itineraries on the internet.
‘Sustainability’ double standards
One glance at the official Starbucks website reveals a multitude of grand claims about social responsibility. They boast they are “committed to buying 100 percent ethically sourced coffee” and that they are collaborating with the agriculture industry to make coffee the “world’s first sustainable agricultural product”. In their list of 2030 commitments, they highlight “innovating with more responsible stores, operations, manufacturing and delivery”. They confidently state: “We will store more carbon than we emit, eliminate waste, and conserve and replenish more freshwater than we use.”
But how does funding a 1,600 km private jet commute for one individual fit into that vision of responsibility? The bottomline may have something to do with it.
This arrangement with Niccol comes at a time when Starbucks’ sales have been plummeting in their biggest markets. Brian Niccol is likely being positioned as their knight in shining armour, with his proven track record in saving companies in crisis. Under his leadership, Chipotle’s stock reportedly climbed 773 per cent. He was apparently so valuable that Chipotle relocated its headquarters closer to Niccol instead of the other way around. So, there’s a worrying pattern taking shape around his work commute. Not to go all Greta Thunberg on him, but it’s a troubling message to Gen Z, which is born into the climate crisis consciousness and a ticking clock.
Taylor Swift may be too famous to travel commercially for her concerts, but does that justify taking a private jet for a 28-mile journey that would have taken just over half an hour by road? Similarly, why is Elon Musk apparently taking 9-minute flights when he could zip along in his own world-class Tesla? Some years back, a Tesla spokesperson offered an explanation—“Until we can teleport, there’s unfortunately no alternative that would allow him to do his job as effectively.” There surely must be some option involving a little less gas.
Carbon credits or convenient excuses?
When social media outrage erupts against fuel-guzzling celebrities and corporate honchos, their publicity teams are quick to respond with their carbon offset expenditure reports.
Taylor Swift, for instance, reportedly purchased more than double the carbon credits needed in order to offset her emissions from her Eras tour last year. The likes of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have also claimed they purchase high-value carbon offsets and support clean initiatives. But carbon offsets are still fairly uncharted territory. They are regulated far too loosely to be considered a solid defence against the glaring damage being caused.
A recent investigation by the Washington Post in Brazil revealed that more than half of the carbon credit projects in the Amazon involved illegally claimed public land. These so-called forest preservation projects generate huge profits that “carbon cowboys” fail to share with the local communities who protect this land. The Post highlighted that using such land does very little to offset carbon emissions.
Considering their immense wealth, celebrities should absolutely be held to much higher standards when it comes to climate responsibility.
I, for one, would love to sometimes choose convenience over climate consciousness. But those with unlimited resources for convenience leave behind a far bigger mess that the rest of us shouldn’t have to be saddled with.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)