Starbucks just appointed a new CEO, but it’s not all about the person he is, but how he’ll commute to work. Brian Niccol, who is set to start at Starbucks on September 9, currently lives in California. As part of his agreement, he will now reportedly fly nearly 1,000 miles by private jet to Starbucks’ Seattle headquarters at least three times a week to comply with the company’s hybrid work policy.

While I’m all for the hybrid model as the future of work, it’s not the way to go. Hybrid work is meant to combat climate change, not exacerbate it. If Starbucks has such a strong “work in the office” culture and they can pay for that kind of commute, surely there are more sensible alternatives – for the planet and for the rest of us who have resigned ourselves to drinking paper straws with our cold coffee.

Celebrities like Taylor Swift, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Leonardo DiCaprio also feature on this list for their reckless use of extravagant vehicles like private jets and yachts. The biggest problem here is that these carbon crimes have only had serious consequences for the student who tracked and exposed them. Jack Sweeney, a student at the University of Central Florida and part-time climate watchdog, has received multiple cease-and-desist orders from Swift and Musk’s teams for posting their travel details and itineraries online.

‘Double standards in sustainability

A look at the official Starbucks website reveals a host of lofty claims about social responsibility. They boast that they are “committed to only purchasing 100 percent ethically sourced coffee” and that they are working with farmers to make coffee “the world’s first sustainable agricultural product.” In their list of 2030 commitments, they highlight “innovating through more responsible business, operations, production and delivery.” They confidently declare, “We will sequester more carbon than we emit, eliminate waste, and conserve and replenish more freshwater than we use.”

But how does funding a 1,000-mile commute by private jet for an individual square with this sense of responsibility? The end result may have something to do with it.

This agreement with Niccol comes at a time when Starbucks’ sales are plummeting in their biggest markets. Brian Niccol is likely to be positioned as their knight in shining armor, with his proven track record of rescuing companies in crisis. Under his leadership, Chipotle stock reportedly rose 773 percent. He was apparently so valuable that Chipotle moved its headquarters closer to Niccol, rather than the other way around. So there’s a disturbing pattern emerging around his commute. I don’t want to go all Greta Thunberg on him, but it’s a disturbing message to Generation Z, who were born with climate crisis awareness and a ticking clock.

Taylor Swift may be too famous to travel by private jet for her concerts, but she justifies taking a 28-mile private jet trip that would have taken just over half an hour by road? And why does Elon Musk seem to take 9-minute flights when he could be cruising around in his own top-of-the-line Tesla? A few years ago, a Tesla spokesperson offered a statement: “Until we can teleport, unfortunately there is no alternative that would allow him to do his job as effectively.” There has to be a way that uses a little less fuel.

CO2 credits or convenient excuses?

When a storm of outrage erupts on social media about gas-guzzling celebrities and major corporations, their PR teams quickly respond with reports about the costs of carbon offsetting.

Taylor Swift, for example, reportedly bought more than twice the amount of carbon credits needed to offset the emissions from her Eras tour last year. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have also claimed to buy high-priced carbon credits and support clean initiatives. But carbon credits are still relatively new territory. They are far too loosely regulated to be considered a solid defense against the blatant harm they cause.

A recent study by Washington Post in Brazil found that more than half of the carbon credit projects in the Amazon region involved illegally claimed public land. These so-called forest protection projects generate huge profits that the “carbon cowboys” do not share with the local communities that protect these lands. post stressed that the use of such areas hardly contributes to compensating CO2 emissions.

Given their immense wealth, celebrities should definitely be held to much higher standards when it comes to climate responsibility.

Personally, I would sometimes like to choose convenience over climate awareness. But those who have unlimited resources for convenience leave behind a much bigger mess that the rest of us should not have to burden ourselves with.

Views are personal.

(Edited by Asavari Singh)