Oh, The Places They’ll Go: How the Wealthy Travel and Who Pays

Written By Kyle Durnan-Kerns

In the shadow of the recent Bezos nuptials, and as a massive middle finger to the newlyweds and every one of their guests, it felt like the opportune time to write about the travel habits of the rich and famous, and highlight that it is us, their consumers and audiences, that pay the price for their opulent tourism.

The ultra-wealthy will pay ungodly amounts of money to take a trip anywhere — apart from their own consciences — to show off how much money they have. How often have we, the commoner, heard media reports of billionaires jaunting off on some ridiculous journey of exploration for clout, credit, and bragging rights. We’ve had billionaires in space, billionaires in submarines, billionaires on super yachts, billionaires in jungles, billionaires in sinking cities, the list goes on.

But the cost of these trips is astronomical.

I’m not referring simply to the price tag for the trip itself; the travel habits of the wealthy — the transport they choose, the destinations they pick, their behaviours once there — cost us, as a species, the health of our planet. According to research conducted by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASS), ‘the world’s wealthiest 10% caused two-thirds of global warming since 1990’.

Perhaps it’s time for a wee trip up the scaffolding of a guillotine...

Gallows humour aside and in the spirit of fairness, rather than simply writing a detailed list of all the ways I would enjoy receiving news that the wealthy have fucked off never to be heard of again, I have opted for a research-based approach, breaking down the impact of the popular ways that the upper echelons of our society travel, where they go, and how the rest of us pay for it.

Playing Among the Stars

The extents to which the rich will go to be told they’re special cannot be found on Earth. So, they have started taking trips to space. Perhaps the reason being is it’s the only expanse that can accommodate their egos.

Maybe next time just leave them up there.

Although not a new activity, the desire of the wealthy to day-trip off the planet is receiving heightened attention.

The recent Blue Origin girls’ trip to space was less a win for feminism, more an advertisement for another place the wealthy can go that’s inaccessible to the masses. This is not a conversation about the pros and cons of space exploration, it is a platform from which to discuss the use of space exploration by the wealthy minority the way the average tourist uses a city break.

Blue Origins, the space exploration outfit started in 2001 and owned by Jeff Bezos, states that its space flights are carbon neutral because the flights release water vapour and operate reusable aircrafts. But is it true?

Well, yes and no.

It is accurate that the Green Hydrogen fuel used by the Blue Origins flights releases virtually no CO2 during launch and works as seen below:

Liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen = a fuck tonne of heat = big fucking boost = rocket goes fucking flying

I and my equations are a real loss to the scientific community.

This means that the Blue Origins rockets do emit mostly water vapour. However, according to research by Elois Marais, an air pollution researcher at the University College London, Darin Toohey, professor of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at University of Colorado, Boulder, and Martin Ross, an atmospheric scientist also at the University of Colorado, Boulder, water vapour emissions are not necessarily harmless. This is due to how water reacts and behaves at higher altitudes, especially the two layers of the atmosphere closest to space, the mesosphere and ionosphere. It can create clouds where clouds are not supposed to exist thus altering the climate, trap heat at higher points in our atmosphere, and can disrupt and degrade the protective Ozone layer.

On Earth, water may be the source of life but, in the atmosphere, it may speed up our death.

Regarding the claim by Blue Origins that their rockets are reusable, that is true. Some of the constituent parts that make up a Blue Origins rocket can be used more than once. However, whether they do, in fact, reuse rockets and parts or whether they simply claim that they can, might be two remarkably different things. Based on my research, I could find little clarification or transparency on whether Blue Origins actually reuses parts.

With the number of commercial space flights increasing, in June 2025 the US set a new record with 21 launches in a single month, it is becoming an increasing environmental tourism concern.

I’m Leaving on a Jet Plane

And it’s private so you’re not invited.

The recent Bezos-Sanchez Venetian nuptials came with reports of 95-100 private jets descending on the already sinking city. Locals welcomed them with protests. People, whose home is being devastated by a tourism industry that is already struggling to be sustainable, stating clearly and passionately that their home is more than a backdrop for holidays and special occasions.

But what price was paid for Jeff to have his wee party with a room full of celebrities and, seemingly, no real friends?

There are numerous ways the sustainability of travel is measured — the impact on local flora and fauna, the living conditions of locals, the wealth distribution of earnings from tourism activities, the affect on infrastructure and public services, the impact on peoples and cultures, gentrification speed, the list goes on — but, so as not to overwhelm, we’re focusing on carbon emissions, a category in which private jets are some of the top offenders.

Carbon emissions are complex to break down in simple terms, partially because every flight will come with unique factors that influence outcomes, such as passenger numbers, fuel type, flight distance, aircraft efficiency, delays, luggage load, etc. For those reasons, most researchable information on this topic speaks in general terms and uses averages.

But those averages are cause for concern.

Although there are more commercial flights carrying more passengers and luggage, thus weighing more, and creating higher CO2 emissions overall compared to private jets, that’s not how CO2 emissions are calculated. We have to look at the per passenger CO2 emissions to assess the extent of the environmental damage caused by a single flight. Per passenger, private jets have a much higher rate of CO2 emissions and therefore are far more damaging to the climate. To make this a bit clearer, let’s look at the comparative effect of commercial flights and private jets.

One of the most common commercial aircraft is the Boeing 737 which has an average capacity of 85-230 passengers, while a normal private jet has an average capacity of 4-8 passengers. Now, let’s take the median of the commercial flight and the private jet. That’s 158 passengers for the commercial fight and six passengers for the private jet. Let’s say 158 people need to get from New York to London tomorrow. The commercial flight takes all 158 passengers in one go. The private jet, taking six passengers at a time would have to fly from New York to London 26 times to get the equivalent number of passengers to their destination. Hence, causing far more carbon emissions and environmental devastation.

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you that commercial flights give off more emissions. Then ask them why they feel the need to defend the wealthy flying in private jets. If they talk back, remind them that defending the disgusting travel habits of the rich isn’t going to get them an invite onto a private jet. Stay petty.

The Tide Is High

Super yachts. Super fucking yachts.

News outlets have called super yachts indefensible. Sustainability reports about them are murky. Local governments have called for them to be banned. There really is no reason any individual on this, God’s no-longer-so-green, Earth should have a boat that is more than 400 feet long. Who’s even on it? You have no friends, Jeff.

This is a difficult topic to research because the sustainability reports around yachting, generally, are lacking; the environmental impact focus and funding tend to be placed on the aviation or automotive industries. Or the available reports are funded and published by insiders from the yachting industry itself. Not suspicious at all. But let’s give it a wee go.

First, what is a super yacht? Or, even worse, a mega yacht? While there’s no real set definition, the consensus seems to be that a super yacht is over 24 meters (78 feet) in length and a mega yacht has a length of more than 30 meters (100 feet). They are privately owned, have crew for passenger comfort, and are designed to be a luxury. Some have hot tubs, full spas, helipads, sex dungeons, you know, the expected luxuries. They are not built for necessity; they are the floating embodiment of pure excess.

In writing that description, I’ve probably sold some of you on the idea of having one. Please don’t fantasise too much. Remember the state of the planet. Come back to the grim, boring realty of being a poor but decent person.

The environmental cost of super yachting is varied and goes beyond simply CO2 emissions. Super yacht ownership has tripled in the last 25 years with just the top 300 vessels annually emitting 285,000 tonnes of CO2 — this emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) is equivalent to the use of 66,478 gasoline-powered vehicles driven in a year. However, the damage caused by super yachts also extends to marine habitat degradation, noise pollution that disrupts marine life, and wastewater dumping and pollution.

Super yachts are a symbol of luxury and status for the wealthy few for which the planet and Mother Nature foot the bill.

Under the Sea

A wee direct message to anyone who pays an exorbitant amount of cash to explore the ocean’s floors by submarine:

You’re not a fucking fish.

This may shock you, but that fact required zero research on my part.

When used for purpose, namely scientific and academic research, submersible and submarine exploration is a salient source of information that helps scientists and academics understand our planet and relay that information to the public and decision-making bodies. In short, it is important.

Currently, 95% of our oceans are unexplored and that research opens doors to understanding our own existence and survival, there’s no denying that. But the submersible and submarine trips being taken by the super rich are not for the benefit or furthering of science, academia, or the greater good; we’re going to call them what they are — ego trips to search for bragging rights.

While submarines and submersibles are less environmentally damaging regarding their CO2 emissions compared to aviation or automotive travel, they still create and leave behind terrible damage.

Putting aside the carbon emissions of building these machines, the fuel or propulsion emissions of powering them underwater, and the release of crew and passenger waste into our waters, there is the more obvious and sad reality to this type of exploration — made evident by one event in 2023 — the death of the humans who try to visit the floors of our oceans.

There is no joke here. No humour. As long as millionaires and billionaires try to build their own deep-sea exploration outfits and convince others to join them, people, real human beings with people who love them, will die. I can’t think of a better deterrent to allowing the wealthy to continue travelling in this way.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The health of our planet, the survival of our species and other species depends on the wealthiest amongst us changing their damaging ways, specifically how they travel. I doubt they’re going to do so willingly. It is up to us as consumers, audiences, and conscientious travellers to be such a nuisance and disruption to the lavish, cushy lifestyles and travel preferences of the rich that they have no choice but to start changing — or risk being plagued by the annoying mass unwashed forevermore.

If you don’t believe that your vocal demonisation of the travel behaviours of the ultra rich won’t affect change, you underestimate your impact. Look at the locals protesting the Bezos wedding in Vienna, within days they forced a venue change. Look at the locals fighting to save their homes from being bought by the wealthy in places like Spain, Australia, and Canada, they brought about legislative change.

Being loud, being annoying, being pissed off, it works. So, the next time you hear about a celebrity jaunting off on their private jet to a private island, do me a personal favour. Go to their social media accounts and shame them as they deserve to be shamed. Our survival depends on it. Because if we don’t stop giving these people and their exploits positive attention, if we don’t start directly and bluntly holding them accountable for the damage they cause, if we don’t stop fawning over their wealth and lifestyles as something desirable and respectable, we, as a species, will pay the price. We’ll be well, truly, and irrevocably fucked. So be a dick, save a life.

Kyle Durnan-Kerns
Previous

Sustainable Travel Is Hard — So Why Bother?
Next

What the Fuck Is Conscientious Travel?