Fedez is free to use his private jet. We are free to denounce the privilege that fuels denialism.

In the great chaos reigning under our skies today—and this isn't just a figure of speech—on the climate issue , we are constantly inundated with declarations, partial analyses, half-truths, and too often irresponsible assertions. In this context, what was truly unnecessary was yet another out-of-place VIP outburst. And yet, here we are, commenting on the words of Fedez, who, responding to the positions expressed by Ultima Generazione against private jets, has decided to weigh in. And so far, there's nothing wrong with that, except that he's said little that's informed and very misleading.

What Fedez said about private jets

The crux of the matter is simple: Ultima Generazione (Ultima Generazione) is provocatively but purposefully proposing the abolition of private jets, denouncing their enormous environmental impact. Fedez responded that the impact of airplanes is only 2% of global emissions and that that of private jets is even lower, therefore essentially negligible. Then, not content with this simplification, he doubled down, arguing that activists are essentially designed to "be a pain in the ass" and that without private jets "the world would burn anyway."

What are the real numbers?

Now, let's pause for a moment. Because if we've reached the point where, in the midst of a global climate emergency, a public figure feels the need to downplay the problem rather than help make it more understandable, then we have a more serious problem than expected. And it affects not only the environment, but public culture. First, the real numbers. Yes, in absolute terms , aviation contributes about 2-3% of global emissions. But that's only half the picture. When we talk about private jets, we enter another dimension: that of privilege with a very high environmental impact. According to various studies and reports, including those from the NGO Transport & Environment , a single private jet can emit the same amount of CO2 in a year as 177 cars. Or, if you prefer, another shocking statistic: five hours of flight emits the same amount of CO2 as four ordinary people in an entire year.

In other words, while citizens are being asked to change their cars, reduce consumption, and pay higher bills to invest in renewable energy sources, there's a segment of the population—small but influential—that continues to live as if the planet were a private, unshared asset . And if you dare criticize these excesses, you're accused of being a "nuisance."

Climate injustice

But the issue goes much deeper. It's not just about emissions, but about symbols. The private jet is the quintessential example of climate injustice. It's the vehicle that vividly embodies the divide between those with the power to pollute at will and those who find themselves paying the price for that behavior, often without having contributed at all to the crisis. So no, Fedez, you can't dismiss everything by saying "the world would burn anyway." It's a convenient—and dangerous—way of absolving oneself of responsibility. It's the classic "everyone does it anyway," only in a VIP version.

And it's surprising, even a little bitterly so, that he, who in the past presented himself as a critical, independent, and unconventional figure, now ends up supporting a discourse that reduces the climate debate to an ideological nuisance. It's a striking shift, especially if you have even a passing memory of some of his writings, his battles, his proclamations.

The climate doesn't give discounts to VIPs

The truth is, the climate doesn't wait for our opinions. It doesn't spare celebrities, nor does it shy away from social media controversy. The science has been clear for decades: every fraction of a degree matters . Every ton of CO2 saved can make a difference. And yes, even every private jet saved is a small but significant political, cultural, and social choice.

To those who say, "But there are bigger problems," we respond: the problems don't cancel each other out. It's not that if aviation accounts for "only" 2% of the world's population, we can ignore it. This reasoning, taken to its extreme, leads to total inaction. Climate change is fought with a combination of actions, large and small, symbolic and systemic. And it's precisely those with the most visibility and power who should set a good example, not make excuses.

Ultimately, the real tragedy is this: behind certain discourses lies not only misinformation, but a far more dangerous form of subculture. A subculture that doesn't seek to understand, that doesn't want to delve deeper, that prefers to laugh at those who are committed rather than question themselves. A subculture that mistakes contempt for activism for critical clarity. That celebrates indifference as if it were freedom . So, perhaps it's time to tell things as they are: those who today don't want to see what's happening to the planet do so not out of ignorance, but out of convenience. Those who discredit those who fight do so not out of critical spirit, but out of laziness or bad faith. And those who continue to pollute without even trying to change have simply chosen not to care. But the climate, unlike us, forgives no one. Not activists, not rappers, not first-class passengers.