Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

4940 readers

725 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

692

‘Megayachts’ are environmentally indefensible. The world must ban them. (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by lettruthout@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“The rich gazed at their superyachts, and decided they were not enough. The new breed of megayachts, which are at least 70 metres (230ft) in length, may be the most expensive moveable assets ever created.”

“First and foremost, owning a megayacht is the most polluting activity a single person can possibly engage in. Abramovich’s yachts emit more than 22,000 tonnes of carbon every year, which is more than some small countries. Even flying long-haul every day of the year, or air-conditioning a sprawling palace, would not get close to those emissions levels.

The bulk of these emissions happen whether or not a yacht actually travels anywhere. Simply owning one – or indeed building one – is an act of enormous climate vandalism.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 24 points 8 months ago (4 children)

This is just a "feel bad" story rather than an actionable policy suggestion since, as the author acknowledges, regulating these yachts is going to be rather difficult because they can just sail somewhere else. Plenty of countries will welcome them in return for the economic activity associated with being a haven for the super-rich.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

let them sail somewhere else then

[–] sour@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago

without rich people

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If the yachts already exist anyway and so the carbon footprint will be the same, it seems better for them to exist here where they put a lot of money into the local economy rather than somewhere else. I suppose that has to be weighted against the potential to discourage future yacht construction...

[–] blazera@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago

Let em put their money into the local economies of somalia when first world ports no longer welcome them.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

I've wondered about that. Ireland, Delaware, and Bermuda are all notorious tax havens, but are any of them actually any better off than they would be otherwise? I get the feeling that the benefits are going to a very select handful of people, and not, uh, trickling down.

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Could regulate the manufacturing and maintenance/repairs.

[–] Unforeseen@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago

Or deregulate the torpedo industry

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

They can't sail somewhere else if you sink them.