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

5240 readers

371 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

694

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

submitted 11 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

[+] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works -11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What a whiny article. Sure I agree with the spirit, but let's consider cruise ships and container vessels first if climate change is really the goal.

It's not about pollution per capita, it is the actual sum total that we should start with.

[–] ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Container ships provide an important service for many many people, and are actually one of our most efficient forms of goods transport. These personal yachts on the other hand are pure vanity projects

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There is no reason that cargo ships should be able to burn arbitrarily dirty fuel in international waters basically constantly.

There are plenty of comfort actions that are carbon costly, but that doesnt excuse the big polluters. It's like saying people like their showers too hot so we should take colder showers before Maersk has to upgrade their systems.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But if anything should go first, it's the mega yachts. I mean it's absolutely ridiculous and isn't helping anyone.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm just saying take the big bites first. I'm not mega rich, but I know mega rich people are litigious AF. It is a matter of bang for the buck to me.

Go ahead and try to ban mega yachts first and see how the oligarchy shits a brick. You can stop more fuel burn faster other ways.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Companies are litigious as well, that's who owns container ships.

[–] systemguy_64@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

An Oasis class cruise ship consumes 9120L of fuel per hour. With the standard capacity being 5400, that's 1.6L / hour / passenger.

The lüressen Azzam uses 13,000L / hour. At 36 guests, that's 361L / passenger / hour.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Ok then I stand corrected.

If they run the same number of hours go after the yacht; however, the atmosphere doesn't care about per person use, so overall burn is really what I'm more concerned about.