this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
646 points (98.8% liked)

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

5299 readers
846 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: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
646
‘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
77 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
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

This hill worth dying on? How many are there in the world? I may be way wrong, but I'd imagine the CO2 output of these things is a drop in the global bucket.

Abramovich’s yachts emit more than 22,000 tonnes of carbon every year, which is more than some small countries.

If you drill into the next article and look at the chart, it looks like we're talking about one dude's yachts, plural. And he's a massive outlier.

Easy to say, "Fuck the billionaires! Fuck their feelings!" but banning anything costs political capitol as well as time and money.

I'm not going to piss myself off coming up with right-wing talking points, but we all know damn well there would be a dozen forms of shit fit. "Now the libs want to take your boat! Guess you don't deserve to spend your hard-earned money without their approval!"

And for dubious benefit we're going up against the very people who have the time and money to fight this? We got better, more impactful and practical, work to do than fight a handful of billionaires over a handful of boats.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Everything counts at this point, we can't afford to treat this edge case differently. Every single one of us needs to make efforts and take action. Some, a lot more than others for sure but every single action counts. A single dude polluting more than millions of people is not acceptable, it's about sending the message that we will all be affected by climate change.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

No, everything does not count at this point. We are at war for the fate of our species, and I don't think that's overstating the point.

People are emotional creatures, not logical. This is Sales 101. You sell emotions, not facts. That's how you convince people, motivate people, bend them to your will. "Power to the Righteous People's Cause!" is failed, Cold War, communist propaganda.

Your post is emotional. Mine is, I feel, logical.

For all the reasons I outlined above, banning super yachts is a waste of political capital, emotional capital if you will.

We would be handing the billionaires a political win, a "meme" win, losing "hearts and minds", for very little benefit. And they have an outsized voice, yes? And we intend to antagonize them in this fashion?

If I'm buck naked and going up against the goddamned Batman, I'm shooting him in the face, not kicking his kneecap.

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

we all know damn well there would be a dozen forms of shit fit. "Now the libs want to take your boat! Guess you don't deserve to spend your hard-earned money without their approval!"

This is why violence is the only reasonable response.

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

The fashion industry has more emissions than the entire shipping industry

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

Imma need some sources on that one, but I've seen some crazy, non-intuitive shit in my time.