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

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

7116 readers
352 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 66 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Better to turn them into artificial reefs if you see them

[–] Wutchilli@feddit.de 17 points 2 years ago

Just a little public service <3

[–] sour@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)
[–] hibsen@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You can make reefs out of a lot of things.

[–] Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

(Fish) eat the rich

[–] crsu@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

compost helps the flowers grow

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago

Capsize the rich

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is why I fucking hate the do your part bullshit.

Corporations and wealthy don't have the same pressure or responsibility, but it's us as consumers who have to put all the extra work and thought into changing our routines and habits (not to mention how much more it could cost)

Fuck these fucks. Greed killed the earth.

[–] porksoda@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is why I fucking hate the do your part bullshit.

Same thing with water usage. Our house had a nice, normal-sized lawn and we basically had to kill it a few years ago when the CA drought was really bad. It was a bummer because our house looked nice, but big picture, I understood why water restrictions were in place and did my part.

Meanwhile, there are 120+ golf courses in the Palm Springs/Coachella Valley area. Residential water usage in the state of CA accounts for like 10% of water usage and I'm over here having to kill my lawn. It was hard to reconcile those facts.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

California would probably have plenty of water if they didn't allow the cultivation of thirsty crops in the goddamn desert. Everyone talks about California regulations (there are some silly ones), but what sticks out to me the most is the corporate shit they refuse to regulate.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

SO. MUCH. FARMING.

why the fuck is a decades long drought stricken state responsible for so many water heavy crops???? Or any crops really???

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Water law in the west is really weird.

It was developed around the idea that the first mine in an area could use the water that they wanted, and the next mine in the area could do the same only inasmuch as it didn't affect the water available to the first mine.

So you've got water rights that are primarily based on seniority and continuing to use your allotment so you don't lose it. That's not very well aligned with goals of conservation.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

The average carbon footprint in the US is 15 tons.

So the largest megayacht in the world pollutes as much as about 1,500 extra Americans.

Honestly, everyone needs to do their part. Billionaires, corporations and average Americans alike. It ain't gonna get fixed otherwise.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 35 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] hansl@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Per person, cruise ships are probably a couple of order of magnitude better than mega yacht… but yeah both are good.

I’d love to see cruise sail ships.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Sailing is hard work on a two-person vessel; World fare be a nominal fee plus n hours of labor? Sign me up!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LwL@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Cruise ships aren't all that much worse than long haul flights (specifics gonna depend on the ship and the plane but my first google results ended up with a 14 day cruise being roughly equivalent to four transatlantic flights) purely in terms of co2, just bc there are so many people on board. Though flights also need to cut emissions by a lot really, so that's still not great. And cruise ships tend to use fuel that releases other harmful chemicals beyond just greenhouse gases.

Still, to particularly focus on them rather than just one of many things that need to be reduced and also made more efficient feels a bit misplaced to me. Though I'd imagine that if sail container ships actually prove viable, sail cruise ships might follow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Setnof@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bassad@jlai.lu 31 points 2 years ago (6 children)

seems like the world should ban filthy wealth lifestyle. How should we proceed, any idea anyone ?

[–] soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 years ago

Gee I'm suddenly feeling very hungry

[–] Lennnny@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Dinner time

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 27 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Bluntly banning Megayachts seems excessively interventionalist when you could instead ban the fossil fuel engines they use and ban the emissions. Make them pass a smog test that’s no more lenient than a car. Why not effectively force them to be wind and solar powered and thus force them to blow their money on advancing green energy? If that kills the megayacht business anyway, well then fair enough.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I actually think that's an awesome idea. Force them to be "green" mega yachts. They can't bitch about batteries being expensive, they're literally the richest people on the fucking planet. We shouldn't have to suffer even more just so they can be obscenely wealthy and cheap at the same time...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 12 points 2 years ago

And when they're moving, they're highly inefficient as well. With a displacement ship hull designed to part the water their top speed is limited by their own length. A ship cannot overtake its own bow wake and with a length of let's say 70 meters you end up at a top speed of about 20 knots. Which isn't slow, but also not that much faster than cargo or passenger transport (maybe going 10 to 15 knots).

While a cargo ship is mostly longer and could theoretically sail faster, it is designed to be economical. It gets an engine that is most efficient at a certain speed, for example 12 knots at ahead standard, the propeller is cut for efficiency etc.

A yacht is designed to be comfortable and fast. It gets powerful engines that combust however much they need to combust. The propeller may be designed to produce less noise or vibration instead of being most fuel efficient.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

Watch them manage to ban canoes and write exemptions for the mega yachts. We know that's exactly what will happen.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Little surprise, then, that megayachts have been associated with crimes including money laundering, prostitution and illegal drug use.

This comment works against the author’s credibility. You don’t need to spotlight controversial laws against the personal freedoms of consenting adults to make megayacht owners look bad. It’s like saying “the rapist also smokes marijuana!” And isn’t prostitution and drug consumption fair game in international waters?

Second, the fact that yacht owners can choose which country’s flag to sail under – and can fly a flag of convenience if they choose – means it would be extremely difficult to enforce such a tax.

That’s interesting. Though I didn’t know they had to pick a flag. Surely they could buy a tiny island and create their own country with their own laws. There’s a book on how to do that.

[–] pkill@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, but

prostitution

consenting adults

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Too bad the ones with the gold (and the megayachts) make the rules.

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

Which is why violence is the only reasonable response.

[–] trslim@pawb.social 8 points 2 years ago

One thing I personally hate about megayatchs is how boring they all look. They look basically the same, white with black, and its just super boring. If I were going to be an evil billionaire flaunting my wealth, I would build somethin cool, like a 1:1 scale replica of the American WW2 Tennessee-class battleship. Sail around the world with 14 inch guns, and rule the high seas, making every yatch cower before my mighty steel ship.

Then sink because its 2023 and I'm a greedy billionaire who neglects things like basic maintenance and common sense.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

No one human has any more claim to this orbiting rock than any other. Just that some people have acquired more means of persuasion to get what they want.

Those yachts probably aren't too difficult to commandeer.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Asking in earnest.. international water.. is the no laws thing for real? What's stopping some modern day Karli Morgenthau Green Peace types from blowing these boats up?

[–] BingoBangoBongo@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago

Asking for a friend....

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I see it as self-sorting, with no need to ban them. Eventually, most of the world is either going to be climate migrants or impacted by climate migration or impacted by climate change in some other way, likely all three. Some of those impacted people might be really resentful about it. Some of those resentful people might see wealthy executives and oil companies as personally accountable. It probably won't take long for the wealthy to wise up and voluntarily give them up once it becomes clear what an acme bullseye they really are.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It probably won't take long for the wealthy to wise up and voluntarily give them up once it becomes clear what an acme bullseye they really are.

I don’t believe this, simply because the rich have also been busy buying and building mega secure doomsday bunkers.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

I was going to sarcastically ask if they're going to move their yachts into their bunkers, but then realized I don't want to know the answer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aluminium@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Its not like tax havens already exist, adding real havens to their offerings wouldn't be the issue I guess.

load more comments
view more: next ›