“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.”

  • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

  • activistPnk@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

  • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.