• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So we’re at a point that, someone who owns something because they’re rich makes them evil?

    Y’all have lost the damn plot if that’s the case.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      So we’re at a point that,

      We are at a point where if we don’t reduce emissions humanity is doomed. A fleet of private mega yachts is a smack in the face to everyone trying to change for good and so is a smack spending billions on “toys” when the average person is struggling to pay rent.

      You seem to have lost track of the plot and of reality, look around yourself there’s a disaster or a tragedy happening every single day.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mega yachts aren’t causing our issues. 3rd world countries with no regulations for environmental impact and consumerism is. Most of these yachts just sit in a port doing nothing but collecting dust 99% of the time. Thinking that getting rid of yachts is going to even scratch the surface of our environmental problems is a joke.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly, it’s just virtue signaling.

          If you look at sources for pollution, it’s largely:

          From this data, the most effective thing to focus on in combating climate change is improving efficiency of energy production (solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc instead of coal, gas, etc). The next most effective thing is improving efficiency of transportation, followed by improving efficiency of heating and cooling (e.g. getting people to use heat exchanges instead of separate gas and AC). Yachts, cruise ships, and other related luxury items don’t even register on the list of priorities and are merely a blip. They’re very visible wastes of energy, but they’re lately harmless.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, but the number of people actually using mega yachts is vanishingly small. It’s so small that completely eradicating them would do exactly nothing to combat climate change because the amount they contribute is within a rounding error for any meaningful measure of climate change.

              • index@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                it’s so small that completely eradicating them would do exactly nothing to combat climate change

                That’s not true, did you read any of the link posted?

                We live in a society made of billions of individuals, we are not ants or robots, everyone is supposed to do is part. Billionare part count as much as millions of people, that’s how big their footprint it.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There are very few billionaires, so while their footprint is larger on an individual basis, their total footprint is absolutely dwarfed by the rest of the population. Going after billionaires may feel good because you’re “sticking to the rich” or whatever, but even if we eradicate all billionaire carbon output, it wouldn’t put a dent in global carbon emissions.

                  It’s the same issue as the popular notion of taxing the rich. If we took all of Elon Musk’s wealth ($486 billion from a quick check), we could fund the US government for less than a month. If we took the entire wealth of the top 400 people in the US ($5.7T combined), we still couldn’t fund the US government for a year. Here’s an article about it from the tax foundation (they have a right-center bias with high factual accuracy):

                  A common refrain from many progressive lawmakers is that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. “Fair share” is, of course, subjective. But a new Treasury study provides data showing that the rich not only pay more than the middle class, they pay more than one-third of their annual income in federal taxes and more than 45 percent when state and local taxes are included.

                  Indeed, the total tax burden on the super-wealthy, especially those with large stakes in global businesses, is upwards of 60 percent of their annual income because of the taxes they pay abroad.

                  Financially they’re a blip, and ecologically they’re a blip as well. Punching up may be cathartic, but it’s not going to solve the climate crisis.