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.

Anyone else read that as MeGAYachts and assume this article was about gay cruises being environmentally destructive?

The Guardian, a shill for oil?

Why 'ban yachts' when a carbon tax would achtually reduce fossil fuel consumption and emissions? I'll tell you why: because banning yachts doesn't put a restriction on fossil fuel consumption.

It bans yachts.

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.