The law and what is legal matters a lot if you want a functioning society. Obviously law != morality, but that distinction exists for a purpose
But setting philosophical jurisprudence aside, what the the logistics you'd use to go after these people? Why stop at the top 100? Which criteria do you use for imposing prison sentences on whom? Do you round up a new top 100 every year? Who gets the build the list of the condemned? Does that mean we're rounding up people based on their relative rank rather than the absolute harm they do? What protections would be in place so that these purges don't go after the innocent but politically unpopular? Can we build more lists for imprisonment too (e.g. top 100 worst body odor or top 100 rudest)? If this is a global goal, how do you round up the individuals in other countries?
Your idea sounds like an absurd, hyperbolic talking point to be honest.
The law and what is legal matters a lot if you want a functioning society. Obviously law != morality, but that distinction exists for a purpose
We don't have a functioning society on the timescales that matter (and those timescales are not that large).
You seem to be in a writing mood, but not a reading one:
Trying to rank the world's worst climate criminals is an approximate thing.
Your paragraph is a waste of time - the list is food for thought.
Obviously post hoc criminalization is a thing nonetheless, and is perfectly just when the law itself is unjust. It's amusing to see you write that something is "legal" and think that that means anything.
Trying to rank the world's worst climate criminals is an approximate thing. Wouldn't it be nice if rejecting the culture of consumerism started at the top, with those who benefit most from it, rather than with the morons in the middle who don't really do any damage at all individually.