4 ms·

The greatest impact would be if the ship companies would join in. Imagine the carbon output reduction of a large chunk of air travel moved to the sea instead.

rvense 7y ago
Cruise ships are pretty bad, I hear.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  If moving stuff through the air would be cheaper than moving it by sea (fuel costs are a major part of shipping costs), then everything would be shipped by air. This is not the case; sea is the default, and air is premium. Intuitively it makes sense that moving things through air requires more fuel than moving it by sea, since the airplane has to use fuel to offset its lack of buoyancy, while a ship only has to expend energy to actually move.
  - look_lookatme 7y ago
    There's no way there's a world where everyone who needs to be in Europe next week from, say, New England, heads down to Boston to queue up for a utilitarian passenger ship that takes a week to cross the open ocean. How many people would you need to even justify the cost and environmental impact of moving such a ship? 300? 3,000? Cargo ships have thousands of containers on them (massive scale) and they move relatively slowly. This is not a reasonable comparison. You can't just pluck weight per-mile cost out of the air and apply it to passenger travel.
  - rvense 7y ago
    But people aren't good. They would be on the ships for a long time and need to do people things, like eating and using the bathroom and not being bored. Hence cruise ships become floating cities with colossal energy usage and bad waste management.
    - rvense 7y ago
      People aren't *goods!
  - IanCal 7y ago
    > If moving stuff through the air would be cheaper than moving it by sea (fuel costs are a major part of shipping costs), then everything would be shipped by air. This is not the case; sea is the default, and air is premium. Price and pollution are wildly different beasts. Even the types of fuel are different. > Intuitively it makes sense that moving things through air requires more fuel than moving it by sea, since the airplane has to use fuel to offset its lack of buoyancy, while a ship only has to expend energy to actually move. However ships have to push their way through water rather than air. It's a lot harder to walk to the end of the swimming pool through the water than it is to walk 25 metres regularly. I don't think there's an intuitive answer to this.
  - alexhutcheson 7y ago
    Shipping containers don't need food, fresh water, bathrooms, and space to move around.
bostonpete 7y ago
Is this meant ironically? From all I've heard, cruise ships are much worse for the environment than flying...
- yostrovs 7y ago
  That's because cruise ships are luxurious, not utilitarian, in nature. If you strip out the pools and bars, concert venues, and all that jazz, it gets to be a very lean operation.
  - 0xB31B1B 7y ago
    Its also due to the regulations, maritime emissions regulations are basically a free for all.
  - justaguyhere 7y ago
    I don't understand the point of these luxury cruises - if you are going to sit in a fancy bar on a ship drinking beer, can't you just do the same thing in a fancy bar on land? Unless one's goal is to see ocean life (interact with dolphins or whatever), what is the point of going traveling on sea? This is even before we think about the worker abuse, environment abuse etc these cruise companies do
    - yostrovs 7y ago
      You drink on the way to Barbados, where you're let off so you can drink on land.
    - ajdlinux 7y ago
      It's also the isolation from regular life, the particular atmosphere of only being around other holidaymakers, stopping at various islands along the way for day trips. Not my idea of an ideal holiday, and the workers' rights + environmental situation is absolutely appalling, but I do have fond memories of the one time I went on a cruise when I was a child.
    - bostonpete 7y ago
jedimastert 7y ago
How long would a passenger ship take to get from Europe to the US today? Not like a lux cruise ship, but like a ship who main purpose is transportation. Does anything like that even exist anymore? I know cargo ships are an important part of world infrastructure, but those don't really do "civilians"
- yostrovs 7y ago
  I don't believe there's such a thing. But that's because airline companies don't have to pay for their externalities.
- Merrill 7y ago
  >The current eastbound record was set by the American ocean liner United States in July 1952: the ship made the crossing in 3 days, 10 hours, 40 minutes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_crossing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_crossing There is no reason to believe that an ocean liner would be much faster today, since naval propulsion was well developed by 1952. >Sir Richard Branson set the world record for crossing the Atlantic Ocean by boat in 1986 in his 72ft (22 metre) Virgin Atlantic Challenger II with a time of three days, eight hours and 31 minutes.
- ajdlinux 7y ago
  The term you're looking for is "ocean liner". There is only one ship in the world currently officially classed as an ocean liner, the RMS Queen Mary 2. AFAICT, it's basically a cruise ship, just slightly faster with slightly different types of luxury, and it takes 7-8 nights between Southampton and New York. Probably not the fastest ocean liner one could build...
- timthorn 7y ago
  Current record is 2d 20h 9m for a passenger catamaran: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hales_Trophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hales_Trophy
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
yostrovs 7y ago
Moreover, ships are better able to adapt to rising sea levels. Trains may get flooded from certain areas during storms and such. Ships only benefit from higher seas.
nippoo 7y ago
Trains are about 15 gCO2/(km*pax), cars are around 100, planes are around 280, and ships are around 250. [1] So ships (with their much greater friction) definitely aren't the answer! [1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-f...

rvense 7y ago

Cruise ships are pretty bad, I hear.

blattimwind 7y ago
If moving stuff through the air would be cheaper than moving it by sea (fuel costs are a major part of shipping costs), then everything would be shipped by air. This is not the case; sea is the default, and air is premium. Intuitively it makes sense that moving things through air requires more fuel than moving it by sea, since the airplane has to use fuel to offset its lack of buoyancy, while a ship only has to expend energy to actually move.
- look_lookatme 7y ago
  There's no way there's a world where everyone who needs to be in Europe next week from, say, New England, heads down to Boston to queue up for a utilitarian passenger ship that takes a week to cross the open ocean. How many people would you need to even justify the cost and environmental impact of moving such a ship? 300? 3,000? Cargo ships have thousands of containers on them (massive scale) and they move relatively slowly. This is not a reasonable comparison. You can't just pluck weight per-mile cost out of the air and apply it to passenger travel.
- rvense 7y ago
  But people aren't good. They would be on the ships for a long time and need to do people things, like eating and using the bathroom and not being bored. Hence cruise ships become floating cities with colossal energy usage and bad waste management.
  - rvense 7y ago
    People aren't *goods!
- IanCal 7y ago
  > If moving stuff through the air would be cheaper than moving it by sea (fuel costs are a major part of shipping costs), then everything would be shipped by air. This is not the case; sea is the default, and air is premium. Price and pollution are wildly different beasts. Even the types of fuel are different. > Intuitively it makes sense that moving things through air requires more fuel than moving it by sea, since the airplane has to use fuel to offset its lack of buoyancy, while a ship only has to expend energy to actually move. However ships have to push their way through water rather than air. It's a lot harder to walk to the end of the swimming pool through the water than it is to walk 25 metres regularly. I don't think there's an intuitive answer to this.
- alexhutcheson 7y ago
  Shipping containers don't need food, fresh water, bathrooms, and space to move around.

bostonpete 7y ago

Is this meant ironically? From all I've heard, cruise ships are much worse for the environment than flying...

yostrovs 7y ago
That's because cruise ships are luxurious, not utilitarian, in nature. If you strip out the pools and bars, concert venues, and all that jazz, it gets to be a very lean operation.
- 0xB31B1B 7y ago
  Its also due to the regulations, maritime emissions regulations are basically a free for all.
- justaguyhere 7y ago
  I don't understand the point of these luxury cruises - if you are going to sit in a fancy bar on a ship drinking beer, can't you just do the same thing in a fancy bar on land? Unless one's goal is to see ocean life (interact with dolphins or whatever), what is the point of going traveling on sea? This is even before we think about the worker abuse, environment abuse etc these cruise companies do
  - yostrovs 7y ago
    You drink on the way to Barbados, where you're let off so you can drink on land.
  - ajdlinux 7y ago
    It's also the isolation from regular life, the particular atmosphere of only being around other holidaymakers, stopping at various islands along the way for day trips. Not my idea of an ideal holiday, and the workers' rights + environmental situation is absolutely appalling, but I do have fond memories of the one time I went on a cruise when I was a child.
  - bostonpete 7y ago

jedimastert 7y ago

How long would a passenger ship take to get from Europe to the US today? Not like a lux cruise ship, but like a ship who main purpose is transportation. Does anything like that even exist anymore? I know cargo ships are an important part of world infrastructure, but those don't really do "civilians"

yostrovs 7y ago
I don't believe there's such a thing. But that's because airline companies don't have to pay for their externalities.
Merrill 7y ago
>The current eastbound record was set by the American ocean liner United States in July 1952: the ship made the crossing in 3 days, 10 hours, 40 minutes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_crossing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_crossing There is no reason to believe that an ocean liner would be much faster today, since naval propulsion was well developed by 1952. >Sir Richard Branson set the world record for crossing the Atlantic Ocean by boat in 1986 in his 72ft (22 metre) Virgin Atlantic Challenger II with a time of three days, eight hours and 31 minutes.
ajdlinux 7y ago
The term you're looking for is "ocean liner". There is only one ship in the world currently officially classed as an ocean liner, the RMS Queen Mary 2. AFAICT, it's basically a cruise ship, just slightly faster with slightly different types of luxury, and it takes 7-8 nights between Southampton and New York. Probably not the fastest ocean liner one could build...
timthorn 7y ago
Current record is 2d 20h 9m for a passenger catamaran: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hales_Trophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hales_Trophy
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

yostrovs 7y ago

Moreover, ships are better able to adapt to rising sea levels. Trains may get flooded from certain areas during storms and such. Ships only benefit from higher seas.

nippoo 7y ago

Trains are about 15 gCO2/(km*pax), cars are around 100, planes are around 280, and ships are around 250. [1] So ships (with their much greater friction) definitely aren't the answer! [1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-f...