4 ms·

Just to quantify your first sentence, one single cruise ship emits the same amount of pollution as 1 million cars [0]. And, one cruise line emits more pollutio

Just to quantify your first sentence, one single cruise ship emits the same amount of pollution as 1 million cars [0]. And, one cruise line emits more pollution every year than ALL the cars in Europe [1]. They should not just be allowed to go bust; they should be forced out of business. --- [0]: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.4277147/a-cruise-ship-s-emissions-are-the-same-as-1-million-cars-report-1.4277180 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday... [1]: https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/luxury-cruise-giant-emits-10-times-more-air-pollution-sox-all-europe%E2%80%99s-cars-%E2%80%93-study https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/luxury-cruise-gia...

willis936 7y ago
This is often quoted and misleading. It doesn’t emit a million times more pollution than a car across the board, it emits a million times more sulphur oxide than a car. Now sulphur oxide is nasty stuff, and regulated out of vehicle emissions for good reason. Fuel conditioning and catalytic convertors take care of this. But those things add cost, and why would a cruise ship company do it if they are not compelled legally and their customers don’t mind? I don’t feel bad for giving my friends who go on cruises a hard time over this. Most will say they simply do not care about the environment. They are not immediately threatening their own immediate habitat. These are the people who go on cruises. The fact that the cruise industry exists is a sad mark on humanity. https://www.abctourism.org/cruise-ship-pollution https://www.abctourism.org/cruise-ship-pollution
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Not only sulphur oxides, particulates as well (see my first quoted link). Particulate matter from combustion is extremely nasty. These floating petri dishes choke everything in their path. > But those things add cost, and why would a cruise ship company do it if they are not compelled legally and their customers don’t mind? Because their owners give a shit about the world they're leaving to their children? Oh, well, I suppose they don't, then, do they?
  - willis936 7y ago
    Companies do not exhibit humanity and in many cases are legally beholden to maximize profits. Regulation cannot afford to fail with contemporary companies like it does with individuals. Individuals have humanity to fall back on in most cases. Also, I wanted to open with the pollution point first because most people associate "pollution" with "CO2 emission" and a cruise ship certainly does not produce a million times more CO2 than a car. Because of this, I feel that it's important to say specific pollutants.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      > ...legally beholden to maximize profits. This is a myth. The business judgement rule gives corporate directors extremely wide latitude on how they run their business. Point taken regarding "pollution," though. I will note that all the links quoted in this thread clearly state SOx or particulates, not specifically "pollution," so that misstatement falls on me in this case. With respect to CO2, they are still pretty bad; one voyage is roughly equivalent to transporting the same number of passengers on a flight from Tokyo to London [0]. --- [0]: https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-ship/ https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-shi...

willis936 7y ago

This is often quoted and misleading. It doesn’t emit a million times more pollution than a car across the board, it emits a million times more sulphur oxide than a car. Now sulphur oxide is nasty stuff, and regulated out of vehicle emissions for good reason. Fuel conditioning and catalytic convertors take care of this. But those things add cost, and why would a cruise ship company do it if they are not compelled legally and their customers don’t mind? I don’t feel bad for giving my friends who go on cruises a hard time over this. Most will say they simply do not care about the environment. They are not immediately threatening their own immediate habitat. These are the people who go on cruises. The fact that the cruise industry exists is a sad mark on humanity. https://www.abctourism.org/cruise-ship-pollution https://www.abctourism.org/cruise-ship-pollution

pmiller2 7y ago
Not only sulphur oxides, particulates as well (see my first quoted link). Particulate matter from combustion is extremely nasty. These floating petri dishes choke everything in their path. > But those things add cost, and why would a cruise ship company do it if they are not compelled legally and their customers don’t mind? Because their owners give a shit about the world they're leaving to their children? Oh, well, I suppose they don't, then, do they?
- willis936 7y ago
  Companies do not exhibit humanity and in many cases are legally beholden to maximize profits. Regulation cannot afford to fail with contemporary companies like it does with individuals. Individuals have humanity to fall back on in most cases. Also, I wanted to open with the pollution point first because most people associate "pollution" with "CO2 emission" and a cruise ship certainly does not produce a million times more CO2 than a car. Because of this, I feel that it's important to say specific pollutants.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    > ...legally beholden to maximize profits. This is a myth. The business judgement rule gives corporate directors extremely wide latitude on how they run their business. Point taken regarding "pollution," though. I will note that all the links quoted in this thread clearly state SOx or particulates, not specifically "pollution," so that misstatement falls on me in this case. With respect to CO2, they are still pretty bad; one voyage is roughly equivalent to transporting the same number of passengers on a flight from Tokyo to London [0]. --- [0]: https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-ship/ https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-shi...