8 ms·

This video is delightful. Cruise ships are disgusting - on a public health, environmental, and labor law axes. (Probably a few others, too!) I love seeing them

This video is delightful. Cruise ships are disgusting - on a public health, environmental, and labor law axes. (Probably a few others, too!) I love seeing them being dismantled.

barnabee 6y ago
Not sure why this is downvoted, I 100% agree that cruise ships and the industry are an unsustainable scourge on the planet. Good riddance.
- marcod 6y ago
  Add to that, that taking a cruise is just a superfluous luxury.
- blazor 6y ago
  I can't imagine anything worse than being a passenger on one of those (other than begin a low paid crew member who's been forced to remain aboard for the past 8 months)
  - qz2 6y ago
    Yes. I got dragged on one by my parents in the 1980s. I wanted to kill myself after about a day. It was like butlins with no escape and even lower standards of hygiene. It’s a profitable captive market to milk a load of people drowning their sorrows in alcohol and feed the slop in return. Why you’d pay for it I don’t understand. Secondarily, good riddance to the whole industry. Edit: after reflecting on this I don’t think my parents enjoyed it either. They went on it because it was the done thing at the time and they could tell everyone they went on it.
WilTimSon 6y ago
Is there any reason they, in particular, are so bad? I'm presuming that running one takes a lot of energy but, other than that, why are they such a strain on public health and the environment?
- noneeeed 6y ago
  They use a lot of energy, but more importantly they get that from something called bunker fuel. BF is the cheapest, nastiest form of fuel available. They are a significant source of pollution in parts of many port cities like London (especially places like Greenwich). I believe they are particularly bad for sulphur and particulate pollution. One of the differences with cargo ships is that cruise ships need a lot of power even when they are at port to keep all the amenities of a large town going. Most cargo ships have tiny crews,and little demand for power when not at sea. They are a significant producer of local pollutants that cause very real health problems for many people. Some ports do have electrical hookups for the cruise ships to use, but I think they are often more expensive than just burning more bunker fuel, and require to ship to be set up for them.
  - morsch 6y ago
    In other words, there's nothing inherently and especially bad about cruise ships. Just regulatory loop holes and overall bad citizenship that governments around the world have known about for decades and have failed to close. Because voters haven't cared enough for it to be an issue. Cruise ships use a lot of energy, but add up the total energy required to house, move, heat, cool, amuse and feed 4000 tourists and their minders on land and you will also get a large number.
    - noneeeed 6y ago
      Essentially yea, if cruise ships used high quality fuel and always hooked up to a local power grid when docked many/most of the pollution issues would be significantly improved, at least for the local pollution induced problems. However it seems to be very difficult to change the rules on shipping fuel, but some ports are starting to clamp down on cruise ships that don't hook up to the local grid. Cruise ships are basically floating Vegases, they are never going to be exactly eco-friendly, but at their available sources of power are limited to those that are badly polluting, even if they use high quality fuel. The only way to make cruise ships low carbon would be to make them nuclear powered, like an aircraft carrier. You can't really power them with renewable sources like you can with homes on land.
bserge 6y ago
Absolutely useless pollution machines. Running on bunker fuel, used as floating towns for people's amusement, polluting more than all of Europe's cars combined. There is no excuse for them. I believe they should be banned, and any leisure ships should be sail-powered. I bet they would be more fun for the tourists, too. I understand international shipping is vital, that's why cargo ships get a pass, but cruise ships simply have no place if we actually care about the environment. Sadly, money trumps everything.
- inglor 6y ago
  Why assume it's a 0 sum game or try to regulate how people enjoy their free time? Isn't it much more effective to simply force ships to have much fewer emissions or offset them?
  - bserge 6y ago
    I've had these debates way too many times. I am not getting into another one. My stand is, burning dirty oil for people's enjoyment to the detriment of the oceans and the air is [insert bad words]. I said, use sailboats for leisure tourism. Plenty of fun. At this rate, we'll fuck up the planet enough that governments will take the power in their hands and everyone will be forced to help with the cleanup. If we don't do something now, out of our own volition, we're all going to end up with much more authoritarian governments and limits on individual freedoms. It's either that or civil wars. No way around it.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      I don't know anything about you, but I guarantee you do something for fun that I could point to and say it's 'burning dirty oil for your enjoyment to the detriment of the world and the air'.
      - bserge 6y ago
        Sure, everyone does. Cruise ships are one thing that can be completely removed with great effect for the environment and it will be a minor inconvenience for the people who used to pay for them. Yes, many will take planes and trains and cars, any of which will still pollute less than cruise ships. There is no downside to banning them and using sail ships (aside from a potential loss of revenue).
timonoko 6y ago
Except cruise ships are essential to countries like Finland or Norway. The tickets are reasonable priced only because of cruise passengers, tax-free booze and gambling. Especially Hurtigruten of Norway seems to be financed mostly by American Tourists, while providing essential coastal ferry service. And Finland is basically an island, as it is impossible to establish reliable routes through Russia, because local robber parons invent constantly new rules and taxes.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  In which ways are they essential?
  - timonoko 6y ago
    Finland is an island surrounded for 6 months with solid ice. Those cruise ships need to be ice-breakers too. And Norways coastal roadway is 5 times longer than the coastal ferry. That is an environmental issue if anything.
    - walrus01 6y ago
      I think you may be confusing the 'cruiseferry' which carries vehicles and can be an essential transportation method, with the modern megacruiseship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiseferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiseferry
      - timonoko 6y ago
        Mega-yachts are actually most environmental way to be bring million tourists to places to like Nordkapp. There has not been much complaints lately, because modern ships clean they sewage water and fuel exhausts.
        heavenlyblue 6y ago
        Can you please provide some sources for this info?

This video is delightful. Cruise ships are disgusting - on a public health, environmental, and labor law axes. (Probably a few others, too!) I love seeing them being dismantled.

barnabee 6y ago

Not sure why this is downvoted, I 100% agree that cruise ships and the industry are an unsustainable scourge on the planet. Good riddance.

marcod 6y ago
Add to that, that taking a cruise is just a superfluous luxury.
blazor 6y ago
I can't imagine anything worse than being a passenger on one of those (other than begin a low paid crew member who's been forced to remain aboard for the past 8 months)
- qz2 6y ago
  Yes. I got dragged on one by my parents in the 1980s. I wanted to kill myself after about a day. It was like butlins with no escape and even lower standards of hygiene. It’s a profitable captive market to milk a load of people drowning their sorrows in alcohol and feed the slop in return. Why you’d pay for it I don’t understand. Secondarily, good riddance to the whole industry. Edit: after reflecting on this I don’t think my parents enjoyed it either. They went on it because it was the done thing at the time and they could tell everyone they went on it.

WilTimSon 6y ago

Is there any reason they, in particular, are so bad? I'm presuming that running one takes a lot of energy but, other than that, why are they such a strain on public health and the environment?

noneeeed 6y ago
They use a lot of energy, but more importantly they get that from something called bunker fuel. BF is the cheapest, nastiest form of fuel available. They are a significant source of pollution in parts of many port cities like London (especially places like Greenwich). I believe they are particularly bad for sulphur and particulate pollution. One of the differences with cargo ships is that cruise ships need a lot of power even when they are at port to keep all the amenities of a large town going. Most cargo ships have tiny crews,and little demand for power when not at sea. They are a significant producer of local pollutants that cause very real health problems for many people. Some ports do have electrical hookups for the cruise ships to use, but I think they are often more expensive than just burning more bunker fuel, and require to ship to be set up for them.
- morsch 6y ago
  In other words, there's nothing inherently and especially bad about cruise ships. Just regulatory loop holes and overall bad citizenship that governments around the world have known about for decades and have failed to close. Because voters haven't cared enough for it to be an issue. Cruise ships use a lot of energy, but add up the total energy required to house, move, heat, cool, amuse and feed 4000 tourists and their minders on land and you will also get a large number.
  - noneeeed 6y ago
    Essentially yea, if cruise ships used high quality fuel and always hooked up to a local power grid when docked many/most of the pollution issues would be significantly improved, at least for the local pollution induced problems. However it seems to be very difficult to change the rules on shipping fuel, but some ports are starting to clamp down on cruise ships that don't hook up to the local grid. Cruise ships are basically floating Vegases, they are never going to be exactly eco-friendly, but at their available sources of power are limited to those that are badly polluting, even if they use high quality fuel. The only way to make cruise ships low carbon would be to make them nuclear powered, like an aircraft carrier. You can't really power them with renewable sources like you can with homes on land.

bserge 6y ago

Absolutely useless pollution machines. Running on bunker fuel, used as floating towns for people's amusement, polluting more than all of Europe's cars combined. There is no excuse for them. I believe they should be banned, and any leisure ships should be sail-powered. I bet they would be more fun for the tourists, too. I understand international shipping is vital, that's why cargo ships get a pass, but cruise ships simply have no place if we actually care about the environment. Sadly, money trumps everything.

inglor 6y ago
Why assume it's a 0 sum game or try to regulate how people enjoy their free time? Isn't it much more effective to simply force ships to have much fewer emissions or offset them?
- bserge 6y ago
  I've had these debates way too many times. I am not getting into another one. My stand is, burning dirty oil for people's enjoyment to the detriment of the oceans and the air is [insert bad words]. I said, use sailboats for leisure tourism. Plenty of fun. At this rate, we'll fuck up the planet enough that governments will take the power in their hands and everyone will be forced to help with the cleanup. If we don't do something now, out of our own volition, we're all going to end up with much more authoritarian governments and limits on individual freedoms. It's either that or civil wars. No way around it.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I don't know anything about you, but I guarantee you do something for fun that I could point to and say it's 'burning dirty oil for your enjoyment to the detriment of the world and the air'.
    - bserge 6y ago
      Sure, everyone does. Cruise ships are one thing that can be completely removed with great effect for the environment and it will be a minor inconvenience for the people who used to pay for them. Yes, many will take planes and trains and cars, any of which will still pollute less than cruise ships. There is no downside to banning them and using sail ships (aside from a potential loss of revenue).

timonoko 6y ago

Except cruise ships are essential to countries like Finland or Norway. The tickets are reasonable priced only because of cruise passengers, tax-free booze and gambling. Especially Hurtigruten of Norway seems to be financed mostly by American Tourists, while providing essential coastal ferry service. And Finland is basically an island, as it is impossible to establish reliable routes through Russia, because local robber parons invent constantly new rules and taxes.

heavenlyblue 6y ago
In which ways are they essential?
- timonoko 6y ago
  Finland is an island surrounded for 6 months with solid ice. Those cruise ships need to be ice-breakers too. And Norways coastal roadway is 5 times longer than the coastal ferry. That is an environmental issue if anything.
  - walrus01 6y ago
    I think you may be confusing the 'cruiseferry' which carries vehicles and can be an essential transportation method, with the modern megacruiseship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiseferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiseferry
    - timonoko 6y ago
      Mega-yachts are actually most environmental way to be bring million tourists to places to like Nordkapp. There has not been much complaints lately, because modern ships clean they sewage water and fuel exhausts.
      - heavenlyblue 6y ago
        Can you please provide some sources for this info?