9 ms·

alt title: "How to rapidly expand your carbon footprint before you die" "Research shows that cruising emits up to four times more CO2 per passenger than flying

alt title: "How to rapidly expand your carbon footprint before you die" "Research shows that cruising emits up to four times more CO2 per passenger than flying. While air travel costs between 0,11 and 0,16 kg per passenger per kilometer – a significant amount -, taking a cruise ship adds up to a staggering 0,40 kilograms per kilometer."[1] [1] https://www.geekyexplorer.com/cruise-ship-pollution/#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20cruising%20emits,0%2C40%20kilograms%20per%20kilometer https://www.geekyexplorer.com/cruise-ship-pollution/#:~:text....

abyssin 5y ago
While I agree ship cruising is a polluting lifestyle, I think it should be compared to living on land.
- tmountain 5y ago
  It's unequivocally worse. Every single day, cruise ships worldwide emit the same particular matter as a million cars. A single large cruise ship will emit over five tonnes of NOX emissions, and 450kg of ultrafine particles a day. To give you an idea, it emits about the same amount of sulfur dioxide as 3,6 MILLION cars. https://www.geekyexplorer.com/cruise-ship-pollution/ https://www.geekyexplorer.com/cruise-ship-pollution/
WithinReason 5y ago
Sure, but also takes ~150 times longer
valgor 5y ago
Came to say this. These are potentially the biggest individual polluters on the planet.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  Private jets are far worse per Capita.
  - pc86 5y ago
    What's the math on this?
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  Cargo ships are far more numerous than cruise ships. They basically use tar as fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil
gruez 5y ago
Comparing passenger jet emissions to cruise emissions is missing the point. The point of a jet is to get from point A to point B ASAP. The point of a cruise ship is to have a nice time, and maybe get from point A to point B. AFAIK many (most?) cruise routes even go back to the port that they depart from!
- bruce511 5y ago
  Surely a better measure is time, not distance. Ie what is a person's carbon footprint on land, for say a week, vs what is it on a cruise for a week?
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    On a nice hotel, because most cruises are nice hotels that sail. The amenities you can have in a cruise are far, far beyond what you would get on a first-class international flight.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ninkendo 5y ago
I wish we lived in an alternate universe where paranoia about nuclear reactors wasn’t so much of a thing, and that we could have nuclear powered cruise ships just like the Navy has nuclear aircraft carriers and subs. Because I _love_ cruising, and the climate impact is among the major reasons I don’t go as often as I’d like. (Yeah yeah, people who go on cruises get a lot of ridicule, but I don’t care. Something about a cruise just fits me lot more than “real” vacations. I don’t want to be challenged, or go to a place where I don’t speak the language, etc. I just want to be utterly hedonistic for a week or so and then get back to my real life. Insult away.)
- sorenjan 5y ago
  Uranium is a finite resource, and nuclear energy does leave a very long term waste problem. Using that for leisure cruises seems very wasteful and a bad idea. Sails, solar, and renewable hydrogen is much more appetizing.
  - StillBored 5y ago
    True uranium is finite in the environment, but its hardly the only fuel source, combined with breeders/etc the fuel supplies are effectively infinite (aka we have thousands of years with just the current known reserves). Similarly most of the "waste" isn't really waste if we choose to burn it. We have a couple centuries of fuel for our grand children sitting in "waste" caskets at the existing plants. Similarly to how we basically burned the "waste" from the soviet nuke programs in our reactors for 20 years. So, sail might be cool, but its not going to happen for these huge mega cruise ships. There is a reason the navy uses nukes on their larger ships.
    - moffkalast 5y ago
      And the alternative renewables are pretty bad when considered in practical terms. Solar which doesn't work half the time, produces an oversupply during summer and doesn't work during winter, requiring extensive and expensive storage setups while providing a laughable output. Wind turbines which only work in specific places with stable wind speeds, with blades that last 20 years and can't be cost effectively recycled and produce a larger waste storage issue than nuclear. Not to mention the constant loud whine sound that drives people living close to them absolutely nuts. Geothermal which works only in places with magma near the surface, otherwise you need to drill down so deep that you destabilize the ground and cause towns to start collapsing into themselves. Hydrogen storage may be practical in some cases, but with 30% round trip efficiency it's probably not worth it when pumped hydro can do up to 85% and you also get what's basically a huge bomb waiting to level the city block. Sails, or their more efficient version, Flettner rotors, are a good starting point for significant cargo ship fuel reductions but you aren't gonna be powering them by wind alone. I think what Rolls Royce is doing right now with SMRs is probably the best way forward, depending on how small they can really make them.
paulcole 5y ago
I mean who cares? If anybody thinks we're going to "solve" climate change by a couple oldsters staying off cruise ships (or honestly through any reasonable means), then I think they're deluded. The solution is going to come in the form of a world and way of life that's essentially unimaginable today. For those of us alive right now, may as well do whatever we want at this point.
- floor2 5y ago
  I care! You should care! Everyone should care! This stuff matters, it matters today and it matters incrementally. A 10% decrease in carbon emissions today means millions of acres less wildfire destruction in this decade. It means preventing billions of dollars in destruction from severe hurricanes. It means hundreds of thousands of lives saved from becoming famine refugees from drought-stricken areas. Pretending that it's an all-or-nothing, we need magical technological revolution is just enabling people to continue to cause harm more rapidly and severely. But the difference between 2.0 and 2.1 degrees of warming is huge, the difference of giving humanity another decade to replace fossil fuels for grid power is huge. No one change, no one technology, no one law or policy is going to solve climate change. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue any given improvement, quite the opposite, it means we should be pursuing them all.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    I live in small dense urban housing, I have never driven a car, I never fly in planes, I don't eat meat, and I will never have kids. That's what I'm doing and it doesn't matter at all. Very few people are willing to make microscopic changes in their lifestyle. How do I know? Just look around. It's clear to me societal change won't come when we're staring down the barrel of the gun. It's going to happen when we have a gaping exit wound in the back of our heads. Fortunately I'll be dead well before the shot rings out.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Ah, but the point isn't to solve climate change. The point is to engage in a public display of virtue by lecturing others on their shortcomings. This gives one the smug (and illusory) satisfaction of being a Good Person without requiring any actual personal sacrifice. You're right. These particular retirees aren't even a rounding error of a rounding error of a rounding error. However, they are Climate Sinners, and must therefore be denounced.
temp8964 5y ago
You forget when people stay on the cruise ships, they no longer drive cars or take public transportations.
samarama 5y ago
Ok but you also travel much less by ship than by plane and you also have your additional CO2 footprint by driving around on vacation.

abyssin 5y ago

While I agree ship cruising is a polluting lifestyle, I think it should be compared to living on land.

tmountain 5y ago
It's unequivocally worse. Every single day, cruise ships worldwide emit the same particular matter as a million cars. A single large cruise ship will emit over five tonnes of NOX emissions, and 450kg of ultrafine particles a day. To give you an idea, it emits about the same amount of sulfur dioxide as 3,6 MILLION cars. https://www.geekyexplorer.com/cruise-ship-pollution/ https://www.geekyexplorer.com/cruise-ship-pollution/

WithinReason 5y ago

Sure, but also takes ~150 times longer

valgor 5y ago

Came to say this. These are potentially the biggest individual polluters on the planet.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Private jets are far worse per Capita.
- pc86 5y ago
  What's the math on this?
kayodelycaon 5y ago
Cargo ships are far more numerous than cruise ships. They basically use tar as fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil

gruez 5y ago

Comparing passenger jet emissions to cruise emissions is missing the point. The point of a jet is to get from point A to point B ASAP. The point of a cruise ship is to have a nice time, and maybe get from point A to point B. AFAIK many (most?) cruise routes even go back to the port that they depart from!

bruce511 5y ago
Surely a better measure is time, not distance. Ie what is a person's carbon footprint on land, for say a week, vs what is it on a cruise for a week?
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  On a nice hotel, because most cruises are nice hotels that sail. The amenities you can have in a cruise are far, far beyond what you would get on a first-class international flight.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ninkendo 5y ago

I wish we lived in an alternate universe where paranoia about nuclear reactors wasn’t so much of a thing, and that we could have nuclear powered cruise ships just like the Navy has nuclear aircraft carriers and subs. Because I _love_ cruising, and the climate impact is among the major reasons I don’t go as often as I’d like. (Yeah yeah, people who go on cruises get a lot of ridicule, but I don’t care. Something about a cruise just fits me lot more than “real” vacations. I don’t want to be challenged, or go to a place where I don’t speak the language, etc. I just want to be utterly hedonistic for a week or so and then get back to my real life. Insult away.)

sorenjan 5y ago
Uranium is a finite resource, and nuclear energy does leave a very long term waste problem. Using that for leisure cruises seems very wasteful and a bad idea. Sails, solar, and renewable hydrogen is much more appetizing.
- StillBored 5y ago
  True uranium is finite in the environment, but its hardly the only fuel source, combined with breeders/etc the fuel supplies are effectively infinite (aka we have thousands of years with just the current known reserves). Similarly most of the "waste" isn't really waste if we choose to burn it. We have a couple centuries of fuel for our grand children sitting in "waste" caskets at the existing plants. Similarly to how we basically burned the "waste" from the soviet nuke programs in our reactors for 20 years. So, sail might be cool, but its not going to happen for these huge mega cruise ships. There is a reason the navy uses nukes on their larger ships.
  - moffkalast 5y ago
    And the alternative renewables are pretty bad when considered in practical terms. Solar which doesn't work half the time, produces an oversupply during summer and doesn't work during winter, requiring extensive and expensive storage setups while providing a laughable output. Wind turbines which only work in specific places with stable wind speeds, with blades that last 20 years and can't be cost effectively recycled and produce a larger waste storage issue than nuclear. Not to mention the constant loud whine sound that drives people living close to them absolutely nuts. Geothermal which works only in places with magma near the surface, otherwise you need to drill down so deep that you destabilize the ground and cause towns to start collapsing into themselves. Hydrogen storage may be practical in some cases, but with 30% round trip efficiency it's probably not worth it when pumped hydro can do up to 85% and you also get what's basically a huge bomb waiting to level the city block. Sails, or their more efficient version, Flettner rotors, are a good starting point for significant cargo ship fuel reductions but you aren't gonna be powering them by wind alone. I think what Rolls Royce is doing right now with SMRs is probably the best way forward, depending on how small they can really make them.

paulcole 5y ago

I mean who cares? If anybody thinks we're going to "solve" climate change by a couple oldsters staying off cruise ships (or honestly through any reasonable means), then I think they're deluded. The solution is going to come in the form of a world and way of life that's essentially unimaginable today. For those of us alive right now, may as well do whatever we want at this point.

floor2 5y ago
I care! You should care! Everyone should care! This stuff matters, it matters today and it matters incrementally. A 10% decrease in carbon emissions today means millions of acres less wildfire destruction in this decade. It means preventing billions of dollars in destruction from severe hurricanes. It means hundreds of thousands of lives saved from becoming famine refugees from drought-stricken areas. Pretending that it's an all-or-nothing, we need magical technological revolution is just enabling people to continue to cause harm more rapidly and severely. But the difference between 2.0 and 2.1 degrees of warming is huge, the difference of giving humanity another decade to replace fossil fuels for grid power is huge. No one change, no one technology, no one law or policy is going to solve climate change. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue any given improvement, quite the opposite, it means we should be pursuing them all.
- paulcole 5y ago
  I live in small dense urban housing, I have never driven a car, I never fly in planes, I don't eat meat, and I will never have kids. That's what I'm doing and it doesn't matter at all. Very few people are willing to make microscopic changes in their lifestyle. How do I know? Just look around. It's clear to me societal change won't come when we're staring down the barrel of the gun. It's going to happen when we have a gaping exit wound in the back of our heads. Fortunately I'll be dead well before the shot rings out.
Turing_Machine 5y ago
Ah, but the point isn't to solve climate change. The point is to engage in a public display of virtue by lecturing others on their shortcomings. This gives one the smug (and illusory) satisfaction of being a Good Person without requiring any actual personal sacrifice. You're right. These particular retirees aren't even a rounding error of a rounding error of a rounding error. However, they are Climate Sinners, and must therefore be denounced.

temp8964 5y ago

You forget when people stay on the cruise ships, they no longer drive cars or take public transportations.

samarama 5y ago

Ok but you also travel much less by ship than by plane and you also have your additional CO2 footprint by driving around on vacation.