4 ms·

Those ships are massive polluters by the way

elwell 3y ago
Compared to energy/fuel waste from living on land? I would think the required minimalism placed upon the 'tenants' would make up for the ship's pollution. Amazon doesn't deliver to the middle of the ocean (of course there's ports though...).
- voisin 3y ago
  > Compared to energy/fuel waste from living on land? Yes, assuming the cruise ship moves and needs many, many other boats to bring supplies like food and potable water.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    They dock to resupply. What other boats are you talking about?
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      They dock to resupply in ports where they are able. In others they use tenders to bring supplies, and people, to and from the ships. Many smaller ports don’t have the ability to serve larger ships, or the quantity of ships that come in during high season so some ships will anchor off and run tenders as shuttles all day.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  A lot of them run smelly diesel generators that stink up cities they port in (ironically Seattle just a couple of blocks from Amazon). And I mean, it’s like a dead fish smell. They also run on very dirty fuel for propulsion.
  - bonestamp2 3y ago
    Ya, they run on the sludge that is left over after we refine the fuel that the rest of us use in our cars.
  - dieselgate 3y ago
    Even if a ship had electric motors they're likely to be powered by a diesel generator. In the context of Seattle an example could be state ferries [1] [1] https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/major-projects/ferry-system-electrification https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/major-projects/fe... edit: electric motor not engine
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      Many of the cruise ships actually are electric hybrid in a setup similar to a locomotive. They will have a few thruster pods that rotate that allow them to dock without tugs, as well as providing forward propulsion
- gruez 3y ago
  AFAIK all the "massive polluters" claims I've seen involve their atmospheric pollution (eg. PM2.5, NOx, SOx) levels, not co2 levels. Compared to an apartment and a car with emissions controls, a cruise ship is obviously going to generate much more of those type of pollution. However, if you're out at sea with little people around to breathe in the pollution it's not that big of a deal.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    What about the people on the ship? Is it anything like sitting next to a fireplace?
    - gruez 3y ago
      Not an air pollution expert, but my guess is that the combination of tall smoke stacks, wind currents, and the fact that the ship is moving means that passengers are breathing in little, if any of the pollution. It's in the cruise company's interest to make their ships not smell like a clogged interstate at rush hour.
      - 11235813213455 3y ago
        Pollution is a global issue, wind and curent are not clearing it up magically
        gruez 3y ago
        Dilution and time will.
        11235813213455 3y ago
        if we stopped re-injecting pollution with overconsumption (and these cruises are part of it, like airplanes, cars), yes you're right time would solve things. I started at personal level to do this at least
- leetcrew 3y ago
  probably not. a typical 3br house directly comsumes less than 40 kwh per month. to put that in perspective, that's about the amount of energy contained in a single gallon of gas. large ships are the most efficient way to move bulk goods, but when carrying a bunch of people in their own little apartments, the per pax fuel efficiency is somewhere between a typical car and a passenger plane. I would be very surprised if the constraints of living on a cruise ship are anywhere near enough to offset the fact that they spend most of their time moving tons of people around to places they don't need to go. if you want to save the environment, take public transit to work and vacation in places that are connected by rail.
- 11235813213455 3y ago
  I live on land with a bicycle, no fridge, no heating, no AC, local food, and a yearly carbon footprint of one airplane ticket, so there's not one way to live on land, you can have great remote experience with a low footprint

Compared to energy/fuel waste from living on land? I would think the required minimalism placed upon the 'tenants' would make up for the ship's pollution. Amazon doesn't deliver to the middle of the ocean (of course there's ports though...).

voisin 3y ago
> Compared to energy/fuel waste from living on land? Yes, assuming the cruise ship moves and needs many, many other boats to bring supplies like food and potable water.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  They dock to resupply. What other boats are you talking about?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    They dock to resupply in ports where they are able. In others they use tenders to bring supplies, and people, to and from the ships. Many smaller ports don’t have the ability to serve larger ships, or the quantity of ships that come in during high season so some ships will anchor off and run tenders as shuttles all day.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
A lot of them run smelly diesel generators that stink up cities they port in (ironically Seattle just a couple of blocks from Amazon). And I mean, it’s like a dead fish smell. They also run on very dirty fuel for propulsion.
- bonestamp2 3y ago
  Ya, they run on the sludge that is left over after we refine the fuel that the rest of us use in our cars.
- dieselgate 3y ago
  Even if a ship had electric motors they're likely to be powered by a diesel generator. In the context of Seattle an example could be state ferries [1] [1] https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/major-projects/ferry-system-electrification https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/major-projects/fe... edit: electric motor not engine
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Many of the cruise ships actually are electric hybrid in a setup similar to a locomotive. They will have a few thruster pods that rotate that allow them to dock without tugs, as well as providing forward propulsion
gruez 3y ago
AFAIK all the "massive polluters" claims I've seen involve their atmospheric pollution (eg. PM2.5, NOx, SOx) levels, not co2 levels. Compared to an apartment and a car with emissions controls, a cruise ship is obviously going to generate much more of those type of pollution. However, if you're out at sea with little people around to breathe in the pollution it's not that big of a deal.
- Filligree 3y ago
  What about the people on the ship? Is it anything like sitting next to a fireplace?
  - gruez 3y ago
    Not an air pollution expert, but my guess is that the combination of tall smoke stacks, wind currents, and the fact that the ship is moving means that passengers are breathing in little, if any of the pollution. It's in the cruise company's interest to make their ships not smell like a clogged interstate at rush hour.
    - 11235813213455 3y ago
      Pollution is a global issue, wind and curent are not clearing it up magically
      - gruez 3y ago
        Dilution and time will.
        11235813213455 3y ago
        if we stopped re-injecting pollution with overconsumption (and these cruises are part of it, like airplanes, cars), yes you're right time would solve things. I started at personal level to do this at least
leetcrew 3y ago
probably not. a typical 3br house directly comsumes less than 40 kwh per month. to put that in perspective, that's about the amount of energy contained in a single gallon of gas. large ships are the most efficient way to move bulk goods, but when carrying a bunch of people in their own little apartments, the per pax fuel efficiency is somewhere between a typical car and a passenger plane. I would be very surprised if the constraints of living on a cruise ship are anywhere near enough to offset the fact that they spend most of their time moving tons of people around to places they don't need to go. if you want to save the environment, take public transit to work and vacation in places that are connected by rail.
11235813213455 3y ago
I live on land with a bicycle, no fridge, no heating, no AC, local food, and a yearly carbon footprint of one airplane ticket, so there's not one way to live on land, you can have great remote experience with a low footprint