in rod we trust
-
Posts
419 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Store
Blogs
Downloads
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by in rod we trust
-
-
1 hour ago, sparks1093 said:
The cruise industry is responding to a market demand so if people are really concerned about the cruise industry's impact on the environment then they should reduce said demand and stop cruising. I fear that even if we make cruising as green as possible (which I certainly support doing) that it would still have a deleterious affect on the environment.
not really as cruise companies themselves can make changes in where they dock and not just want to destroy places just for a port .. in future there will be cleaner ships that's for sure maybe LNG fuel .. but as you mentioned market demand .. now if people demand them going greener and stop the pollution start boycotting them they will change .. its when the dollar stops they make a change
-
12 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:
Killing animals for fun. How environmentally friendly can you get.
No wonder there's little care for the environment with attitudes like that.
no see as you have been all along clutching at straws as they say....
all my fish get put back alive .. we have size limits etc .. anything else you might want to use in your arguments what happen to nimbysts you haven't used that one for quite a while
I wouldn't be mentioning the environment either considering what royal carribean want to do to botany and cayman islands also many other ports and reefs around the globe they want to destroy .. sorry but you have no legs to stand on .. you skip from one thing to another where I have stayed true in my reports and facts
-
5 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:
Yes, without any due process or study themselves, just reactionary. As bad as the state government you rail against.
the randwick and bayside councils are conducting there own EPA and transport study etc into it and have seen what dredging has done to all the beach goers fish stocks etc they are sick of being used as sydneys dumping ground
-
12 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:
1) All the cruise lines are keen for a new terminal, just RCL has the greatest need
2) Spots have already been looked in Sydney harbour and this is the most practical choice. It's easy to make vague complaints like that, but when pressed one of your mob said the better choice is a national park! Shows how much commonsense and care for the environment your mob actually have.
3) A smaller terminal is already built but it suits very few, so no other companies can't fit and all have the same issue.
Which demonstrates your conclusion isn't met at all.
and how would you know what other spots have been looked at I can tell you but id like to see what other spots .. besides garden island and the chairperson of one of the reports made to gov to share garden island with cruise ships was at the meeting saying it can be used with cruise ships.. but the gov took no notice of his report .. you can look it up not even sure if its made public his name is peter Collins AM QC
the issue port authority use and gov is they don't fit under the harbor bridge , mostly royal carribean ships .. the cruise industry just wants more birth space thinking they will get more passengers but not all ships get booked out
-
-
13 minutes ago, lyndarra said:
With all that toxic cancer causing stuff in the bottom of the bay, I don't understand why people fish there unless they don't eat the fish they catch.
some people eat it I don't I just fish for a sport its mainly disturbing the toxins that lay under the top layer of sand and yarra bay is probably the cleanest part of botany bay due to where it is..
-
10 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:
And if you look into DOJ fines for pollution, you will find far more cases involving cargo ships than cruise ships. And, while I have not worked on all cruise lines, I have worked for one, and have worked at sea for over 40 years, both on passenger and cargo vessels, and I will say that in my experience, the cruise lines are far and away better stewards of the ocean than most foreign flag shipping companies, who routinely cheat the system, but perhaps don't get caught at it. One thing that keeps the cruise lines more honest is all those thousands of passengers onboard, each of whom has a cell phone with a camera, and each of whom knows that there is a reward for reporting suspected pollution incidents.
Now, about all those passengers. If you accept that cruise ships account for only 5% of world shipping, that means for every cruise ship there are 105 cargo ships sailing around. If each of those cargo ships has a crew of 30 (about right), then that represents about 3500 crew, so not that far out from the single passenger ship.
My personal experience has been that with regards to types of waste like solids, garbage, and plastics, that most ships, both cruise and cargo tend to do very well at adhering to regulations. For waste water, cruise ships almost always have treatment plants that are orders of magnitude better than cargo ships. The cargo ships I've sailed on will have MSD's that meet the legal requirement (and are essentially the same as a home's septic system), while the cruise ships I've worked have treatment plants that produce near drinking water quality effluent (as is tested by third party labs every two months).
So, if you have little faith in government, how do you propose to change the cruise industry, since what they are doing is for the most part entirely legal (such as the amount of "air pollution" that is mentioned, and I dispute a lot of that unscientific "fact collecting").
I don't trust either one of them .. people power have a way of changing things .. but I agree cargo ships have been caught out .. I dislike the cruise industry atm for wanting to destroy parts of the world just for there greed as with yarra bay cruise ship port terminal proposal and cayman islands don't need to destroy places like these just for cruise ships .. by them doing so brings attn to everything else they do.. so they are on the hit list of many climate groups its there own doing that will be there downfall imo
-
9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:
The last two links are in regard to decisions that the Cayman government needs to make to protect their country. The first three links all rail on about the amount of pollution that cruise ships put out, but never seem to get to pointing the finger at the other 95% of world shipping (cargo) that uses the same fuels as cruise ships, and have typically even less modern or expensive treatment systems. The cruise industry is singled out as being the most highly visible part of the industry, and the one that affects the least number of consumers. If these folks focused their efforts on regulations for all shipping, then their personal electronics, their hybrid cars, and their homes would all increase in cost drastically, since 90% of the world's commerce travels by sea. The articles mention, always in passing, that the regulations allow much of what the cruise lines are accused of doing, so if they want change, they need to lobby their governments to lobby the IMO to change the international regulations for all shipping. As a professional mariner, more regulations would make my work harder, but as an inhabitant of earth I would be all for regulations that make things better while not creating more unintended consequences than they cure, but I hate that the cruise industry is singled out for this kind of skewering.
I agree to a point but the original post was asking about the cruise ships. also it does mention how much cruise ships dispose of there waste overboard and cheat systems they use and there is posts about how they have been caught out and fined .. cargo vessels don't have 4-6000 passengers at a time on there ships
we all know governments don't listen to the people if there is money involved for them unless there jobs are on the line or one party wants to be elected in , then they change there minds quickly once elected
-
8 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:
But the reports are useless anyway, they are all redacted.
that's right but he still chooses to ignore facts and royal carribean own ceo press release statements , dredging facts , epa facts, indigenous people claim to the land etc etc .. so long as he has a port of convenience ignore the rest.. but then again we might as well sell everything thing off in this country , and just let the bushfires burn everything and kill all the wildlife it will be easier to sell to the Chinese ..
-
5 minutes ago, gbenjo said:
Rather appropriate that a garbage truck is part of the campaign
all randwick and bayside council trucks have that on them as both councils are against it
-
2 minutes ago, gbenjo said:
You really have got no idea have you.
and you have .. yet you don't read any reports .. that's great
-
I may not change your minds of it and that's not my plan , you all can decide for yourself whats right ..
im just making it aware to all people including myself that go on cruises and love seeing awesome places and islands we don't have to destroy them just for greed we have seen enough of our own country destroyed and sold off when is enough going to be enough .. stand up for your country not let it be destroyed and sold off .. if not for you than at least for your kids future
-
17 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:
Exclusion zones are only in place when the ship is in.
well no cruise ships comes here in the winter , but locals still use the beach during the whole yr .. with the dredging of all those toxic cancer causing seabed spoil nobody will be able to use it at all that just wont be yarra bay it will be the whole of botany bay
-
22 minutes ago, gbenjo said:
Gee .............all this detail .............and they haven’t even chosen a site yet.
the site has been chosen both places will be used or whats the use of a port if you don't have a passenger processing terminal next to it unless you ok being bussed to a nearby processing centre with the other 6000 people
-
the epiphany festival at yarra bay
-
16 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:
All those people can use the new terminal as well. There would be plenty of fish around the new piers.
nope a exclusion zone will be in place so nobody can go near the ships or its turning basin
-
1 minute ago, MicCanberra said:
They already have that, surely a nice cruise terminal obscuring those things will make it much more pleasant.
no it wouldn't as mentioned will destroy a whole bay for it .. rather see it as it is than the cruise ship companies destroying a bay residents of Sydney use and indigenous people still use and marine life use and us anglers use as well , so no keep them cruise ships out of botany bay
-
29 minutes ago, gbenjo said:
How many times do you need to be told....the third terminal is (will be ) in Sydney because that is where the need is for a third embark /debark terminal.Regional centres will not work, they are fine for a port of call not an embark/ debark. IF you had ever been on a cruise you would know the difference but obviously you don't . Anyhow it does not really matter, none of us will be around in a few years if we keep on cruising..THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH.
just as many times as you need to be told royal carribean are the ones lobbying the nsw liberals to build it in botany bay .. and if Sydney as you say needs a third one then look for spots in Sydney harbor not botany bay or bring in ships that can fit under the harbor bridge if royal or any other cruise line cant fit then see ya later other companies that can fit will take up there spots .. so there really isn't a need for one at botany bay .. what will you see at botany bay a cemetery and gas storage containers , cranes oil wharf , nice view hey …
I don't think I will be going on any more cruise ships .. maybe the Disney one as I love the horns
-
seeing as this is a couple yrs old and I like to add a few things to it ..
https://www.abctourism.org/cruise-ship-pollution
https://www.statista.com/chart/18351/emissions-from-cruise-ships-and-cars-in-european-port-cities/
-
last night was the first time I seen the moon in a long time not being red or orange etc was bright and was almost hypnotised at just how bright it looked
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, gbenjo said:
Not in my backyard pal !!🤬🤬🤬🤬
just in case that is suppose to be a reference to me I just will inform you again as you only read what you like .. I don't live any where near botany bay its a good 1/2 hr to 1hr depending on traffic , I live 5-10 min from the harbor depending on traffic
-
19 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:
I think you will find that the majority here want the 3rd cruise terminal, maybe not to the detriment of the whole environment but we still want it.
well there are plenty other spots ready to go and board cruise ships ..they do not need to destroy areas around the globe and Australia for it .. you have to make a choice is it the environment or is it convenience of a third port in Sydney .. it has to be one or the other .. the third choice is use existing ports even if they are out of the Sydney basin that doesn't need dredging or destroy the eco system
but like I said maybe the world is on the verge of destruction as we see many signs of this around the globe , so if the people don't change and demand change by boycotting certain companies for the destruction , then we just deserve what we get ..
-
by royal carribean teaming up with nsw liberals to build it as it is also mention it maybe a builder owner port .. its very selfish of them to destroy a whole bay just for there mega ships .
now really if any of you people here are serious about the environment and cultural heritage or preserving marine eco systems corals etc you would be boycotting royal carribean ships or any other ships that want this built.. this is your country and your kids live here , when are we going to stop destroying Australia for greed and selling of our best assets … its starts with us first as we all know governments just want poltical donation into there coffers and pay rises for themselves ..
here we are in a time where we have massive bushfire damage and wildlife damage in this country, half the world is talking climate change and co2 pollution greenhouse gasses , marine pollution as well oceans heating up land destruction marine coral destruction etc etc etc .. and yet greed rises above all .. maybe this world does need to start imploding on itself due to destruction of human kind .. maybe its just starting to go that way ..anyway for most I guess on here at age there kids will be left with the mess of there parents etc
-
5 hours ago, Kiwi Kruzer said:
Nice and clear for Ruby Princess this evening
13 Jan 6.30 pm
look at that beautiful harbor .. now why the heck would they want a new terminal in botany bay , there is plenty room in the harbor to built another …
Are our beloved cruiseships contributing to global warming and if so by how much?
in Ask a Cruise Question
Posted
im with you on that but both media and others political parties , oil and coal companies etc all use propaganda in there reports .. but 1 thing is well known is co2 that has been rising fast and contributes to green house gases and majority is man made ..