Do you feel guilty cruising on environmental grounds?

[slidergirl]

The "nose in the air" hypocrisy of some here is astounding.   There is "big picture" issues and "little picture" issues.  People can advocate for a better, greener Earth.  Having to fly to places to advocate is not hypocritical.  How would you want them to do it?  Everything has an environmental cost, no surprise there.  You do what you can.  You can pick and choose bigger items based on what that company/country does to help take care of the "big picture" items.  
I use my own straw, have my own cutlery that I have with me, I use cloth bags, I don't do single-use bottles.  I don't have my cabin staff or hotel staff give me new towels and sheets all the time.  I try to do whatever I can personally do.  I don't get bent out of shape with an air of elitism if I see someone in my town driving a truck.   I go camping.  I don't have an RV.  But just so you know, there ARE cool vans now that are electric and hybrids that are getting converted just like those Sprinters.  The electrics are 90% over in Europe and Asia right now.  A ski rental company here that has a footprint in Europe bought a few over there and shipped them over to use here.  So, it's possible.  

 

I do try my best to select things that will not contribute as much pollution/trash as others when I do have a choice.  Do you?
 

[SelectSys]

On 10/24/2020 at 4:02 PM, navybankerteacher said:

Gore is more hypocritical - given his private plane travel, massive homes, etc.

 

That is kind of where my head is at, but he is not the only rich person to have different standards for personal life versus public policy. 

 

He also was/is an early stage investor in green tech and his lobbying certainly has a personal dimension as well.  Good job on his part running up his government connections to $330 million in wealth!

https://moneyinc.com/al-gore-net-worth/

 

17 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

As for travel I would love to see travel go greener but for that to happen realistically the world has to go greener. The fact is the cruise line industry is intermingled with other industries that they can't control. Cruise lines even if they want can only do so much and in the end there has to be a societal frame work that values environmental concerns and prioritises environmental solutions...You need the cooporation of all industries to truely make travel green and not just be a tokenistic gesture.

 

I guess certain jurisdictions and industries can make their own decisions.  I don't think one needs 100% consensus to make differences.  The ordering by Carnival for LNG is an example of this.  They made a decision to do something different.  I will grant that part of this was in part based on the increasing availability of LNG in ports. 

 

18 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Couple this to the fact that the US has an abundance of natural gas, and a majority of cruises are out of the US, and you have a "cheap" fuel (LNG) that happens to meet the requirements of the North American ECA.  Elsewhere in the world, the cost benefits of LNG are not that pronounced (nearly none in Asia), so LNG will not be the fuel of choice for any ship in those areas.  So, this is a financial consideration more than an environmental consideration.

 

And, LNG is not the panacea that environmentalists think.  There is a thing called "methane slip" which is the amount of raw methane released from the well, through its transportation, to incomplete combustion in the engine.  And, while methane slip is not as quantitatively large as other GHG like CO2, it has 85 times the GHG effect over a 10 year span, and 42 times the effect over a 100 year span.  So, while LNG has its benefits, it also has its drawbacks, just like everything else in this world.

 

It doesn't have to be universal at first and regional differences will always exist.  However, asian prices for LNG are likely to continue falling as exports from Australia and the US - to say nothing of the Middle East like Qatar and Russia continue to grown.  Mexico is also now in the planning stages of LNG export facilities as well with one about 100 miles from where I live.  There will be no shortage of gas in Asia for the foreseeable future.

 

Note that where I live natural gas is actually hated by environmentalists.  California is really seeking a near zero combustion future with gas bans and elimination of conventional generation from gas power plants.

 

Sure mistakes can be made handling gas and leaks can occur.  However, strong processes and systems can minimize this especially when coupled with stiff penalties.  Nothing like fines to shareholder earnings to get a company's attention.

 

 

1 hour ago, slidergirl said:

The "nose in the air" hypocrisy of some here is astounding...    

 

 

Where is the hypocrisy?  I haven't felt it too much.  I think people have been reasonably open about their attitudes.

 

BTW - your comment about looking down at cars reminded me of one of my favorite South Park episodes - "Smug Alert!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert! 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by SelectSys

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, SelectSys said:

I guess certain jurisdictions and industries can make their own decisions.  I don't think one needs 100% consensus to make differences.  The ordering by Carnival for LNG is an example of this.  They made a decision to do something different.  I will grant that part of this was in part based on the increasing availability of LNG in ports. 

 

You kind of made my point 😂. LNG is available in ports so cruise lines are willing to use it. See what I mean another industry is doing something that makes it possible for cruise lines to do something. No industry lives in a vacuum so without cooperation there is little one industry can do on its own. Personally though I don't see LNG as a great panacea. Those little mistakes as you put it can be devastating when water resources are scarce. If you ask me to choose between the cruise industry and our artesian basin I'm happy to let the cruise industry sink😳. 

[Heidi13]

I just shake my head when the environmentalists start complaining about the cruise ships and pollution. Yes, their have been some serious issues with non-compliance with regulations, but how do the ships compare with towns and cities.

 

While some cities have exceptional recycling rates of 65% +, many do not even come close. On average, I believe cruise ships recycle about 60% more solid waste than shoreside. Overboard discharges must go through an oil content meter, with waste oil being pumped ashore for proper disposal, which must maintain a paper trail. On shore, the oils on the roads are washed into the storm sewers, most of which are not treated.

 

Sewage - cruise ships win this by a country mile. The discharge is basically fresh water. How many cities equal this standard, I suspect few, if any. I know Metro Vancouver certainly doesn't.

 

Fuel - I believe it was effective Jan 1st that ships were required to use low sulphur fuel or exhaust gas scrubbers, which are being fitted to existing tonnage. Therefore, it is not only new ships that will have reduced emissions, but most ships during the phase in period. How many older diesel cars and trucks get retro-fitted with pollution equipment?? An increasing number of ports also provide power hook ups, with Vancouver providing power from clean hydro-electric to the ships.

 

Basically, I see the marine industry, especially cruise ships, being way ahead of their shore counterparts when it comes to environmental issues, so no, I have no issue taking holidays on cruise ships.

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, SelectSys said:

Sure mistakes can be made handling gas and leaks can occur.  However, strong processes and systems can minimize this especially when coupled with stiff penalties.  Nothing like fines to shareholder earnings to get a company's attention

As I said earlier, methane slip can occur simply from incomplete combustion, which happens when a diesel engine runs at lower than optimum load, as is the case for most cruise ships while in port.  And, look at the relative values.  One pound of methane has the effect of 85 pounds of CO2, and the effects last longer.

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Basically, I see the marine industry, especially cruise ships, being way ahead of their shore counterparts when it comes to environmental issues, so no, I have no issue taking holidays on cruise ships.

Yes, people have to understand, that due to visibility more than any environmental crusading, that cruise lines are light years ahead of most shipping when it comes to environmental issues, and that 80% of the world's economy travels by sea.

[Toofarfromthesea]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, people have to understand, that due to visibility more than any environmental crusading, that cruise lines are light years ahead of most shipping when it comes to environmental issues, and that 80% of the world's economy travels by sea.

 

Just out of curiosity, back in "normal" times what percentage of ocean travel was made up of cruise, as opposed to shipping, travel?

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Just out of curiosity, back in "normal" times what percentage of ocean travel was made up of cruise, as opposed to shipping, travel?

The cruise industry amounts to less than 5% of world shipping.

[Toofarfromthesea]

49 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The cruise industry amounts to less than 5% of world shipping.

 

Thank you.  That is helpful perspective.

[pc_load_letter]

Nope

 

I feel more guilty buying at Costco where everything is wrapped in one use plastic. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by pc_load_letter

[pc_load_letter]

On 10/24/2020 at 1:07 PM, FredT said:

But that is already happening...   A Boeing 707 from 50 years ago uses as much fuel as TWO 777's do to fly the same transatlantic route.   And those planes carry three TIMES the number of passengers (each) as the 707 did.  

 

And have you ever seen movies of the old ocean liners?   Huge polluters, using huge amounts of fuel to carry 500/1000 passengers.  (And thats not touching on their policies of dumping EVERYTHING overboard.)  

 

And if you want a real eye opener, read Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine.   Not a week goes by that there is not an article on technology advances and the work being done on hydrogen fuels, or fully electric aircraft.   

 

Oh, it's happening, and at a rapid pace.   Just not fast ENOUGH for the "green" crowd. 

 

Exactly, the free market system and capitalism will drive future technologies. Always has, always will.

 

[pc_load_letter]

On 10/24/2020 at 2:20 PM, SelectSys said:

 

 

Don't talk too loudly!  You do realize your Governor signed an executive order outlawing gasoline vehicles in 2035?  Depending on what happens, he may accelerate this ban earlier.

 

 

Read the order closely. It's just for small to midsize cars. Tons of exemptions. Not to mention the fact the governor will soon be sued over these restrictions.

[Laurie S.]

Not at all.

[SelectSys]

16 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 Personally though I don't see LNG as a great panacea. Those little mistakes as you put it can be devastating when water resources are scarce. If you ask me to choose between the cruise industry and our artesian basin I'm happy to let the cruise industry sink😳. 

 

Shipping is also considering ammonia derived from hydrogen.  Time will tell what fuel replaces diesel, if at all, for shipping.

 

Not quite sure I understand the relationship between cruising and Australia's underground water resources.  Are gas well collocated with the water wells?  Separately, I would expect Australia is drawing water from these resources way faster  than any sort of natural replenishment process.

 

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Just out of curiosity, back in "normal" times what percentage of ocean travel was made up of cruise, as opposed to shipping, travel?

 

Cruising probably makes up a small percentage of overall GHG emissions, but like flying in a very GHG intensive application.  That's why it is always useful to look at some kind of relative measure.  For example, China is the world's largest CO2 emitter overall by a wide margin - now double that of the US - but only 1/2 of that on a per capita base compared to Australia, Canada and the US - which are all about the same on a per capita basis.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

Edited October 26, 2020 by SelectSys

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

Shipping is also considering ammonia derived from hydrogen.  Time will tell what fuel replaces diesel, if at all, for shipping.

First off, residual fuel oil (HFO), in its low sulfur version (0.5% sulfur), will remain king of the fuel heap for ships for a long time, given it's low cost and worldwide availability as a refining byproduct, and the ability to use exhaust gas scrubbers to meet emissions limits.  Diesel is typically only used in ECA's (Emission Control Areas), where the sulfur limits are lower than 0.5%.

 

Ammonia, if it gets off the ground as a marine fuel would currently be twice the cost of residual fuel, and more than diesel, so not a good economical option (and let's face it, companies look at profit/loss way over environmental concerns, no matter what we wish), and would only drop to equal in price to residual fuel in 2040, if the demand is great enough.  It also produces far more NOX emissions than carbon fuel, with its health concerns and ozone generating capacity, and would require a catalytic converter to limit these, and you get into a whole 'nother discussion about the energy and environmental concerns with producing and disposing of catalytic converters.

 

It also has a lower energy density than even LNG, so you have to pack more volume of fuel onboard to get the same energy output, and that can lead to larger ships, needing more energy to push them.  It is also mildly cryogenic, so it needs to be refrigerated in storage, or under pressure, both of which makes for more restrictive storage solutions on ships.  Like LNG, it requires a pilot fuel in marine diesel engines, so you would be burning some form of carbon fuel to get the temperature in the cylinder high enough to get ammonia to combust, and this is a higher ratio of pilot fuel (diesel) to main fuel (ammonia) than with LNG.  Ammonia may have benefits as a marine fuel, in the future, as a way to move away from carbon based fuels, but it also has significant challenges and hazards.

[SelectSys]

35 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

First off, residual fuel oil (HFO), in its low sulfur version (0.5% sulfur), will remain king of the fuel heap for ships for a long time, given it's low cost and worldwide availability as a refining byproduct, and the ability to use exhaust gas scrubbers to meet emissions limits. 

 

You should know that just because something is inexpensive doesn't mean that its use will be encouraged/selected.   Where I live in California, retail electricity costs more than twice as much as it does in adjacent states (ignoring all the solar subsidies received by the upper classes.)   

 

Does physics causing this electric price disparity between CA and other states? Of course not, CA pays more because of governmental policy.  This is the same policy that causes gasoline prices to drop by about $1 a gallon as you cross the state line into Arizona.

 

Remember that the "Green New Deal" and its variants call for the elimination of fossil fuels over time as they are GHG positive.  Falling oil demand will eliminate much of that residual fuel oil product.

 

43 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

(and let's face it, companies look at profit/loss way over environmental concerns, no matter what we wish), and would only drop to equal in price to residual fuel in 2040, if the demand is great enough.  

 

I believe corporate boards today are more interested in environmental and other forms of equity justice than previously.  This will become even more true as boomers give way to younger generations in more board rooms.  Some companies are even lobbying for more regulation as it gives them something new to sell.   Regulations also allow a new floor on prices to be higher than they otherwise would be if everyone is required to buy the more expensive option.

 

58 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

It also produces far more NOX emissions than carbon fuel, with its health concerns and ozone generating capacity, and would require a catalytic converter to limit these, and you get into a whole 'nother discussion about the energy and environmental concerns with producing and disposing of catalytic converters.

 

 

More regulations to create, stuff to sell and compliance to enforce.

 

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

It also has a lower energy density than even LNG,  It is also mildly cryogenic, so it needs to be refrigerated in storage, or under pressure, both of which makes for more restrictive storage solutions on ships.  Like LNG, it requires a pilot fuel in marine diesel engines, so you would be burning some form of carbon fuel to get the temperature in the cylinder high enough to get ammonia to combust, and this is a higher ratio of pilot fuel (diesel) to main fuel (ammonia) than with LNG.  Ammonia may have benefits as a marine fuel, in the future, as a way to move away from carbon based fuels, but it also has significant challenges and hazards.

 

You are correct, there are more losses and energy density issues associated with these other fuels.  Some of the main reasons ammonia is preferred over hydrogen as a green fuel is higher energy density and a much higher liquefaction temperature.

 

Being green will most certainly not be cheap in the short to medium term.  As Jimmy Carter liked to say, "put on a sweater" when talking of the policy-driven energy shortages of the past.  Policy may yet again bring back energy scarcities.

[sverigecruiser]

 

I think that the biggest problem for the environment is that we are too many people on Earth! If every country had as low population density as Sweden, 64.7/sq mi,  we could probably live our lives the way we do in the rich world!

 

I absolutely understand that poorer people want what we got but for the environment that is a problem!  

[cruizergal70]

5 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I think that the biggest problem for the environment is that we are too many people on Earth! If every country had as low population density as Sweden, 64.7/sq mi,  we could probably live our lives the way we do in the rich world!

 

I absolutely understand that poorer people want what we got but for the environment that is a problem!  

What's the rich world?  What do these poorer people want exactly? Why must the poorer people be responsible for making the greater sacrifices?

[neverbeenhere]

We should be put in jail for our 100+ guilt trips. 
How is all the electricity going to be generated to charge all of the electric vehicles? 
I’ve advocated for oars being added back to ships, so we can all take our turns rowing a few miles. I’ll take the last ten miles coming back to port. (Burn off those calories) 

[ilikeanswers]

3 hours ago, SelectSys said:

Not quite sure I understand the relationship between cruising and Australia's underground water resources.  Are gas well collocated with the water wells?  

 

I don't want to go into all the detail because it is totally off topic and there is so much I would have to cover but to sum it up you have to be understand the Great Artesian Basin. Extracting gas in this area risks its quality and as we have a problem of decreasing rainfall one realistically has to prioritise resources. I just don't think gas should ever be considered more important than water. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[ilikeanswers]

57 minutes ago, cruizergal70 said:

Why must the poorer people be responsible for making the greater sacrifices?

 

Truth is if we all live like millionaires there would be no resources left😳. We in the developed world screwed up. We didn't care about the quality of life in the developing world while we happily devoured all the resources but now that our lifestyle is threatened we all cry what about the poor people 😒. If we cared so much about them we would have risen them out of poverty decades ago. It is as much hypocrisy as environmentalists on private jets. 

[dkjretired]

On 10/25/2020 at 5:06 PM, bigrednole said:

Improvements and reduction in environmental impacts always happen. I have fun with the people that have that nice new "electric" car and at how environmentally friendly it is. That argument lasts until they have no clue how to answer where the lithium came from to make the battery and where there toxic battery is dumped every 5-6 years. 

 

I do believe there will better designs for cruise ships and new methods to make them more clean. They are not going to be a complete fix, but better than it was. We won't be free of a polluting method of travel for decades in not centuries. There is no real clean power. It all comes at an environment cost.

Not to mention when everyone has them, the new power plants that will be needed and the infrastructure going down our streets to meet the new demand.

[SelectSys]

5 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I think that the biggest problem for the environment is that we are too many people on Earth! ...

 

I absolutely understand that poorer people want what we got but for the environment that is a problem!  

 

I guess the "good news" is that the population of Europe is expected to fall by 14% from now to 2100 based ever falling fertility rates in the industrialized world.  Japan is expected to fall by even more - 40%!

https://www.populationpyramid.net/europe/2019/

https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2019/

 

You can't assume that people in other parts of the world cause an impossible problem and must be left behind in terms of opportunities.  Technology, really human creativity, can change/improve leading to more people being well off.   The history of the world is that economic growth isn't a zero sum game - I must win at your expense.

 

4 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Truth is if we all live like millionaires there would be no resources left😳. We in the developed world screwed up. We didn't care about the quality of life in the developing world while we happily devoured all the resources but now that our lifestyle is threatened we all cry what about the poor people 😒. If we cared so much about them we would have risen them out of poverty decades ago. It is as much hypocrisy as environmentalists on private jets. 

 

I think the developed world learns over time rather than simply being screwed up.  As people have learned they have progressed.  I am also less pessimistic in terms of resource scarcity than you might be.  I also don't think our lifestyle is threatened all that much. 

 

I do agree that our performance with the developing world hasn't been stellar.  Lots of corruption where foreign governments and companies buy off leaders to get concessions.  Lots of skimming of aid dollars as well.  Lots of "debt traps" thrown in along the way and this was done way before the Chinese got in the game.

 

1 hour ago, dkjretired said:

Not to mention when everyone has them, the new power plants that will be needed and the infrastructure going down our streets to meet the new demand.

 

Actually EVs don't necessarily mandate new powerplants.  Electrical demand peaks in the day and early evening.  Electrical load drops off considerably at night and the existence of EVs to charge over night can actually result in power plants and the electric grid being run more efficiently.  My electric utility's cheapest electricity rates are over night if you have an EV to charge.  

[ilikeanswers]

19 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

I think the developed world learns over time rather than simply being screwed up.  As people have learned they have progressed.  I am also less pessimistic in terms of resource scarcity than you might be.  I also don't think our lifestyle is threatened all that much. 

 

I have witnessed resource scarcity in my own country, there are towns where families share bath water and flush once a day because they have that little water supply. It's not pessimism it is the new normal for a lot of people. I would disagree that we learn over time I think we just shift our problems elsewhere just like we shift our rubbish elsewhere. That is why I think it is hypocritical for people to argue environmentalism is going to hurt poor countries. Keeping people in poverty is how we ended up with our throw away economy of fast fashion, deliberate obsoletion and places to dump our so called recyclables. We steal their trees and their fish supplies because we have run out and they're too poor to secure their borders. We have caused irreversible damage and we are extremely slow to adapt to the "new normal" (I am so over that phrase but I don't know what else to call it). As countries like China and India get into middle class status it is just going to mean more cars on the road, more trees chopped down, more meat consumed and more plastics produced. I admire your optimism but I think you underestimate the scale of the problem of you think a cruise ship using LNG is going to significantly make a difference to the environmental problems of the world 😳. The solutions we need have to be grander than this. 

19 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

 

[sverigecruiser]

9 hours ago, cruizergal70 said:

What's the rich world?  What do these poorer people want exactly? Why must the poorer people be responsible for making the greater sacrifices?

 

Maybe they want to be able to cruise, fly, drive a car or eat meat. I don't know what they want but if everyone on Earth should live like we do in "the rich world" the environmental issues should be much worse than they already are.

 

I don't say that it's the poor peoples responsibility but isn't it a fact that too many people are living on Earth? 1.3 billion people in India is a bigger problem for the environment than 10 million people in Sweden.