Are our beloved cruiseships contributing to global warming and if so by how much?

[ilikeanswers]

14 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Landfills are a viable long term solution.  Far more cost effective than the alternatives.

 

I don't see the difference between landfills and recycling. It is just an excuse to not change behaviour and industry and increase production of things that will end up being more waste. At least a closed looped system would force a decrease in production of virgin product. Virgin plastic pellets account for a huge chunk of the micro plastics in our soil, air and water. 

[RocketMan275]

13 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I don't see the difference between landfills and recycling. It is just an excuse to not change behaviour and industry and increase production of things that will end up being more waste. At least a closed looped system would force a decrease in production of virgin product. Virgin plastic pellets account for a huge chunk of the micro plastics in our soil, air and water. 

If both are effective, then the rational choice is the cheaper one.  It's been established that recycling isn't cost effective.

[ilikeanswers]

8 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

If both are effective, then the rational choice is the cheaper one.  It's been established that recycling isn't cost effective.

 

No the rational choice is the one that decreases waste. With recycling you can put the product back into the system. You cannot do this with landfill therefore you have to make more product. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Has recycling as a system been terribly abused yes but that doesn't mean the concept doesn't have merit, it is just a matter of making it better and it is why a closed loop production system would make it effective. The problem is under the current system all the financial incentive is given to companies who collect recyclables but there was little investment made into using recylclables therefore an imbalace has occured where lots of product was coming into the system but no one was using the product. If we take virgin plastic out of the system companies will have strong reason to use recycled plastic.

Edited February 7, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[RocketMan275]

4 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

No the rational choice is the one that decreases waste. With recycling you can put the product back into the system. You cannot do this with landfill therefore you have to make more product. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Has recycling as a system been terribly abused yes but that doesn't mean the concept doesn't have merit, it is just a matter of making it better and it is why a closed loop production system would make it effective. The problem is under the current system all the financial incentive is given to companies who collect recyclables but there was little investment made into using recylclables therefore an imbalace has occured where lots of product was coming into the system but no one was using the product. If we take virgin plastic out of the system companies will have strong reason to use recycled plastic.

Recycling does have merit but only for a specific few items.  Clearly, if recycling was cost effective, then there would be little abuse.  The only way recycling can achieve the objective you desire would be punishing fines for failure to recycle or by increased government subsidies.  Both of those solutions only reinforce the idea that recycling is counter productive and not cost effective.  

Clearly, you see recycling (and most other environmental causes) as having inherent virtues whether they are cost effective or not.  Wasting resources to reduce waste makes no sense to me.

BTW, I couldn't find my recycling bin if I tried.  Just another example of waste to reduce waste.

[ilikeanswers]

21 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Recycling does have merit but only for a specific few items.  Clearly, if recycling was cost effective, then there would be little abuse.  The only way recycling can achieve the objective you desire would be punishing fines for failure to recycle or by increased government subsidies.  Both of those solutions only reinforce the idea that recycling is counter productive and not cost effective.  

Clearly, you see recycling (and most other environmental causes) as having inherent virtues whether they are cost effective or not.  Wasting resources to reduce waste makes no sense to me.

BTW, I couldn't find my recycling bin if I tried.  Just another example of waste to reduce waste.

 

It has a lot of abuse because people found a way to make lots of money from it without care for the consequences and governments rarely regulated the system. It is the abuse of the system that takes away the cost effectivness. If you close the production system you don't need fines because recylables will become desirable, it also encourage companies to make plastics that can be recycled multiple times eventually all the costs will go down become demand will increase.

 

But if one wants to talk about cost effectivness you have to wonder how much it will cost governments to treat people with chronic illnesses because of DNA damage from micro plastic, not to mention lost productivity from workers who are constantly sick and creating new reefs because of the damage of bacteria colonised on micro plastic is far more expensive than rehabilitating the reefs we already have and if the bacteria jump to fish and start makig them sick you not only lose a human food source but the cost of feeding chickens and pigs will go up as they will have to find alternative protein sources. It is because of lack of long term thinking that everything gets more expensive. If we start to make changes now they becaome ingrained into the system then you don't need to subsidise anything.

Edited February 7, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[RocketMan275]

2 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

It has a lot of abuse because people found a way to make lots of money from it without care for the consequences and governments rarely regulated the system. It is the abuse of the system that takes away the cost effectivness. If you close the production system you don't need fines because recylables will become desirable, it also encourage companies to make plastics that can be recycled multiple times eventually all the costs will go down become demand will increase.

 

But if one wants to talk about cost effectivness you have to wonder how much it will cost governments to treat people with chronic illnesses because of DNA damage from micro plastic, not to mention lost productivity from workers who are constantly sick and creating new reefs because of the damage of bacteria colonised on micro plastic is far more expensive than rehabilitating the reefs we already have and if the bacteria jump to fish and start makig them sick you not only lose a human food source but the cost of feeding chickens and pigs will go up as they will have to find alternative protein sources. It is because of lack of long term thinking that everything gets more expensive. If we start to make changes now they becaome ingrained into the system then you don't need to subsidise anything.

Closing the production is just an indirect way of imposing fines.

Your hypotheticals are nothing more than a justification of subsidies.

The problem remains, only fines or subsidies make recycling cost effective.

Why waste money on ineffective solutions to hypothetical problems when there are far more pressing requirements?

Ultimately, so many of the environmental solutions are attempts to change behavior that others find distasteful.  

I have no issues if wish to make those changes to their behavior.  I do have issues when those changes become mandatory.

So many of the worlds problems are the result of social engineering designed to improve the world.

The world will be a much better place if we stop trying to make others live the way we prefer.

[ilikeanswers]

3 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Closing the production is just an indirect way of imposing fines.

Your hypotheticals are nothing more than a justification of subsidies.

The problem remains, only fines or subsidies make recycling cost effective.

Why waste money on ineffective solutions to hypothetical problems when there are far more pressing requirements?

Ultimately, so many of the environmental solutions are attempts to change behavior that others find distasteful.  

I have no issues if wish to make those changes to their behavior.  I do have issues when those changes become mandatory.

So many of the worlds problems are the result of social engineering designed to improve the world.

The world will be a much better place if we stop trying to make others live the way we prefer.

 

Everything is socially engineered. People are ok when big comapnies do it but if governments do it people seem to think it is a conspiracy to take away their freedom. I believe some industries need to be forcibly reduced or killed. Imagine if we still made CFCs in the amount we made pre 1996? If world governments had not subsidised India's reduction of CFCs we never would have fixed the hole in the Ozone layer. Intervention is sometimes necessary especially when it comes to global problems where you need everyone to work together.

[RocketMan275]

34 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Everything is socially engineered. People are ok when big comapnies do it but if governments do it people seem to think it is a conspiracy to take away their freedom. I believe some industries need to be forcibly reduced or killed. Imagine if we still made CFCs in the amount we made pre 1996? If world governments had not subsidised India's reduction of CFCs we never would have fixed the hole in the Ozone layer. Intervention is sometimes necessary especially when it comes to global problems where you need everyone to work together.

Big companies lack the legal means to compel behavior changes.

It should be clear that many of the environmentalists are far more interested in tranformation along their preferred economic directions than they are solving environmental objectives.  You have seen where AOC and staff have admitted the true objective of the Green New Deal wasn't environmental but economic reform?

When I see noted environmentalists flying private aircraft to 'save the world' conferences, I must ask what is their objective?

Certainly, there is room for government intervention.  But, I do not wish to put my economic and political freedoms in the hands of Prince Charles, AOC, or Maurice Strong.

I participated in multiple simulations of the United Nations in the late sixties. One of the resolutions debated was the "Redistribution of World Wealth".  Then the rationale was reparations for the sins of colonialism.  Sixty years later, it's the only thing that has changed is the rationale.  Now, it's the sins of capitalism.

[ilikeanswers]

35 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Big companies lack the legal means to compel behavior changes.

 

This is a bit off topic, but I don't think it has to be legal to be effective. Deliberate obsolescence, fast fashion, celebrity endosements, influencers, micro marketing, sponsering events, Santa Claus😆, social shaming, peer pressure, keeping up with the Jones, fear mongering and I'm sure there are more tactics I'm forgeting but in the end there is so many ways companies change our behaviour. After all if they didn't most of the changes in the world never would have happened. It is the reason we have a waste problem because companies convinced us disposable is best.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

This is a bit off topic, but I don't think it has to be legal to be effective. Deliberate obsolescence, fast fashion, celebrity endosements, influencers, micro marketing, sponsering events, Santa Claus😆, social shaming, peer pressure, keeping up with the Jones, fear mongering and I'm sure there are more tactics I'm forgeting but in the end there is so many ways companies change our behaviour. After all if they didn't most of the changes in the world never would have happened. It is the reason we have a waste problem because companies convinced us disposable is best.

And, we will have an economic catastrophe if the anti-growth environmentalists convince us to adopt their agenda of a sustainable economy.  None of those methods of inducing change are limited to corporations.  Each of those methods have their equivalents in governments.  The problem becomes acute when corporations induce government action to enhance their profits.  Tesla?  Only government can compel actions.  Like the UK outlawing the production of non-electric vehicles after 2035.  Do they really think electricity is pollution free?  

[larrywizzit]

On 9/17/2017 at 5:12 PM, need2cruisesoon said:

 

There is no factual science regarding cruising and GW. You'll just get opinions and political discourse on this topic.

Of course there is. Plenty. The carbon footprint of a passenger at sea is about 3 times that on land.

Cruise ship emissions as a total have risen dramatically in recent years due to rising popularity. https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-ship/

 

There is plenty of information available. I found this within seconds. I still cruise, but it is not helpful to say that no data is available.

 

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

22 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Landfills are a viable long term solution.  Far more cost effective than the alternatives.

 

And safer, since modern landfills safely contain things much better than sending them to China.

[Toofarfromthesea]

7 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Everything is socially engineered. People are ok when big comapnies do it but if governments do it people seem to think it is a conspiracy to take away their freedom. I believe some industries need to be forcibly reduced or killed. Imagine if we still made CFCs in the amount we made pre 1996? If world governments had not subsidised India's reduction of CFCs we never would have fixed the hole in the Ozone layer. Intervention is sometimes necessary especially when it comes to global problems where you need everyone to work together.

 

You defend recycling the same way a socialist defends socialism against the historical results of socialism - it just hasn't been done right, yet.

[Toofarfromthesea]

4 hours ago, larrywizzit said:

Of course there is. Plenty. The carbon footprint of a passenger at sea is about 3 times that on land.

Cruise ship emissions as a total have risen dramatically in recent years due to rising popularity. https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-ship/

 

There is plenty of information available. I found this within seconds. I still cruise, but it is not helpful to say that no data is available.

 

 

 

 So if you believe in carbon footprint and GW,  how can you justify hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs over something that you are exacerbating with your personal leisure choices?

 

This is the most amazing issue where people express concern yet rationalize why THEIR choices are OK.  Believing in carbon footprints and GW but continuing to cruise puts someone in the same category as celebrities who use private planes and limousines to get to award dinners and then save the planet by having a 'mostly' meat free dinner and scolding all of us for our normal activities.

 

I'll start believing in a climate crisis when I see the people claiming there is a climate crisis start ACTING as if there is a climate crisis

[larrywizzit]

One doesn’t ‘believe’ in carbon footprint. It just is. I understand not accepting the GW is the result oh human activity, but ones carbon footprint is just a measure of their activity. Whether it exists is not really debatable. Whether it affects GW is.  
 

edit: as to your point, it’s a selfish choice that I make to fly and cruise. I’m not ready to give that up. I try to make other choices in my life to offset it however. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by larrywizzit
Clarification

[ilikeanswers]

42 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

You defend recycling the same way a socialist defends socialism against the historical results of socialism - it just hasn't been done right, yet.

 

That is one of the wierdest comparisons I have ever seen😂. You are comparing a governemnt system to a mechanical production method. We know recylcling works. You can take certain plastics and turn it into usable pellets. The problem is getting people to use those pellets. Recylclers get lucrative contracts from governments to collect recylclable materials but they have nothing to do with what happens to the material after they collect it. So essentially it has become a get rich quick scheme. So we end up with lots of usable material that we simply do not use on top of that China keeps producing cheap virgin plastic. If we relied more on the recycled plastic not only would it be great for the economy since most of the pellet producers are small business owners who hire local people but you would be reducing production of more plastic as you would be using what already exists in the system. This is not some esoterical philosophy like socialsim. It is hard science.

[RocketMan275]

13 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

That is one of the wierdest comparisons I have ever seen😂. You are comparing a governemnt system to a mechanical production method. We know recylcling works. You can take certain plastics and turn it into usable pellets. The problem is getting people to use those pellets. Recylclers get lucrative contracts from governments to collect recylclable materials but they have nothing to do with what happens to the material after they collect it. So essentially it has become a get rich quick scheme. So we end up with lots of usable material that we simply do not use on top of that China keeps producing cheap virgin plastic. If we relied more on the recycled plastic not only would it be great for the economy since most of the pellet producers are small business owners who hire local people but you would be reducing production of more plastic as you would be using what already exists in the system. This is not some esoterical philosophy like socialsim. It is hard science.

You're basically using the 'broken windows' argument, ie, that a broken window stimulates the economy by providing jobs to those who clean up the broken glass, produce the replacement windows, and then install them.  This is a common fallacy disproved hundreds of years ago.  It's hard economics.

[RocketMan275]

14 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

 So if you believe in carbon footprint and GW,  how can you justify hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs over something that you are exacerbating with your personal leisure choices?

 

This is the most amazing issue where people express concern yet rationalize why THEIR choices are OK.  Believing in carbon footprints and GW but continuing to cruise puts someone in the same category as celebrities who use private planes and limousines to get to award dinners and then save the planet by having a 'mostly' meat free dinner and scolding all of us for our normal activities.

 

I'll start believing in a climate crisis when I see the people claiming there is a climate crisis start ACTING as if there is a climate crisis

Most of those are making too much money off the GW/Carbon hysteria.  For example, how much did Al Gore make with his Inconvenient Truth while living in a mansion uses the same amount of energy as hundreds of normal sized houses?

Even the 'scientists' spreading their hysterical claims are financial dependent upon their grant money which would dry up if they didn't make more hysterical claims.

[ilikeanswers]

40 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

You're basically using the 'broken windows' argument, ie, that a broken window stimulates the economy by providing jobs to those who clean up the broken glass, produce the replacement windows, and then install them.  This is a common fallacy disproved hundreds of years ago.  It's hard economics.

 

Maybe it was my wording but there has been a complete misunderstanding of what I was discussing. What you are describing sounds like deliberate obsolescence which I fudementally disagree with since to me that is part of what creates the waste problem. I believe we need to move away from this disposable society and create things that do have longevity. And clearly it has made alot of money in society so I'm not sure where you get the idea it was disproved hundreds of years ago considering that is how our economy runs today on encouraging people to buy more stuff. This is why I think we should be using more recycled material because I would like to see less virgin plastic being made so that there is a decrease to the overall production of plastic. I don't want things being deliberately broken so we can make more stuff. Sorry for the confusion😳.

[RocketMan275]

37 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Maybe it was my wording but there has been a complete misunderstanding of what I was discussing. What you are describing sounds like deliberate obsolescence which I fudementally disagree with since to me that is part of what creates the waste problem. I believe we need to move away from this disposable society and create things that do have longevity. And clearly it has made alot of money in society so I'm not sure where you get the idea it was disproved hundreds of years ago considering that is how our economy runs today on encouraging people to buy more stuff. This is why I think we should be using more recycled material because I would like to see less virgin plastic being made so that there is a decrease to the overall production of plastic. I don't want things being deliberately broken so we can make more stuff. Sorry for the confusion😳.

No, I wasn't implying that you wanted to deliberately break stuff.  I was driving at the idea that recycling can create jobs even though it is more expensive than making new material.  Just like breaking windows does not lead to economic prosperity neither does choosing the more expensive options.

[ilikeanswers]

9 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

No, I wasn't implying that you wanted to deliberately break stuff.  I was driving at the idea that recycling can create jobs even though it is more expensive than making new material.  Just like breaking windows does not lead to economic prosperity neither does choosing the more expensive options.

 

Well I would have assumed if businesses are being created to make pellets and those businesses are employing people to work in those factories that would qualify as job creation? Though when I brought up about the businesses creation I was trying to point out that recycled pellet makers are usually small business owners compared to virgin plastic pellet makers who are multinational conglomerates or the China Communist Party (which I guess qualifies as a multinational conglomerate these days😂) and I have always been told that small businesses bring more wealth into local communities than large conglomerates who tend to send their money abroad.

Edited February 9, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[RocketMan275]

11 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Well I would have assumed if businesses are being created to make pellets and those businesses are employing people to work in those factories that would qualify as job creation? Though when I brought up about the businesses creation I was trying to point out that recycled pellet makers are usually small business owners compared to virgin plastic pellet makers who are multinational conglomerates or the China Communist Party (which I guess qualifies as a multinational conglomerate these days😂) and I have always been told that small businesses bring more wealth into local communities than large conglomerates who tend to send their money abroad.

Yes, they do create jobs.  But, are there more efficient ways to create jobs?  The record is clear that recycling isn't profitable. Otherwise the Chinese would recycle the plastic rather than dumping it in the ocean.

[ilikeanswers]

3 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Yes, they do create jobs.  But, are there more efficient ways to create jobs?  The record is clear that recycling isn't profitable. Otherwise the Chinese would recycle the plastic rather than dumping it in the ocean.

 

See that is where it get complicated. The communist party owns the factories that make the virgin plastic. That virgin plastic is highly subsidized so it is much cheaper to sell. Small business owners due to enough demand from some businesses presumably those who want to go green where able to make a profitable business from recylcled plastic (granted they didn't always do it the right way, it is China after all not much in the way of health and safety). Of course as long as there is still virgin plastic coming into the system we are still making more plastic in addition to recycling plastic. So recycled plastic has to always compete against highly subsidized virgin plastic. In the end there is more plastic being made then there is demand for the recylcled stuff. So if you get rid of or at least decrease virgin plastic production then plastic "stuff" makers would have to rely on recycled plastic and recycled plastic would not have to compete with subsidized virgin plastic and with demand up and production of new plastic down we would use more of the plastic material we have and might finally start decreasing the out put of plastic into our environment. The main goal should be the decreasing of waste.

[RocketMan275]

4 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

See that is where it get complicated. The communist party owns the factories that make the virgin plastic. That virgin plastic is highly subsidized so it is much cheaper to sell. Small business owners due to enough demand from some businesses presumably those who want to go green where able to make a profitable business from recylcled plastic (granted they didn't always do it the right way, it is China after all not much in the way of health and safety). Of course as long as there is still virgin plastic coming into the system we are still making more plastic in addition to recycling plastic. So recycled plastic has to always compete against highly subsidized virgin plastic. In the end there is more plastic being made then there is demand for the recylcled stuff. So if you get rid of or at least decrease virgin plastic production then plastic "stuff" makers would have to rely on recycled plastic and recycled plastic would not have to compete with subsidized virgin plastic and with demand up and production of new plastic down we would use more of the plastic material we have and might finally start decreasing the out put of plastic into our environment. The main goal should be the decreasing of waste.

You do realize that if we'd put that used plastic in landfills we wouldn't be worried about what the Chinese choose?  Perhaps landfills are better for the environment than recycling?  

Neither of us is in favor of despoiling the environment.  Our disagreement is over the best way to proceed.  

BTW, recycling is also subsidized.  I'm all in favor of removing all subsidies with defense as the only exception.

[ilikeanswers]

41 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

You do realize that if we'd put that used plastic in landfills we wouldn't be worried about what the Chinese choose?  Perhaps landfills are better for the environment than recycling?  

Neither of us is in favor of despoiling the environment.  Our disagreement is over the best way to proceed.  

BTW, recycling is also subsidized.  I'm all in favor of removing all subsidies with defense as the only exception.

 

If we removed all subsidies whole economies would collapse😂. In America Sillicon Valley would not exisit if it wasn't for large government handouts. Subsidies are part and parcel of running a good economy. But I would prefer to see subsidies moved from recyclable collectors who make billions already to recycle pellet makers so they can bring the cost down to compete with virgin plastic. Like I said landfill does not decrease the volume of waste we produce and that should be the aim. We have already seen what happens when we ignore this aim, last thirty years volume of waste has gone up 60% it has not even stabilised and the next thirty years it will only increase if we don't deal with the out put problem.

Edited February 9, 2020 by ilikeanswers