Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
Karysa

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

Recommended Posts

Cruise ship's should get credits for the 2 - 3 thousand home's with a much reduced carbon footprint Whilst the owner's are at sea..

 

I know I shut off my water main And hot water heater before leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, I'll have to stick with 0.80% for now :D

 

When I rent a car I'm willing to pay more if that is (more than) compensated in lower fuel costs, so Hertz has an incentive to invest in cars that use less or cheaper fuel. Mutatis mutandis, I'd expect your company to have a similar incentive.

 

Well, you are saying that your increased rental cost is more than offset by the fuel savings. So, you are gaining on this deal. The other side of the equation is whether or not Hertz's cost for the more fuel efficient car is offset by the increased rental over the life of the car. Is it? And can Hertz guarantee that over the life of the car, the rental cost remains high enough to cover the added purchase price, or that the car will be rented enough time over the life of the car to cover the added expense? And this is a personal decision on your part to pay more for rental in exchange for anticipated fuel savings. Does everyone decide this way?

 

So, we invest in scrubbers, and raise our charter rates to cover the expense. First off, do all tanker companies do this, or are we priced above everyone else, and the customer goes to the lower charter rate, and we are out of business? Then, does the charterer know that he will save more money than the increase in charter rate, without knowing what fuel prices will do over the span of the charter? Do we know that we can keep the ship chartered enough, at a higher price, to cover the added expense?

 

If we payed for fuel, then there would be an incentive, but since we don't, and the ship is on an open charter market, there really is no incentive to invest in scrubbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being somewhat concerned about extreme weather phenomenons and seasons changes in my country, I was very interested by this topic.

 

To those of you who have provided factual information about new technologies and fuels used by the cruise industry, a big thank-you, for the information. I really appreciated it!

 

Thank-you also to those who thought about comparing the impact of cruising versus the use of other types of equipments; such as R.V, Buses, trains, cars etc. Since I breathe, I also have an impact; however, given a choice, for example for holidays; I was interested in knowing more about the impact of my choice. Comparing cruising to other transportation modes was very interesting. So, thank-you very much!

 

For those that brought the issue on the political realm. I am sorry to say, that this aspect was of no interest to me. I would have preferred, if you would have allowed the issue to be discussed, based on the OP's intents.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being somewhat concerned about extreme weather phenomenons and seasons changes in my country, I was very interested by this topic.

 

To those of you who have provided factual information about new technologies and fuels used by the cruise industry, a big thank-you, for the information. I really appreciated it!

 

Thank-you also to those who thought about comparing the impact of cruising versus the use of other types of equipments; such as R.V, Buses, trains, cars etc. Since I breathe, I also have an impact; however, given a choice, for example for holidays; I was interested in knowing more about the impact of my choice. Comparing cruising to other transportation modes was very interesting. So, thank-you very much!

 

For those that brought the issue on the political realm. I am sorry to say, that this aspect was of no interest to me. I would have preferred, if you would have allowed the issue to be discussed, based on the OP's intents.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Just remember that there are several opinions and points of view on the matter. No one in particular may be completely correct, nor completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the questions are:

 

Are cruise ships heavy polluters? The answer would be relative to other forms of transportation, yes.

 

Have cruise ships employed significant new technologies to reduce emissions in the past 10 - 15 years? The answer is also yes.

 

Climate change is where the debate is.

 

This is an interesting link I found to help visualize the pollutant levels

 

http://www.realworldvisuals.com/blog/cruise-ship-air-pollution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the questions are:

 

Are cruise ships heavy polluters? The answer would be relative to other forms of transportation, yes.

 

Have cruise ships employed significant new technologies to reduce emissions in the past 10 - 15 years? The answer is also yes.

 

Climate change is where the debate is.

 

This is an interesting link I found to help visualize the pollutant levels

 

http://www.realworldvisuals.com/blog/cruise-ship-air-pollution

 

Nice article, but I have several questions about their data. First, since they are considering a ship at the dock in the UK, are they considering that the ship is using 0.1% sulfur diesel fuel (as required) or residual fuel for their SOX and NOX numbers. Next, the amount of exhaust gas stated as emitted over a 24 hour period appears to me to be for one of Oasis's larger engines, the largest engines used on cruise ships, not really a "typical cruise ship", and Oasis would also use one of her smaller engines in port. Thirdly, what load are they assuming on this engine? At the approximately half load the smaller engine would be producing in port, the fuel amount injected is half of what it is at full load. Yet the amount of air sent through the engine is virtually the same, given that the engine runs at a constant rpm. Therefore, the assumed percentage of design load on an engine will have a great effect on how concentrated the emissions are.

 

Also, most experts agree that the most efficient way to remove SOX emissions is to limit the amount of sulfur in the fuels before combustion. The article propounds using "cold ironing" where the ship plugs into the national grid for power in port, yet the sulfur limit for ship's fuels in port in the UK is 0.1%, while the most common fuels used to produce electricity in the UK are coal (1.6% sulfur) and oil (type unspecified, but allowed 2.9% sulfur, so I suspect they use residual oil), so it would appear that burning the ship's allowed fuel is more efficient by an order of magnitude.

 

While I applaud the tighter restrictions on shipping in terms of pollution, and have to live with them every working day of my life, I feel that a lot of these articles and organizations (like FOE) focus on the cruise industry since it has a high profile, and don't look closely at the alternatives that they propose, as this would raise the cost of living for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really cares?  And what hubris to think that man is both causing this AND to think that man can change this.

 

Wanna really do something?  Get the Chinese to stop their extreme pollution.  And contact me back after you get their response.

 

PS:  I love my carbon footprint.  It's evidence of civilization and the highest standard of human existence in history.

 

Edited by FlyerTalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, in rod we trust 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 

Edited by in rod we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

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 

 

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").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Edited by in rod we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

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

 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of good info in this thread. There are a couple of things I'm rather sure about with this topic:

 

- The media that harps on this info, has been known to regularly push deceptive content for political reasons.

- The earth's climate has gone through extreme changes throughout time.

- Our theories on "climate change" have changed significantly over the decades. One could say that's because the science has improved. There could be other reasons

- People tend to feel "woke" about "large scale" topics. A cruise ship is large in itself, so it must be the worst offender, right? While I'm not here to debate specifics on output, they don't tend to think of it like getting 2-5k people on airplanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

Lots of good info in this thread. There are a couple of things I'm rather sure about with this topic:

 

- The media that harps on this info, has been known to regularly push deceptive content for political reasons.

- The earth's climate has gone through extreme changes throughout time.

- Our theories on "climate change" have changed significantly over the decades. One could say that's because the science has improved. There could be other reasons

- People tend to feel "woke" about "large scale" topics. A cruise ship is large in itself, so it must be the worst offender, right? While I'm not here to debate specifics on output, they don't tend to think of it like getting 2-5k people on airplanes

 

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  .. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FlyerTalker said:

Who really cares?  And what hubris to think that man is both causing this AND to think that man can change this.

 

Don't forget the hole in the Ozone Layer. Humans caused it and humans fixed it😁. We really can change the world for better or worst. It is just will power to do it🤗

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/

 

Just saying.  But by all means attack a tiny part of the problem, e.g., plastic straws, to make yourself feel better.

 

If 'global warming' is really the moral equivalent of war we would be bombing the (dirty) coal burning plants in India and China.  In just this year alone Chine is slated to bring more coal burning generating plants on-line than all the coal burning plants in Europe.

 

How Dare They!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, a large source of CO2 (about 2.3 pounds per day each) are HUMANS.

 

Funny that no one talks about restricting the number of PEOPLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

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  .. 

 

 

Even if you are correct that the problem is because of us, the fix is definitely not taxes, eliminating straws, or putting scrubbers in a cruise ship. Everyone is quite noble when it comes to wanting the best for the planet. The moment they get the opportunity to bulldoze a forest for their new dream home or shopping center, or they get to enjoy all of the other luxuries in life, then that all goes out of the window. If we are the cause, with 7 billion people consuming tons of resources, it's not getting changed anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ships do not have a scrubber, the new sulphur content rules for fuel started 1/1/20. This reduces the allowable sulphur content in bunker fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 8:20 AM, Joebucks said:

Lots of good info in this thread. There are a couple of things I'm rather sure about with this topic:

 

- The media that harps on this info, has been known to regularly push deceptive content for political reasons.

- The earth's climate has gone through extreme changes throughout time.

- Our theories on "climate change" have changed significantly over the decades. One could say that's because the science has improved. There could be other reasons

- People tend to feel "woke" about "large scale" topics. A cruise ship is large in itself, so it must be the worst offender, right? While I'm not here to debate specifics on output, they don't tend to think of it like getting 2-5k people on airplanes

 

I agree with some of your points. The media certainly publishes misleading reports on both sides. And while I'm sure cruise ships are a contributor (as are cars, planes, power plants, farms, etc); I doubt very much we would see a measurable difference by attacking any one source of carbon. But the argument that the earth's climate has had extreme changes in the past sidesteps the issue. The reason for the earth's past climate changes have been researched and are well established with theories and data; and those reasons are not occurring now. While the earth and some life on it may have existed at hotter levels in the past, that doesn't mean that for those conditions to occur now wouldn't wreck havoc on the species that are alive today and the the property/infrastructure that we have built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the reasons cruise ships get targeted in the media is the fact that as much as we might enjoy them they are basically frivolous. We need cargo ships they provide a service that is a necessity while cruise ships if the industry stopped tomorrow yes there will be a short term impact but long term the world will easily find substitutes to the industry. The fact they exist for fun and serve no practical purpose does make them an easy target. The same with plastic straws, they are things that if they disappear tomorrow the world isn't going to fall apart. In some ways the fact they are superfluous is an argument to them having an extra responsibility to up their green credentials after all if you think about it from building to running them, it is a lot of resources being used for something that is unnecessary😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ROXIETHEHORSE said:

If the ships do not have a scrubber, the new sulphur content rules for fuel started 1/1/20. This reduces the allowable sulphur content in bunker fuel.

However, it is far too soon to see if those sulfur limits are sustainable, both from the supply of low sulfur fuel (both availability and price), and from the overall effect it will have on the world economy as it drives up shipping costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • SAIL-AWAY GIVEAWAY - Enter Now for a Chance to Win a 7-day Cruise for Two
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...