Carnival Announcement

[Stick93]

But why use it to begin with?? I hope it all getting recycling. 

 

My point is they are making these changes as a business move not one for the environment. They don’t care about the ocean or anything else - they care about green but it’s green money. 

 

Good for them I hope the gamble of the cut backs work out because the cruise industry is adding more ships - larger ones -  and they need to fill them 365 days a year. At some point you have to think this model will not sustain. 

[sparks1093]

10 minutes ago, Stick93 said:

But why use it to begin with?? I hope it all getting recycling. 

 

My point is they are making these changes as a business move not one for the environment. They don’t care about the ocean or anything else - they care about green but it’s green money. 

 

Good for them I hope the gamble of the cut backs work out because the cruise industry is adding more ships - larger ones -  and they need to fill them 365 days a year. At some point you have to think this model will not sustain. 

As I said before even if it is a pure business move it's still better for the environment. I could make the argument that you don't care about the ocean because you choose to vacation using this polluting method rather than a more eco-friendly vacation, but of course you do. Can they do more? Yes, indeed. Should they do more? Again, yes, indeed. As for the model of the large ships that's a different debate.

[Stick93]

Why would you point out that I don’t care. Anyone who cruises you can argue doesn’t care. Don’t make posts personal. 

 

I enjoy cruising and the people I cruise with. We all don’t agree with many things but it doesn’t matter. 

[sparks1093]

32 minutes ago, Stick93 said:

Why would you point out that I don’t care. Anyone who cruises you can argue doesn’t care. Don’t make posts personal. 

 

I enjoy cruising and the people I cruise with. We all don’t agree with many things but it doesn’t matter. 

I didn't say that you don't care, I ended my sentence with "of course you do". A business can care about money and the environment, just as you can care about a nice vacation and the environment. They aren't mutually exclusive propositions. 

[Stick93]

The two can go hand in had but behavior of the cruise lines and this one in particular speaks differently. They can talk the talk but they walked the other way. I am sorry if I am calling them out, but a fine of whatever million/billions/trillions or dollars will never undo the foot print they left with their actions. I think these fixes are meant to have the optics of them caring but its really the bottom line they are hitting and so be it. They can cut back and do as they please until the customer holds their money and doesn't cruise anymore. 

 

This is only my opinion  - I will still cruise as I enjoy it. If I were a green blooded person I would have a harder time with their actions.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

3 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

From what I've read of shipboard operations from various sources I think the vast majority of recyclables on board make it to the plant. 

I must agree. Has anyone ever seen the compacted items removed from the ship for recycling. I have and it is a lot. That is not the problem. Dumping in the wrong places is. No matter. We love to cruise and will not stop because of this. Again, who get hurt from the fines. The stock holders. They will not raise the cost of the cruise because of $60 million. They want to cruise full and keep doing so.

[Micahs Grandad]

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

Still looking for how it makes something worse.  Several cities have implemented straw bans.  How much is trifling btw?  What % is meaningful enough to enact?

A trifle is something less than a smidge according to DW.

[sfaaa]

6 hours ago, Stick93 said:

 

 

My point is they are making these changes as a business move not one for the environment. They don’t care about the ocean or anything else - they care about green but it’s green money. 

 

 

 And what if they do. Do you not like money yourself?

[Stick93]

8 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

 And what if they do. Do you not like money yourself?

 

I am sure I like money as much as everyone on this site -

 

Let me restate my point, Let carnival come out with a statement - Due to our love of profits and money we are making changes by cutting back on things that make no difference in your quality of cruising (if that is so). However please don't tell me for the love of the world and the oceans we are changing things -  because they are not doing it for that!!

 

Further I like value for my money- value is getting things that you would like and expect for the price paid.  I personally would like a single use straw for my drink if it is necessary, not something that is edible or paper as it distorts the flavor of my already over priced drink that I want to enjoy. I also at times would like other individually wrapped things at times as people who don't  think about others have a way of touching and contaminating things especially around the food areas.

 

But this is only my opinion - if they remove these things well then they are gone. However the pollution from the ocean that they dumped into will always be there.

 

 

[repo-cruiser]

2 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

Still looking for how it makes something worse.  Several cities have implemented straw bans.  How much is trifling btw?  What % is meaningful enough to enact?

"But this well-intentioned campaign assumes that single-use plastics, such as straws and coffee stirrers, have much to do with ocean pollution. And that assumption is based on some highly dubious data. Activists and news mediaoften claim that Americans use 500 million plastic straws per day, for example, which sounds awful. But the source of this figure turns out to be a survey conducted by a nine-year-old. Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year."

 

 

"In other words, skipping a plastic straw in your next Bahama Mama may feel conscientious, but it won't make a dent in the garbage patch. So what will?"

 

 

"A recent survey by scientists affiliated with Ocean Cleanup, a group developing technologies to reduce ocean plastic, offers one answer. Using surface samples and aerial surveys, the group determined that at least 46 percent of the plastic in the garbage patch by weight comes from a single product: fishing nets. Other fishing gear makes up a good chunk of the rest."

[repo-cruiser]

So quit fishing off your balcony Jimbo. 🙂

[iltutcruiser]

I'm really fine with all the changes that Carnival is making. I really am, but I am concerned about having a tomato mustache when I enjoy my bloody marys and would it be considered rude to bob for the olives since there will be no plastic picks ? asking for a friend........

[jimbo5544]

1 hour ago, Micah's Grandad said:

A trifle is something less than a smidge according to DW.

LOL, tell her thanks!

[jimbo5544]

27 minutes ago, repo-cruiser said:

"But this well-intentioned campaign assumes that single-use plastics, such as straws and coffee stirrers, have much to do with ocean pollution. And that assumption is based on some highly dubious data. Activists and news mediaoften claim that Americans use 500 million plastic straws per day, for example, which sounds awful. But the source of this figure turns out to be a survey conducted by a nine-year-old. Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year."

 

 

"In other words, skipping a plastic straw in your next Bahama Mama may feel conscientious, but it won't make a dent in the garbage patch. So what will?"

 

 

"A recent survey by scientists affiliated with Ocean Cleanup, a group developing technologies to reduce ocean plastic, offers one answer. Using surface samples and aerial surveys, the group determined that at least 46 percent of the plastic in the garbage patch by weight comes from a single product: fishing nets. Other fishing gear makes up a good chunk of the rest."

So New York, Ft Myers and others are fishing with me.  I love replies with no answers.....  where do you start?  I can send you to many links of photos of dead fish and when opened “up” full of plastic.  How many pounds are in the oceans, how many go in the trash?

[jimbo5544]

27 minutes ago, repo-cruiser said:

So quit fishing off your balcony Jimbo. 🙂

Believe it or not I have seen people fishing off balconies. 😁

[CoolOne56]

Am I the only one who remembers butter packets wrapped in some type of paper? I guess butter packets don't come that way anymore.

 

I've never been on Royal - what kind of butter packets do they use? 

[CoolOne56]

I'm all for saving the environment! I personally do not want to cruise through trash or see sea life caught in plastic can holders or plastic bags. I did not realize plastic straws were a problem. Showing my age - I remember paper straws. 

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

Let's get back to the OP's question regarding the statement from Carnival.  Here's why this "statement" of "commitment" to the environment is frivolous and insulting given the case in court that prompted it.  These regulations came into force in 1983, and have been an issue with Princess cruises since they were fined for dumping plastic in 1993, 26 years ago.  Carnival itself was fined for environmental pollution in 2002, supposedly implemented an ECP (environmental compliance plan) as a result, and extended that plan to Princess when they acquired Princess in 2003.  And, as the judge who will take over in this present probation violation hearing in September told the assembled Carnival senior management, "here we still are, talking about plastic in food waste after 26 years".  And, even when Carnival had an ECP in place from 2002, and was found guilty of violations again in 2017, and supposedly implemented another ECP, ships across all of their lines were found to have committed 800+ violations of various pollution types while on probation and knowing that they were being audited by a third party for compliance. 

[chengkp75]

I will make on observation about plastic pollution in the oceans, since that is where I've made my living for 44 years.  The group Ocean Clean Up, mentioned above, also notes that while 92% of the mass of the Pacific garbage patch is "macro and mega plastics", like the fishing gear noted, that 92% of the particle count is micro plastics (less than 0.5cm). and the larger macro and mega plastics break down due to sunlight and sea water over time into micro plastics.  Micro plastics are very hard to retrieve, are found suspended in the water column at various depths, not just floating, and are what are mistaken for food by marine animals.  Biodegradable plastics merely break down into micro plastics faster, and so enter the food chain quicker.

[sparks1093]

38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Let's get back to the OP's question regarding the statement from Carnival.  Here's why this "statement" of "commitment" to the environment is frivolous and insulting given the case in court that prompted it.  These regulations came into force in 1983, and have been an issue with Princess cruises since they were fined for dumping plastic in 1993, 26 years ago.  Carnival itself was fined for environmental pollution in 2002, supposedly implemented an ECP (environmental compliance plan) as a result, and extended that plan to Princess when they acquired Princess in 2003.  And, as the judge who will take over in this present probation violation hearing in September told the assembled Carnival senior management, "here we still are, talking about plastic in food waste after 26 years".  And, even when Carnival had an ECP in place from 2002, and was found guilty of violations again in 2017, and supposedly implemented another ECP, ships across all of their lines were found to have committed 800+ violations of various pollution types while on probation and knowing that they were being audited by a third party for compliance. 

So if Princess is the violator why are we discussing this on the CCL forum? CCL is a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation just as Princess is, two legally separate entities. Again, regardless of everything else I think these moves are a step in the right direction. And again, yes, more can and should be done.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, sparks1093 said:

So if Princess is the violator why are we discussing this on the CCL forum? CCL is a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation just as Princess is, two legally separate entities. Again, regardless of everything else I think these moves are a step in the right direction. And again, yes, more can and should be done.

Princess is the original violator, but Carnival Corp and all its subsidiary lines were placed on probation because of the Princess violation.  The 800+ violations found by the auditor teams over the first year of probation were spread out over the entire Carnival Corp fleet, every single line was found in violation.  The QM2 led with 22 violations, a Costa ship had 21, and 4 Carnival Cruise Line ships each had 20 violations.  While Princess and Carnival Cruises are two separate corporations, it is the parent corporation that is held accountable, and why Carnival Corp was placed on probation for a Princess violation.  If you want to get down to it, every one of the 105 ships owned and operated by Carnival Corp is owned by a separate legal entity, it's own corporation, for liability reasons.

 

Yes, what is being done is the right direction, my point is that this should have been done either 26 years ago, or 17 years ago, not after the third strike. These are quick and easy "band-aid" remedies that could have, and should have been implemented years ago.  What the statement does not mention is that Carnival's core corporate culture doesn't, and hasn't, given a tinker's darn about the environment for decades.  As I've said in other threads about this announcement, this is just like Oz saying "see, we've removed the plastics from your food service, but don't pay any attention to the air, ozone, oil, or sewage pollution going on behind the curtain".  Read the report of the Court Appointed Monitor (sorry it's 205 pages), and the comments of both judges to Carnival's assembled board members and senior management in court to see where the blame lies and where the change needs to happen.

[sparks1093]

38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Princess is the original violator, but Carnival Corp and all its subsidiary lines were placed on probation because of the Princess violation.  The 800+ violations found by the auditor teams over the first year of probation were spread out over the entire Carnival Corp fleet, every single line was found in violation.  The QM2 led with 22 violations, a Costa ship had 21, and 4 Carnival Cruise Line ships each had 20 violations.  While Princess and Carnival Cruises are two separate corporations, it is the parent corporation that is held accountable, and why Carnival Corp was placed on probation for a Princess violation.  If you want to get down to it, every one of the 105 ships owned and operated by Carnival Corp is owned by a separate legal entity, it's own corporation, for liability reasons.

 

Yes, what is being done is the right direction, my point is that this should have been done either 26 years ago, or 17 years ago, not after the third strike. These are quick and easy "band-aid" remedies that could have, and should have been implemented years ago.  What the statement does not mention is that Carnival's core corporate culture doesn't, and hasn't, given a tinker's darn about the environment for decades.  As I've said in other threads about this announcement, this is just like Oz saying "see, we've removed the plastics from your food service, but don't pay any attention to the air, ozone, oil, or sewage pollution going on behind the curtain".  Read the report of the Court Appointed Monitor (sorry it's 205 pages), and the comments of both judges to Carnival's assembled board members and senior management in court to see where the blame lies and where the change needs to happen.

Thank you for the info. I can fully understand that Carnival Corp would be placed on probation for a subsidiaries violations. I do agree that these changes should have been made long ago, which makes me wonder- if these changes really are being made solely to save the cruise line money (as some have stated) why weren't they implemented years ago? I'm not sure that in the near term that there will be a substantial savings.

Edited June 5, 2019 by sparks1093

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, sparks1093 said:

Thank you for the info. I can fully understand that Carnival Corp would be placed on probation for a subsidiaries violations. I do agree that these changes should have been made long ago, which makes me wonder- if these changes really are being made solely to save the cruise line money (as some have stated) why weren't they implemented years ago? I'm not sure that in the near term that there will be a substantial savings.

You're quite right, there will be only a marginal savings, this is being done, and you'll note that all of these "environmental" "cutbacks" have happened since the 2017 Princess fine, as a visible and low cost way for Carnival to try to show the monitor and auditors that they are moving forward with compliance.  The only real cost savings that Carnival hoped to see from these eliminations of single use plastic was against the potential fines for not complying, and we see how that has worked out.  Carnival hoped that by doing these minor changes, that the major problems they face in other forms of pollution would be swept under the carpet.

[jimbo5544]

24 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You're quite right, there will be only a marginal savings, this is being done, and you'll note that all of these "environmental" "cutbacks" have happened since the 2017 Princess fine, as a visible and low cost way for Carnival to try to show the monitor and auditors that they are moving forward with compliance.  The only real cost savings that Carnival hoped to see from these eliminations of single use plastic was against the potential fines for not complying, and we see how that has worked out.  Carnival hoped that by doing these minor changes, that the major problems they face in other forms of pollution would be swept under the carpet.

Have you seen details on the new audit teams that will be overseeing the changes (once they define what these will be), and if so, what are your thoughts?

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

Have you seen details on the new audit teams that will be overseeing the changes (once they define what these will be), and if so, what are your thoughts?

Not sure what you are referring to.  If you mean the "tiger teams" outlined in the plea deal, these will be in house, and separate from the third party auditors who will continue to monitor Carnival's progress for the DOJ.  The composition of the teams leaves something to be desired in my opinion, as they do include "subject matter experts" in waste management, and legal experts, but it seems to me that they lack personnel with real life shipboard experience.  I also believe that the decision to have two of these teams, to oversee implementation of compliance over 105 ships is inadequate, and this could be brought out as Carnival possibly misses benchmarks in their compliance timeline.  The composition of the tiger teams and their areas of responsibility are outlined in the plea agreement, I'm just having a hard time locating it, but it's linked on several of the threads about the hearings.