Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
kangforpres

Environmental impact of cruising and tourism

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, IslandThyme said:

For those who are still with us, RocketMan's reference, Fred Singer, does indeed agree with the 3% of climate scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change. It's his business to defend petroleum producers, just as it was his business to defend tobacco producers by stating that second-hand smoke isn't harmful. Look it up.

 

I'm not saying that you have to agree with 97% of climate scientists, I just wonder why anyone chooses to believe the other 3%. And even supposing you're on the side of science, what you choose to do about it is an individual decision.

 

When I want to travel, I choose to buy carbon offsets whenever possible. And since I enjoy travelling by cruise ship, I wish the cruise industry would set up an offset program for those of us who feel similarly.

 

You might consider  this ....  a y carbon free way to travel the oceans....

images (2).jpg

Share this post


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

 

You might consider  this ....  a y carbon free way to travel the oceans....

images (2).jpg

Not with Carnival..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Are we going back to paper bags?

I can remember when plastic bags were invented (Yes, I'm old), and the grocery clerks were begging us to switch to plastic to "save the trees".  But seriously, there was very little plastic back in the 40's & 50's, and we did just fine.  I have read that the majority of plastic in the landfills is consisting of bottles & disposable diapers.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 9:51 AM, KirkNC said:

Unfortunately I believe you are right, to stop or revert climate change would take drastic action that very few would be willing to take.  One thing working in our favor is that we are actually entering a cyclical climate cooling period if not for mans activities.  This was actually presented on a lecture on our Zaandam Antarctica cruise.

 

One thing cruising has done for me is provide visual evidence that the world is warming.  Trips to the Arctic, Alaska, Antarctica and the Great Barrier Reef have convinced me. 

I was on that cruise - Do you remember when someone in the audience had the nerve to ask if population control should be visited as an action - lots of hemming & hawwing from the presenter- no one has had the courage to address this, but...….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BJzink said:

I was on that cruise - Do you remember when someone in the audience had the nerve to ask if population control should be visited as an action - lots of hemming & hawwing from the presenter- no one has had the courage to address this, but...….

I think the societies which have a growing population consume so much less than ours that controlling population is for this and other reasons, the mother of all asinine ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

I was thinking about the Climate Gate emails.

Still, I'm all too skeptical of the IPCC.

Here's a nice article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#4fc9111b428e

 

 

I'm not weighing in on the pros and cons here, but would just point out that the article you cite is authored by Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, an organization with strong ties with fossil fuel organizations, including being funded at various times by Exxon Mobile and the Koch Foundation. He has several times been criticized for claiming various scientists supported his theories about climate change when they do not -- far from it. 

 

While led by Bast, the organization is also known for putting up a series of billboards that were so over the top and objectionable that even the organization's own supporters were part of the backlash:

 

image.png.49851be1ff6d144b7cf36967d1160e0a.png

 

This was part of a series that also featured Fidel Castro and Charles Manson. And if we didn't get the message, the press release from the Institute said (and I quote): "what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the "mainstream" media, and liberal politicians say about global warming. They are so similar, in fact, that a Web site has a quiz that asks if you can tell the difference between what Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote in his "Manifesto" and what Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance.

 

Just to make it clear, the Institute adds, "Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants."


Well.....at least there's that. 

:classic_mellow:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, cruisemom42, it made for a great moment of humor. Of course it's dead serious, but the over-the-top quality of all that nonsense really cracked me up.

 

I am so glad to see how many folks here are thinking for themselves and not relying on sheer bunk to inform their opinions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 8:51 AM, KirkNC said:

Unfortunately I believe you are right, to stop or revert climate change would take drastic action that very few would be willing to take.  One thing working in our favor is that we are actually entering a cyclical climate cooling period if not for mans activities.  This was actually presented on a lecture on our Zaandam Antarctica cruise.

 

 

 

Here's an update from 2013...

 

"Climate change on pace to occur 10 times faster than any change recorded in past 65 million years, Stanford scientists say..."

 

 

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 12:40 PM, RocketMan275 said:

I downloaded and read the NIPCC 2019 report. 

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Full-Book.pdf

 

The short summary of the NIPCC report is fossil fuels have brought so many benefits - economic, social and even health- and there is an ongoing debate over weather and climate models.  

 

I checked the references.  I was very curious what Dr. Singer et al would say about ocean acidification. The oceans are 30% less alkaline since 1751 (pH 8.25 to 8.14 per Wikipedia) due to increasing carbonic acid (from rising CO2).   This is putting a strain on marine life.  

 

Climate skeptics such as Steven Milloy have been saying "species will adapt" for some time.   

 

The 2019 NIPCC report says this:  

"Ocean acidification - Many laboratory and field studies demonstrate growth and developmental improvements in aquatic life in response to higher temperatures and reduced water pH levels. Other research illustrates the capability of both marine and freshwater species to tolerate and adapt to the rising temperature and pH decline of the planet’s water bodies. " 
 

Based on this reference 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214014419

 

Which actually says this: 

"Despite catastrophic losses over the last few decades and the recent listing of 20 additional coral species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, these diverse responses provide hope that the world’s remaining corals may still contain the adaptive ingredients needed to survive."

 

So if you stay in the "bubble" and pull fragments of data and quotes out of context the NIPCC report can be reassuring to some people.    But if you actually read the science, there is a different conclusion.    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have only to look at the state of the world's coral reefs to see the fallacy in the "marine life can adapt" argument. Just Google "how much coral is dead" if you can stand to face the terrible truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was "science" that told us of the Coming Ice Age in the 70s, that the earth revolves around the sun (even Galileo supported this theory), that the world would have an inadequate food supply by 2000, etc.  It was science that resulted in Rachel Carson becoming a famous person when she convinced the world to ban DDT.  She won all kinds of accolades for "arguably" saving some birds.   However, none of those same "experts" will even talk about the more than 100 million children who have died as the result of malaria which could have been prevented by using inexpensive DDT.

 

When on a long HAL cruise we had a fascinating conversation with a renown scientist (Astronomer) about so-called "science" in todays world.  He had some major issues with his profession and explained that much of science is now driven by money.  For example, if I want to do research into the theory of a coming Ice Age, it will be very difficult for me to get a Grant in the current political atmosphere.  But if apply for a Grant to do research into Global Warming....there will be all kinds of opportunities to obtain money.  It is the same in Astronomy where most of the Grants go to those who want to support populist theories.   If I want to get a grant to prove the Big Bang Theory there are numerous opportunities.  But apply for a Grant to disprove the Big Bang Theory and it is unlikely  I would find funding or be able to get the necessary time on major telescopes..

 

One can surmise that the "idiots" who claimed that the earth revolved around the sun or that the earth was not flat were called "deniers."  As to climate, there is a true scientific "fact"  (not consensus) that the earth's climate has been constantly changing from the beginning of the planet.   The debate of how man impacts the changing climate will continue to go on for as long as there are Grants available to support various theories.  If I were to make $10 Billion in Grants available to prove that humans do not adversely impact climate change  there would quickly be lots of new papers supporting that idea...and somebody would then publish an article calling it "scientific consensus."   Likewise, I suppose one could start giving out grants to prove that cruise ships are good for the environment and there would soon be a new consensus (among those seeking grants).

 

The next time you want to think about climate and science just consider our modern weather forecasting.  In what other profession can you be wrong about half the time and still have a job :).

 

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 11:02 AM, Hawaiidan said:

Wait  a  second   Horses and cows emit methane  and California I making laws that require that they emit 20% less in  several years...They are even proposing "fitting" the devices on the animal......  It it that crazy here

. Rest assured  nothing you can do will ever satisfy  the radicals...who would like to see people eliminated as they cause so much damage by their existence.

Knowing this, It would be fair to conclude that a staunch environmentalist, knowing he is a human  and knowing humans are so destructive, would choose to kill himself for the sake of the environment.     Sounds good to me.1961-donald-dingue-00.png.a6ed9ed7097d2e5d7f69dcc4e357422c.png

Man, where to start on your self-absorbed American Consumer Ignorance. How about here....96% of all mammals on Earth are now humans and their livestock. Over 90% of all birds on Earth are the one humans raise to eat. You can alleviate  your self-aggrandizing  ignorance by actually reading a factual book. Once you've learned that the current human condition on planet Earth is unsustainable you will become a better and more enlightened citizen and maybe not embarrass yourself so much on social media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 6:33 PM, IslandThyme said:

When I want to travel, I choose to buy carbon offsets whenever possible. And since I enjoy travelling by cruise ship, I wish the cruise industry would set up an offset program for those of us who feel similarly.

If this is of such significance to you, why hold back just because the cruise industry does not do the "calculations" for you.  Contact a carbon offset non-profit and either make a fixed donation to offset your travel footprint at a level you are comfortable giving, or ask them to calculate a "cruise day" average and contribute at that level.  There is no reason to forego paying for a carbon offset merely because the cruise line doesn't calculate it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

If this is of such significance to you, why hold back just because the cruise industry does not do the "calculations" for you.  Contact a carbon offset non-profit and either make a fixed donation to offset your travel footprint at a level you are comfortable giving, or ask them to calculate a "cruise day" average and contribute at that level.  There is no reason to forego paying for a carbon offset merely because the cruise line doesn't calculate it for you.

 

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

If this is of such significance to you, why hold back just because the cruise industry does not do the "calculations" for you.  Contact a carbon offset non-profit and either make a fixed donation to offset your travel footprint at a level you are comfortable giving, or ask them to calculate a "cruise day" average and contribute at that level.  There is no reason to forego paying for a carbon offset merely because the cruise line doesn't calculate it for you.

Thank you for this posting!   I will do some more in-depth research on this.  There is one that piqued my interest, since it has to do with using the offsets to support efforts to assist Native American projects for better living conditions for those we ignore.   I already donate to a local cause which takes basic supplies out to an isolated part of the Navajo reservation (the US government has deliberately cut off utilities to try to force them to move to another piece of the rez, but they refuse).  If I could use offsets from a vacation or even my daily commute to assist, I'm there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a great idea, and well worth the time it will take to identify reliable and verifiable sources of offsets. That doesn't detract from my wish that the cruise lines would step up and take this to heart.

 

It's easy to be cynical about the influences on scientific practice today. It's much harder to do what it takes to protect and enable scientists in their quest to do pure science, uninfluenced by the forces that seek to shape the outcome of research through funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Hlitner said:

It was "science" that told us of the Coming Ice Age in the 70s, that the earth revolves around the sun (even Galileo supported this theory), that the world would have an inadequate food supply by 2000, etc....  

 

The next time you want to think about climate and science just consider our modern weather forecasting.  In what other profession can you be wrong about half the time and still have a job :).

 

Hank

 

 

Wrong half the time? Sounds like you're talking about the weather man? Climate is a different ball game, my friend.

 

For a brief period, researchers noted and reported a small amount of climate cooling. It was vastly overplayed by the media. Since then, climate change deniers have been dragging up this dead issue.

 

“Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. Press reports at the time did not accurately reflect the scientific literature. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth underwent global warming throughout the 20th century and continues to warm.

 

By the 1970s, scientists were becoming increasingly aware that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945, as well as the possibility of large scale warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases. In the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, less than 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[1] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[3] The actual increase in this period was 29%....”

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

 

 

The IPCC's analysis is based on the collective work of thousands of scientists and researchers. The evidence is so vast, and the quality of the analysis is so strong, that the National Academy of Science endorses the scientific consensus.

 

My suggestion is that you should do research before offering your opinion.

 

FYI, early in the climate change debate, several reputable scientists raised intelligent objections. Since then, climate science has advanced so far that the critics have 'converted' or 'recanted'. So much so that the deniers have to quote fake news. Example...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy

 

 

Edited by HappyInVan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In addition, our local weather forecast is spot on most of the time. We live in farm country and raise cattle and we notice the weather a LOT. It matters to us. We pay attention to it. Weather forecasters do a fabulous job.

But as Happy pointed out, weather is not climate.

Edited by cowmilker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cowmilker said:

In addition, our local weather forecast is spot on most of the time. We live in farm country and raise cattle and we notice the weather a LOT. It matters to us. We pay attention to it. Weather forecasters do a fabulous job.

But as Happy pointed out, weather is not climate.

Yes, 0-72 hour weather forecasting has gotten tremendously more accurate over the last 10-15 years because of super-computer modeling. The same super computers that model potential catastrophic climate impacts due to global warming, you know scientist using their science tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever cruise into Port Said or Alexandria.  I'll guarantee you that the environmental impact of cruising and tourism of a cruise ship pales in comparison to what the Egyptian people do to their own surroundings and their territorial waters. I don't think there is a dumpster or trash can in the entire country. Just throw it into the street and into the Nile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you see someone dump plastic bags in the water do you have an urge to do it too? Or do you try to clean them up so that whales don't die with their stomachs full of plastic?

 

When your kid bites another kid because a classmate bit him, do you condone it? Or do you tell him that it's not the responsible thing to do, and the "he did it first" argument just doesn't cut it?

 

People are known to do a lot of reprehensible things when they think they won't get caught, or that it doesn't matter. But climate change is going to catch us all, no one will be untouched by the ravages of environmental pollution. It's happening on our watch, and future generations, who will face horrendous things that we can only imagine, will judge us very harshly for not making a reasonable effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 1:57 PM, SargassoPirate said:

Ever cruise into Port Said or Alexandria.  I'll guarantee you that the environmental impact of cruising and tourism of a cruise ship pales in comparison to what the Egyptian people do to their own surroundings and their territorial waters. I don't think there is a dumpster or trash can in the entire country. Just throw it into the street and into the Nile.

 

Before you point fingers at others, check your backyard.

 

"Carnival Corp. Agrees To Pay $20 Million For Probation Violation … 

 

But a court-appointed monitor revealed that during the first year of that probation, over 500000 gallons of treated sewage was dumped in protected areas. In fact, after studying a report put together by the monitor, the Miami Herald revealed that the documents indicated there had been over 800 “incidents” during that time frame, 24 of which involved illegally dumping sewage, food waste or oil... "

 

https://cruiseradio.net/carnival-corp-agrees-to-pay-20-million-for-probation-violation/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Before you point fingers at others, check your backyard.

 

"Carnival Corp. Agrees To Pay $20 Million For Probation Violation … 

 

But a court-appointed monitor revealed that during the first year of that probation, over 500000 gallons of treated sewage was dumped in protected areas. In fact, after studying a report put together by the monitor, the Miami Herald revealed that the documents indicated there had been over 800 “incidents” during that time frame, 24 of which involved illegally dumping sewage, food waste or oil... "

 

https://cruiseradio.net/carnival-corp-agrees-to-pay-20-million-for-probation-violation/

 

While I have scorned Carnival Corp and its corporate culture with regards to environmental compliance in several threads over the last month, and have nothing but disdain for their actions, let's investigate the first major statement in that article, which I do accept as being an accurate statement, that "500,000 gallons of treated sewage was dumped" in a protected area.  The bold word is mine.  Without knowing which ships were involved, and what waste water systems are installed on those ships, you cannot say whether or not that particular violation actually harmed anything at all.  The cruise ships I've worked on had "advanced waste water treatment plants" that treated all waste water (what is called "sewage" in the article) to near fresh, clear, drinking water standards, and this was tested by third party testers every month for quality.  Now, if the waste water is clear and devoid of any waste material or bacteria, would the discharge of this water be harmful?  Nope.  However, the law states that no treated waste water can be discharged in protected areas, because not all ships meet the standards of those with AWWTP.  So, while the discharge is illegal, and does show a disdain for environmental regulations, and this needs to be punished, there is no proof that the discharge was harmful to the environment in any way.

 

This is similar to the original Princess violation two years ago, where gray water overflowed to the engine room bilges, and was subsequently discharged as gray water (which it originally was), but not as bilge water, which it became once it entered the engine room bilges.  Bilge water must be processed and monitored during discharge to ensure the legal oil content does not exceed 15ppm (less than one drop in a gallon).  Since the gray water was discharged as gray water, the oil content was not monitored, and therefore there is no record of whether any oil was discharged or not, so no proof that the discharge actually did any harm.  Again, this is a violation of regulations and shows a disregard for environmental stewardship, but you cannot prove it did any harm.

 

Again, let me say that I hold Carnival Corp and all of its subsidiary lines in contempt for their failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations, even when ordered by a court to do so, but I want to point out that while every one of the 800+ violations noted by the auditor teams during the first year of probation is a violation of the law, in many cases there is no proof that the violation actually led to harm to the environment, and I am ardent in my support of marine environment as that's how I earn my living.  This is in marked contrast to seeing visible proof of damage to the environment of patches of floating plastic garbage in rivers and harbors, even in the US.

Edited by chengkp75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Again, let me say that I hold Carnival Corp and all of its subsidiary lines in contempt for their failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations, even when ordered by a court to do so, but I want to point out that while every one of the 800+ violations noted by the auditor teams during the first year of probation is a violation of the law, in many cases there is no proof that the violation actually led to harm to the environment, and I am ardent in my support of marine environment as that's how I earn my living.  This is in marked contrast to seeing visible proof of damage to the environment of patches of floating plastic garbage in rivers and harbors, even in the US.

 

 

Thanks for the long detailed defense of polluting ships. I have to wonder how much harm has been done by ships (cruise and commercial) in third world countries and on the open seas.

 

I guess we will never know since we are unable to measure with certainty the amount of harm. I suppose that that is why HAL got off with a slap on the wrist.

 

In contrast, the University of British Columbia and its contractor received a $2 million fine for a single discharge of ammonia -water.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-university-of-british-columbia-fined-12-million-for-leaking-ammonia/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

Thanks for the long detailed defense of polluting ships. I have to wonder how much harm has been done by ships (cruise and commercial) in third world countries and on the open seas.

 

I guess we will never know since we are unable to measure with certainty the amount of harm. I suppose that that is why HAL got off with a slap on the wrist.

 

In contrast, the University of British Columbia and its contractor received a $2 million fine for a single discharge of ammonia -water.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-university-of-british-columbia-fined-12-million-for-leaking-ammonia/

 

 

I am in no way defending "polluting" ships.  I have worked my entire career at sea, over 45 years, and have worked with the environmental regulations as they came along, and applauded each and every one, no matter how much harder it made my work, as I feel it was warranted.  The maritime industry is one of the most regulated industries in the world, but unfortunately few countries other than the US, Canada, and Europe feel the need to enforce those regulations.  One look at Rio de Janeiro harbor (as was shown during the Olympics) and you will know that most of the pollution in the oceans today come from land and not from ships.  The ships did violations, and were punished for it.  That is the correct thing.  I am merely saying that you can have a violation by discharging pure fresh drinking water, but if you don't do it correctly, it is still a crime, but no harm to the environment has been done.  You seem to fail to understand that Carnival is still subject to potential $1 million/day to $10 million/day fines if they don't meet compliance plan submittal dates or meet benchmarks in compliance by set dates.

 

While I agree with you that the latest fine is lenient, you must look back and see that Carnival Corp, through Princess lines, has been fined repeatedly for 26 years, and it doesn't seem to do anything.  The potential daily fines can become onerous to Carnival if they don't change their way of doing business, and may work better to incentivize them to do so.  If that is so, then the small fine and threat of potential fines worked better to protect the environment than a single fine has done in the past, and a fine that would not be used to aid the environment in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

Thanks for the long detailed defense of polluting ships. I have to wonder how much harm has been done by ships (cruise and commercial) in third world countries and on the open seas.

 

I guess we will never know since we are unable to measure with certainty the amount of harm. I suppose that that is why HAL got off with a slap on the wrist.

 

In contrast, the University of British Columbia and its contractor received a $2 million fine for a single discharge of ammonia -water.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-university-of-british-columbia-fined-12-million-for-leaking-ammonia/

 

 

An ammonia leak at a refrigeration facility is not a laughing matter.  Having worked at several bobsled/skeleton/luge tracks around the world, there is a briefing of all track workers/volunteers on what to do/where to go in the case of a leak of the refrigeration system.  It is deadly pretty darn fast.   Trying to compare that UBC leak with ship pollution doesn't quite scale to me.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • 2019 Cruisers' Choice Destination Awards
      • Celebrity Cruises President and CEO Lisa Lutoff-Perlo invites you to #CrewUpWithWomen
      • 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...