Port Botany cruise terminal

[gbenjo]

13 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

offcourse we are .. we anglers and then moved on to explorers navigated the world and founded countries .. and yes you live in one of them 

 the only hazard in botany bay is royal carribean and state gov   but I doubt that it will be built when we protest in great numbers as planned ..  once the climate activist get hold of the pollution they cause they will be there as well and be boycotting royal carribean and other cruise ships who want to destroy any bays around the globe just for there greed  might not happen over night but you can bet they will be out there protesting , considering one ship at port emits almost the same as 200, 000 cars a day of toxic greenhouse gases

 

 

Please confirm with "accurate " truthful supporting data.

 

1. Royal Caribbean is the only cruise line that wants  a cruise terminal

2. One cruise ship emits almost the same amount of toxic greenhouse gases as 200,00 cars.

 

Could you also confirm that the 'claimate" activists  (not a spelling error) will boycott cruising...it will be so good to know that they will not be on any cruises that any of us" real" cruisers may be on. Then again maybe they could glue themselves to the bottom of Botany Bay (just for an hour or so)to help the cause.

[ilikeanswers]

12 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

2. One cruise ship emits almost the same amount of toxic greenhouse gases as 200,00 cars.

 

I am guessing this is the study he is referring to:

 

Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars – study

 

To be fair it does only refer to one gas. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[MicCanberra]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Their boats carried the same amount of people as Arthur Phillip's fleet along with livestock and whatever was needed to start crop production so I think they qualify as ships just as much as anything the ancient Greeks were using. 

 

 

The land bridge wasn't there forever and there were multiple migrations to Australia so at some point someone had to use a boat to get here and from the evidence that has been discovered in South Africa we know the relationship humans have with the sea began far earlier than originally thought and after they used all the coastal resources they started to experiment with boats in order to keep surviving. So in fact humans may have in fact become seafarers long not long after the first humans left Africa. History keeps being rewritten as we learn knew things 😉

So not anglers then.

[Aus Traveller]

1 hour ago, gbenjo said:

 Then again maybe they could glue themselves to the bottom of Botany Bay (just for an hour or so)to help the cause.

A suggestion that made me laugh out loud.

[in rod we trust]

4 hours ago, gbenjo said:

Please confirm with "accurate " truthful supporting data.

 

1. Royal Caribbean is the only cruise line that wants  a cruise terminal

2. One cruise ship emits almost the same amount of toxic greenhouse gases as 200,00 cars.

 

Could you also confirm that the 'claimate" activists  (not a spelling error) will boycott cruising...it will be so good to know that they will not be on any cruises that any of us" real" cruisers may be on. Then again maybe they could glue themselves to the bottom of Botany Bay (just for an hour or so)to help the cause.

told you many times go back and read some of the post you will find your answer if your too lazy to look or search it , its not for me to keep on reposting it  but just for you as your lazy to look  that's probably why you want the terminal as well your just too lazy to go to any other port  other than in your back yard  .. by the way there is a lot of talk about boycotting cruise ships due to there pollution , and protest to be held against them ..  so you might have the whole ship to yourself , your a lucky bugger imagine a whole ship to yourself .. you can pick up chicks with it lol.. 

 

if the cruise ships want to destroy beaches and reefs around the globe just for there greed , then they should be ready for the repercussion of there actions 

https://cruisepassenger.com.au/why-sydneys-cruise-industry-could-be-worth-over-2-billion/

Edited January 11, 2020 by in rod we trust

[Aus Traveller]

9 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

told you many times go back and read some of the post you will find your answer if your too lazy to look or search it , its not for me to keep on reposting it  but just for you as your lazy to look  that's probably why you want the terminal as well your just too lazy to go to any other port  other than in your back yard  

https://cruisepassenger.com.au/why-sydneys-cruise-industry-could-be-worth-over-2-billion/

I don't know what you are trying to prove with this link.

 

Rod, I have been reading your posts and respectfully suggest that you would make your case better if you were not so (dare I say it) rude.

[in rod we trust]

13 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I don't know what you are trying to prove with this link.

 

Rod, I have been reading your posts and respectfully suggest that you would make your case better if you were not so (dare I say it) rude.

 im not rude but when somebody  ask you to post something up time and time again and all they need to do is go back and look it up it gets old real quick ..

 

if I do come across as rude I apologize to him and anybody else as that is not my intention .. cheers

 

that link is for him to read about royal carribean and there intentions and lobbying nsw liberals  to build the port botany terminal for there oasis class ships.. there are other links  as well he can look up that was just a quick one for him to read 

Edited January 11, 2020 by in rod we trust

[Aus Traveller]

19 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

once the climate activist get hold of the pollution they cause they will be there as well and be boycotting royal carribean and other cruise ships who want to destroy any bays around the globe just for there greed  might not happen over night but you can bet they will be out there protesting , considering one ship at port emits almost the same as 200, 000 cars a day of toxic greenhouse gases

The report about pollution from cruise ships refers to Carnival Corporation's 100 cruise ships (not one ship). I do not know how accurate this study is.

 

Carnival Corporation, the world’s largest luxury cruise operator, emitted nearly 10 times more sulphur oxide (SOX) around European coasts than did all  260 million European cars in 2017, a new analysis by sustainable transport group Transport & Environment reveals.

 

Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars – study

Edited January 11, 2020 by Aus Traveller

[SinbadThePorter]

5 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

The land bridge wasn't there forever

 

There has never been a land bridge between Australia and Asia. The closest to it was a gap of about 100km between Timor and northern Australia about 18,000 years ago during the previous glacial maximum.

 

At the time Aboriginals crossed, about 50-60,000 years ago, the sea levels were slightly higher.

 

In either case Australia was over the horizon from the view of someone on the shore of Asia. There was also a longer island hopping route through the Moluccas to New Guinea which probably needed voyages of 50km or less.

 

So to get here Aboriginal ancestors would have had to have boats capable of surviving in the open ocean. There are two purposes for boats, transport and fishing. In early cultures they were used for both.

 

So whatever kind of boats were used to reach Australia they were almost certainly crewed by the people who used them, fishermen (or fisherwomen).

[Aus Traveller]

I am not disagreeing, but debate relies on theories. Dare I quote Wikipedia?

 

There is considerable discussion among archeologists as to the route taken by the first migrants to Australia, widely taken to be ancestors of the modern Aboriginal peoples. Migration took place during the closing stages of the Pleistocene, when sea levels were much lower than they are today. Repeated episodes of extended glaciation during the Pleistocene epoch resulted in decreases of sea levels by more than 100 metres in Australasia. People appear to have arrived by sea during a period of glaciation, when New Guinea and Tasmania were joined to the continent of Australia.

 

The continental coastline extended much further out into the Timor Sea, and Australia and New Guinea formed a single landmass (known as Sahul), connected by an extensive land bridge across the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait. Nevertheless, the sea still presented a major obstacle so it is theorised that these ancestral people reached Australia by island hopping. Two routes have been proposed. One follows an island chain between Sulawesi and New Guinea and the other reaches North Western Australia via Timor.Rupert Gerritsen has suggested an alternative theory, involving accidental colonisation as a result of tsunamis. The journey still required sea travel however, making them amongst the world's earlier mariners.

[By The Bay]

35 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

The report about pollution from cruise ships refers to Carnival Corporation's 100 cruise ships (not one ship). I do not know how accurate this study is.

 

Carnival Corporation, the world’s largest luxury cruise operator, emitted nearly 10 times more sulphur oxide (SOX) around European coasts than did all  260 million European cars in 2017, a new analysis by sustainable transport group Transport & Environment reveals.

 

Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars – study

And that is only "around European coasts". And one company.

Edited January 11, 2020 by By The Bay

[SinbadThePorter]

13 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I am not disagreeing, but debate relies on theories.

 

But what you quote is pretty much exactly what I said.🤔

[Aus Traveller]

7 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said:

But what you quote is pretty much exactly what I said.🤔

Additional research usually adds more theories to the debate. It has also been suggested/proven that ancestors of the Aborigines came in a couple of different waves of migration.

[gbenjo]

1 hour ago, in rod we trust said:

told you many times go back and read some of the post you will find your answer if your too lazy to look or search it , its not for me to keep on reposting it  but just for you as your lazy to look  that's probably why you want the terminal as well your just too lazy to go to any other port  other than in your back yard  .. by the way there is a lot of talk about boycotting cruise ships due to there pollution , and protest to be held against them ..  so you might have the whole ship to yourself , your a lucky bugger imagine a whole ship to yourself .. you can pick up chicks with it lol.. 

 

if the cruise ships want to destroy beaches and reefs around the globe just for there greed , then they should be ready for the repercussion of there actions 

https://cruisepassenger.com.au/why-sydneys-cruise-industry-could-be-worth-over-2-billion/

Thanks Rod (but I will pass on the trusting you ) for providing the link, I assume, you are basing your "dislike"  of RCCL upon.  Having read it I cannot find any reference to Royal being the only cruise line that wants the new terminal and certainly no mention of them being a financial backer for the project as you alledge. Granted the Govt. may seek financial support from the cruise lines as,  I assume, would be the case in any venture like this  but in the end it is the Port Authority / Govt building the terminal, not RCCL. You persist in ignoring the considerable financial boost such a terminal would give to the local economy while focusing only on the assumed destruction of Botany Bay. I am reasonably comfortable thinking , in this day and age, that any terminal that will be built ,will be built under strict guidelines and controls..once they decide where to build it of course.

As for me being too lazy to travel to embark on a cruise, I like many other true legitimate cruisers on this forum, have traveled to various parts of the world to join a cruise. As you have also chosen to ignore, I have said a couple of times that to build a terminal in Newcastle, Wollongong, Eden or any other location outside of Sydney makes no practical, logistic ,common  or any other sense The cruise industry is after all, a business and it would make no business sense to do so.  PS I would, if need be, travel to such ports , not a problem.

By the way, as for your suggestion that if I had the ship to myself (because of your boycotts) I could pick up chicks..how could I ...I would be the only guest on the ship?????? FYI  I am also more than happily married so have no interest in such an activity. I even let my wife make her own decisions on what and where she wants to go for a holiday...its 2020.

[The_Big_M]

On 1/10/2020 at 8:53 PM, in rod we trust said:

offcourse we are .. we anglers and then moved on to explorers navigated the world and founded countries .. and yes you live in one of them 

 the only hazard in botany bay is royal carribean and state gov   but I doubt that it will be built when we protest in great numbers as planned ..  once the climate activist get hold of the pollution they cause they will be there as well and be boycotting royal carribean and other cruise ships who want to destroy any bays around the globe just for there greed  might not happen over night but you can bet they will be out there protesting , considering one ship at port emits almost the same as 200, 000 cars a day of toxic greenhouse gases

 

 

 

You really shouldn't let delusions form due to a general bias against shipping.

[gbenjo]

6 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

You really shouldn't let delusions form due to a general bias against shipping.

Yes, He certainly talks a lot of ship doesn't he?

[Russell21]

26 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Yes, He certainly talks a lot of ship doesn't he?

Yes, he's full of it.

[MicCanberra]

12 minutes ago, Russell21 said:

Yes, he's full of it.

They certainly only has the one angle and seems to be fishing for support.

[lyndarra]

2 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

They certainly only has the one angle and seems to be fishing for support.

Please, no bait(ing) here.

[MicCanberra]

2 hours ago, lyndarra said:

Please, no bait(ing) here.

Got you hooked.😋

[Aus Traveller]

24 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

Got you hooked.😋

I would say that the fishing Rod has a few people hooked.😁

[MicCanberra]

17 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I would say that the fishing Rod has a few people hooked.😁

Trawling perhaps.

[SinbadThePorter]

I don't have a horse in this race since being a Brisbanite I can look forward to a world class Cruise Terminal at the end of year and I will no longer have to fly to Sydney to get on decent ships. But I have to say that Rod has a point. If a cruise terminal at Yarra Bay goes ahead it does represent a loss of increasingly rare undeveloped foreshore in the Sydney region and that's not something anybody should be happy with.

 

Yet those that say a third cruise terminal is desperately needed are also correct. Perhaps the terminal will make up for the loss of foreshore, maybe not. Since this is a cruise website it's obvious which view holds sway.

 

However it's pretty poor form to mock someone who holds a legitimate point of view and it disappoints me.

 

Anyway it's very early days in the approval process and the fate of Yarra Bay is not decided. It may turn out to be Molineaux Point. Who knows? The best we can hope for is that the NSW government doesn't cave to various monied interests and treat Yarra Bay as the default simply because any other option is inconvenient to the big end of town.

[ilikeanswers]

9 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said:

Yet those that say a third cruise terminal is desperately needed are also correct. Perhaps the terminal will make up for the loss of foreshore, maybe not. Since this is a cruise website it's obvious which view holds sway.

 

I question whether a third terminal is that necessary. I worry about Sydney putting too many eggs in the cruising basket. There are lots of examples in the world that if you prioritise cruising to the detriment of other tourism it ends up being less beneficial for the locals. Also I feel the real priority in the tourism should be the development of regional tourism. As farming becomes less productive the people living in regional areas are going to need something else to supplement their incomes and tourism is so far proving to be a good accompaniment. And while it is all good to have Australians visiting these areas it would be even better to get more international visitors to go beyond the Blue Mountains. I think it would be more beneficial to get visitors spending more time exploring Australia off the cruise ship rather than on a cruise ship. 

[gbenjo]

1 hour ago, Aus Traveller said:

I would say that the fishing Rod has a few people hooked.😁

Some could say a bent rod

 

11 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I question whether a third terminal is that necessary. I worry about Sydney putting too many eggs in the cruising basket. There are lots of examples in the world that if you prioritise cruising to the detriment of other tourism it ends up being less beneficial for the locals. Also I feel the real priority in the tourism should be the development of regional tourism. As farming becomes less productive the people living in regional areas are going to need something else to supplement their incomes and tourism is so far proving to be a good accompaniment. And while it is all good to have Australians visiting these areas it would be even better to get more international visitors to go beyond the Blue Mountains. I think it would be more beneficial to get visitors spending more time exploring Australia off the cruise ship rather than on a cruise ship. 

 However Sydney for the most part is not a port of call, instead is a port to start/ finish a cruise so the “local” tourism occurs before or after a cruise. It would follow then that the more passengers, especially from overseas, who are in Sydney would increase the demand for local tours etc. The more people the better the strike rate.