Do you feel guilty cruising on environmental grounds?

[sverigecruiser]

3 hours ago, SelectSys said:

You can't assume that people in other parts of the world cause an impossible problem and must be left behind in terms of opportunities.  Technology, really human creativity, can change/improve leading to more people being well off.   The history of the world is that economic growth isn't a zero sum game - I must win at your expense.

 

I don't think that I understand what you mean. Are you saying that it should be possible for everyone on Earth to live like we do in "the rich world" is we use technology and human creativity?

 

[sfaaa]

4 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

. We steal their trees and their fish supplies because we have run out and they're too poor to secure their borders. We have caused irreversible damage and we are extremely slow to adapt to the "new normal" (I am so over that phrase but I don't know what else to call it). 

 

Come again? Steal? How can we steal someone's trees and fish supplies unless their own governments enter into some commercial arrangements and open their borders to do business in return for monetary considerations. That's international trade and commerce, nothing to do with stealing.

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, sfaaa said:

Come again? Steal? How can we steal someone's trees and fish supplies unless their own governments enter into some commercial arrangements and open their borders to do business in return for monetary considerations. That's international trade and commerce, nothing to do with stealing.

 

Pretty easy actually, you just enter someone's waters illegally fish as much as you can before you get caught. Many countries do this along the African coast, around the Pacific Islands even around Eastern Russia. The problem is the countries being stolen from do not have the manpower or equipment to properly patrol their waterways so fishing boats from Spain will nip into Senegal's water do some fishing then cross into Ghana do some fishing then enter international waters where they can't be caught and onwards back to Spain to sell the fish to the cannaries. The government of Spain despite all the complaints filed against their boats does nothing to stop or punish the perpetrator because they know there is not enough fish in their own waters to supply their own industry otherwise the canned fish industry would collapse The biggest perpetrator however is China. Their fishing boats are equipped with full military weapons so they can fight off the locals who try to kick them out of their waters. As for the trees again it comes down to illigal logging. Countries like Romania again don't have the man power or equipment to patrol their forests so you have organised crime gangs cut down a bunch of trees and ship them to companies like IKEA who say without this supply they could never keep up the production of their furniture as there is not enough plantation trees so nobody complains or stops cheap furniture companies like IKEA from doing this because like fishing these industries could not survive without the input of illegally procured resources.

Edited October 27, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[BlueRiband]

Anyone who genuinely feels that cruise ships negatively impact the environment really should consider patronizing only sailing vessels or other green-powered craft.  "I know it's bad for the environment and I feel guilty doing it but it's a great travel value for the money so I'll keep sailing on diesel ships until something better comes along."   Yes, have it both ways.   Take the moral high ground and whine about how bad it is while making excuses to keep taking part in the ruinous activity.

[dkjretired]

11 hours ago, SelectSys said:

 

 

 

 

Actually EVs don't necessarily mandate new powerplants.  Electrical demand peaks in the day and early evening.  Electrical load drops off considerably at night and the existence of EVs to charge over night can actually result in power plants and the electric grid being run more efficiently.  My electric utility's cheapest electricity rates are over night if you have an EV to charge.  

 

Totally disagree, its just common sense that millions of EVs are going to increase the demand for electricity.   It may be cheaper if you charge overnight but that doesn't decrease the demand.   Also, when those millions charge their cars overnight the costs will not be so cheap as they will raise the prices.   

[ReneeFLL]

It never even occurred to me to feel guilty so no I don't and I still won't.

[sfaaa]

Being woke, openly feeling ashamed and condemn your past are apparently a very cool and fashionable thing in 2020.

[c-boy]

self employed emotional flogging .

[Toofarfromthesea]

2 hours ago, sfaaa said:

Being woke, openly feeling ashamed and condemn your past are apparently a very cool and fashionable thing in 2020.

 

I've heard it called virtual signalling porn.

[Mary229]

8 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

I've heard it called virtual signalling porn.

I think you mean Virtue signaling.  

[Aquahound]

3 hours ago, sfaaa said:

Being woke, openly feeling ashamed and condemn your past are apparently a very cool and fashionable thing in 2020.

 

In that case, I am not cool nor fashionable at all!  😉

[cruizergal70]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

I've heard it called virtual signalling porn.

Major eyeroll at using the phras "virtue signalling." Everyone has their opinions and ideas (i.e. their virtues). Any viewpoint is, in essence, virtue signalling. So, you're doing it also.

[SelectSys]

14 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I have witnessed resource scarcity in my own country, there are towns where families share bath water and flush once a day because they have that little water supply. It's not pessimism it is the new normal for a lot of people...  Keeping people in poverty is how we ended up with our throw away economy of fast fashion, deliberate obsoletion and places to dump our so called recyclables. We steal their trees and their fish supplies because we have run out and they're too poor to secure their borders. We have caused irreversible damage and we are extremely slow to adapt to the "new normal" (I am so over that phrase but I don't know what else to call it). As countries like China and India get into middle class status it is just going to mean more cars on the road, more trees chopped down, more meat consumed and more plastics produced. I admire your optimism but I think you underestimate the scale of the problem of you think a cruise ship using LNG is going to significantly make a difference to the environmental problems of the world 😳. The solutions we need have to be grander than this. 

 

 

Much scarcity is caused by human choices.  We have water rationing in California at the same time we are giving subsidized water to farmers to grow rice and other water intensive crops in very arid climates.  I wouldn't be surprised if similar things happen in Australia.

 

I don't get your poverty argument and throw away products.

 

Things always appear slow in the moment and perhaps irreparable.  Where I grew up in Seattle, a major fresh water lake was totally polluted.  A concentrated effort was made to clean it up and now salmon have returned and the situation is way better - even as population in the area skyrocketed. https://citylifestyle.com/seattle-wa/articles/life-and-culture/lake-washington-cleanup   The air was way more polluted when I moves to CA in the late 1970's than it is today.  A college friend from Pasadena used to say, "I don't trust air I can't see!"

 

I agree that cruise ships won't make a significant difference.  Same where I live in California.  The state can be 100% green and it won't impact the world environment one bit.  The claim by our leadership is that it will drive others to make a difference.  Personally I am doubtful as the environment will be driven more by decisions made in India, China and Africa.  Do they care what California thinks?

 

I am glad you appreciate my optimism.  It helps keep me sane.  BTW - I also hate the "new normal" as the only constant really is change and change seems to be accelerating. 

 

10 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Are you saying that it should be possible for everyone on Earth to live like we do in "the rich world" is we use technology and human creativity?

 

 

Exactly.  It's not an overnight thing, but I believe it is possible to raise living standards dramatically.  China has proved this although not while being environmentally sensitive nor democratic.  

 

8 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Pretty easy actually, ... The problem is the countries being stolen from do not have the manpower or equipment to properly patrol their waterways so fishing boats... As for the trees again it comes down to illigal logging. Countries like Romania again don't have the man power or equipment to patrol their forests so you have organised crime gangs cut down a bunch of trees and ship them to companies 

 

I totally agree that this is a huge problem.  The one you didn't mention is illegal mining.  This is big in Brazil and other places.  Heck this even happens in California.  Some people here are mining for gold on a small scale and many of these use mercury separate the ore and simply dump it on the ground.

 

7 hours ago, BlueRiband said:

Anyone who genuinely feels that cruise ships negatively impact the environment really should consider patronizing only sailing vessels or other green-powered craft... Take the moral high ground and whine about how bad it is while making excuses to keep taking part in the ruinous activity.

 

I don't think too many people on this site feel guilty.  I assume there is some impact to my travel, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

 

3 hours ago, dkjretired said:

 

Totally disagree, its just common sense that millions of EVs are going to increase the demand for electricity.   It may be cheaper if you charge overnight but that doesn't decrease the demand.   Also, when those millions charge their cars overnight the costs will not be so cheap as they will raise the prices.   

 

Demand for electricity increases, but this does not necessarily mean many more powerplants, just that they are used more efficiently by operating at higher output for more hours.  The future of power in California is that everyone pays a real time price based on supply and demand.  The idea is that your car will be plugged in when you aren't driving and that the car is smart enough  to know when to charge based on your driving profile/plans.

 

2 hours ago, sfaaa said:

Being woke, openly feeling ashamed and condemn your past are apparently a very cool and fashionable thing in 2020.

 

That is certainly true for many in California.  It is quite a fascinating phenomena to observe.  People are apologizing for all kinds of things these days.  I have first hand experienced corporate shame sessions this past year.

[Mary229]

6 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

Much scarcity is caused by human choices.  We have water rationing in California at the same time we are giving subsidized water to farmers to grow rice and other water intensive crops in very arid climates.  I wouldn't be surprised if similar things happen in Australia.

 

 

The farmers may say else.  They might say that the state has diverted too much water to the burgeoning population centers of unchecked human habitations.  Just saying.....there are always two sides to an argument.  We do need farmers, we do need food, we really don't need more subdivisions

[SelectSys]

18 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

The farmers may say else.  They might say that the state has diverted too much water to the burgeoning population centers of unchecked human habitations.  Just saying.....there are always two sides to an argument.  We do need farmers, we do need food, we really don't need more subdivisions

 

Of course farmers say something else as they are living off of grandfathered water rights based on agreements made long ago.

 

I am not sure about Texas, but the water usage in California is 50% natural flow/environment, 40% agriculture and 10% urban.  

https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/

 

From a economic impact perspective, those "unchecked human habitations" contribute way more economically than agriculture uses as the GDP contribution to California is only about 3% of total output.  Not a very efficient usage of 80% of the state's water from my opinion.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-gdp-by-industry/

 

I enjoy living in my house in the suburbs.  I want others to enjoy this lifestyle as well if they want.  Should all the younger generation or new residents be forced into small apartments?  Where I live development is restricted and house prices are very high.  Bad news for the young who are just getting started. 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by SelectSys

[Mary229]

@selectsys. I was just saying.  All of our dogma is subjective.  Environmental science is just like economics - a lot of moving parts

[sverigecruiser]

23 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

 

Exactly.  It's not an overnight thing, but I believe it is possible to raise living standards dramatically.  China has proved this although not while being environmentally sensitive nor democratic.  

 

What have they proved if they haven't been environmentally sensitive? What I said was that it's a problem for the environment if the living standards dramatically shall be raised in poor countries. I don't say that poor people don't deserve to have their standard raised but for the environment it's a problem.   

[SelectSys]

43 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

What have they proved if they haven't been environmentally sensitive? What I said was that it's a problem for the environment if the living standards dramatically shall be raised in poor countries. I don't say that poor people don't deserve to have their standard raised but for the environment it's a problem.   

 

Perhaps a freer society will do this better.  Personally I am willing to accept environmental change if people are lifted out of poverty and have access to a healthier life.

[sfaaa]

Living standards are already very high in many poor countries. The dictators, army generals, warlords and their cronies are all living very comfortable, healthy lives on par with first world standard thanks to our generous western foreign aid, loan and grant assistance programs. But of course this is all news to Thunberg and her loyal followers when she screamed How Dare You at the world and those evil cruise lines.

Edited October 27, 2020 by sfaaa

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, SelectSys said:

I don't get your poverty argument and throw away products.

 

Essentially someone has to be in a state of poverty for us to have all our cheap disposable goods that elevate our standard of living. My point was our environmentally unfriendly economy keeps just as many people in poverty. If you want $1 shirts and $50 cabinets you have to accept a portion of the world population need to stay poor otherwise if their wages rise the prices of our products will rise and if they rise to be unaffordable to people in our country that decreases our standard of living. You just can't have everything😕. 

[SelectSys]

10 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Essentially someone has to be in a state of poverty for us to have all our cheap disposable goods that elevate our standard of living. My point was our environmentally unfriendly economy keeps just as many people in poverty. If you want $1 shirts and $50 cabinets you have to accept a portion of the world population need to stay poor otherwise if their wages rise the prices of our products will rise and if they rise to be unaffordable to people in our country that decreases our standard of living. You just can't have everything😕. 

 

I guess where we differ is that I believe that progress is possible and it's not a zero sum proposition necessitating a permanent underclass.  Maybe this is just part of my general optimism!  

 

An example showing how capital can substitute for labor in the garment industry and change the need for cheap labor.

https://www.deviceplus.com/trending/sewbot-in-the-clothing-manufacturing-industry/

 

"For companies like Chinese clothing manufacturer Tianyuan Garments Company, who produces clothing for Adidas and Armani, this automated sewing technology has allowed them to open their newest factory in Arkansas, not China...

 

Using robotics makes the cost of producing a t-shirt in the U.S. comparable to one that is produced overseas. For example, in Bangladesh the labor cost to produce a denim shirt is about $0.22. If made by U.S. workers, that labor cost jumps to $7.47, but with a robotic production line, it’s just $0.33 per t-shirt."

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, SelectSys said:

Exactly.  It's not an overnight thing, but I believe it is possible to raise living standards dramatically.  China has proved this although not while being environmentally sensitive nor democratic.  

 

But the flip side of this is that Africans lose valuable farm land because China buys it up to supply their own population who now demand more meat in their diet. So again someone has to stay poor so the other can raise their standard of living. 

 

2 hours ago, SelectSys said:

I totally agree that this is a huge problem.  The one you didn't mention is illegal mining.  This is big in Brazil and other places.  Heck this even happens in California.  Some people here are mining for gold on a small scale and many of these use mercury separate the ore and simply dump it on the ground.

 

But my point was that we already live in an age of scarce resources. If India's 1.3 billion decide they want to eat canned fish where realistically is it going to come from? If plantation wood is currently not enough for one company like Ikea to keep up with demand what happens if a population like Indonesia wants Ikea furniture? Unless you know a way to defy the laws of physics and make the finite infinite I just don't see how everyone can live the same resource heavy standard of living without eventually destroying the Earth. 

[ilikeanswers]

3 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

I guess where we differ is that I believe that progress is possible and it's not a zero sum proposition necessitating a permanent underclass.  Maybe this is just part of my general optimism!  

 

An example showing how capital can substitute for labor in the garment industry and change the need for cheap labor.

https://www.deviceplus.com/trending/sewbot-in-the-clothing-manufacturing-industry/

 

"For companies like Chinese clothing manufacturer Tianyuan Garments Company, who produces clothing for Adidas and Armani, this automated sewing technology has allowed them to open their newest factory in Arkansas, not China...

 

Using robotics makes the cost of producing a t-shirt in the U.S. comparable to one that is produced overseas. For example, in Bangladesh the labor cost to produce a denim shirt is about $0.22. If made by U.S. workers, that labor cost jumps to $7.47, but with a robotic production line, it’s just $0.33 per t-shirt."

 

Great more potential waste and now Bangladesh could lose a whole industry😂. But at least America will regain a manufacturing industry. Winners and losers as always. 

[SelectSys]

1 minute ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

But the flip side of this is that Africans lose valuable farm land because China buys it up to supply their own population who now demand more meat in their diet. So again someone has to stay poor so the other can raise their standard of living. 

 

 

But my point was that we already live in an age of scarce resources. If India's 1.3 billion decide they want to eat canned fish where realistically is it going to come from? If plantation wood is currently not enough for one company like Ikea to keep up with demand what happens if a population like Indonesia wants Ikea furniture? Unless you know a way to defy the laws of physics and make the finite infinite I just don't see how everyone can live the same resource heavy standard of living without eventually destroying the Earth. 

 

I just don't buy into the limits of growth which you seem to think is necessary.  Resource scarcity and doom have been vogue for a long time and the predictions so far haven't come true.  

 

I grew up with "The Population Bomb" and "Soylent Green." Before that Thomas Malthus preached the limits of growth back in the 1700's.  Peak oil has proven to be a bust.

 

You make the assumption that materials and technology are static.  The floors in my house are all made out of bamboo.  Ikea is already making furniture this way.  This is way more scalable and sustainable than Baltic birch.  

https://www.ikea.com/us/en/search/products/?q=bamboo

 

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't possible.  I certainly didn't envision many things in our world even 20-30 years ago.  

 

 

[SelectSys]

16 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Great more potential waste and now Bangladesh could lose a whole industry😂. But at least America will regain a manufacturing industry. Winners and losers as always. 

 

You miss the point that shirts would be more available to all.  You view the world as a static, zero sum game.  I see it differently and think Bangladeshis aren't doomed to being poor and serve the "rich world" as a permanent underclass.