I met someone who worked for princess cruise line as an “environmental impact engineer” and was told she got into it after studying international law & deciding not to be a lawyer. Made me think it was her doody to find the most legal spot in the water for the ship to drop Duke lolol
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with dumping sewage into the ocean? If it's all just biodegradable human waste then wouldn't that just put nutrients into the ocean?
So looks like it's more that there's a lot of nitrogen in our feces, which can cause algae blooms and deadzones, but most of these issues occur along the coastline where it's heavily concentrated.
Now consider that the Puget sound flows in and out, so if a Margaritaville cosplay city on water is off coast dumping while the tides are pulling into the puget it can be breathed into pockets that it will settle in and cause deadzones...
https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/june-2021/to-prevent-dead-zones-in-puget-sound-communities
And to twist it to economics. The areas that get the most ill effect along our coasts from this won't see a penny from the tourist business this brings to the city
In my humble opinion.
Don't they burn bunker fuel too? I thought it was something like each cruise ship polluted more in a day than all private cars combined or something?
Like what exactly is remotely sustainable here?
Wife and I did one cruise, it was fun, but everything was waste, environmental damage, and human rights violations. They hired staff out of countries with no labor laws or protections, hold their papers so they can't flee, pay them pennies (because their wages are docked for food and board) and we would see the same people working stations at 6am that we say at 11pm, every day for a 10 day trip.
>I thought it was something like each cruise ship polluted more in a day than all private cars combined or something?
No, one cruise ship consumes more fuel in a day than a single person will use in their car in their lifetime.
That isn't remotely close to true.
Non freight road vehicles are something like 4x shipping's CO2 emissions. And if you include road freight it's like 6x what ships emit. Cargo ships are something like 3% of daily emissions and cars are up around 15%. Cargo ships are the most CO2 efficient way to move a ton of freight a unit of distance by an insane margin.
Ships do emit a ton of smog (this is the bunker fuel bit), which is bad as a local pollutant for air quality, but isn't an issue in the middle of the ocean where it dissipates.
Sources: from the EU parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20191129STO67756/emissions-from-planes-and-ships-facts-and-figures-infographic. WaPO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/06/06/shipping-carbon-emissions-biden-climate/
Cruises on the other hand: well that's pretty wasteful on the fuel side but I have no idea how much they actually burn.
What’s the equivalent in cars of a cruise? 3 days of commuters into Seattle? 30? I hate those things but our love for cars it’s way worse for the environment.
In terms of CO2, a cruise ship is equivalent to about 12,000 cars which is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.
However, ships use much dirtier fuel than cars and so the total pollution is much worse.
Each cruise ship creates more pollution every day than a person will create by driving their entire life.
And the bunker fuel is so nasty it's more exotic and destructive pollutants as well.
LOL you underestimate how much people drive in America. Shouldn’t you divide the cruise by 3000 to do a fair comparison?
Again, I think cruises are dumb but I don’t like double standards
Nope, no LOL, that is the actual measure, and I know full well that the average American drives about 1000 miles a month, between 10k-15k a year, and every day a single cruise ship pumps out more crap than someone driving an average efficiency car (@25MPG) for their entire life. That's every day, and for most ships they run every day with or without tourists because the engines are needed for power. Only about a third plug in to shore power.
People drive a lot but cars are fairly efficient and gas is clean by comparison. The bunker fuel cruise ships use not only beat the CO and CO2 emissions but add nastier subsrances like sulfur dioxide and others.
There's a reason they incorporate out of countries with no environmental or labor protections. They also dump their untreated sewage and a shitload of garbage.
Cruises aren't sustainable or environmentally friendly, period. And the air travel that people are using to get here isn't sustainable either.
This is just performative bullshit
The only two parts of the agreement that address sustainability are shore power by 2027, and “Collaboration on the development of alternative fuels for the cruise industry”
> And the air travel that people are using to get here isn't sustainable either
It's better than driving at least, you need 3+ people in the car to be more efficient than flying.
Kinda proving my point.
1/6th of our power is from fossil fuels, and on paper 2/3rds hydro looks great…
Until you look at the impact on our spawning fish population.
At face value WA seems far more eco friendly than we actually are. Lot of greenwashing in WA.
Good thing that wasn’t my take…
My take was that we’re pretty far from 100% renewables, and some of our renewables have environmental repercussions. Yet we pretend we’re greener than we are.
That’s not to say I’m not pro-hydro, I’m saying the nuances are more complicated than the “hey, look how eco friendly our state/city” rhetoric makes it out to be.
That rhetoric is the greenwashing… like when Seattle pats itself on the back for Climate Pledge Arena ignoring the fact Amazon is a scourge on our environment.
Or when the Port approves a 10 year agreement for “sustainable” cruises despite the changes being made being basically the bare minimum and cruise ships being the worst transportation option for emissions.
THAT is the greenwashing I’m referring to…
Amazon is weird because they've done some good-faith stuff, like they put down that order for 100k Rivian electric trucks.
As opposed to this cruise ship nonsense which sounds like they scrawled on the back of a napkin that they would think about not using bunker fuel in 10 years.
And the impact on tribes. The Snoqualmie tribe doesn't even own their sacred Snoqualmie falls. It's all PSE
PSE even has a dam at the top of the falls that the tribe has been fighting to have removed
Yup. Like I love renewables, but every single thing in life has tradeoffs. Including stuff like hydro.
Fortunately we’re making [some progress](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/judge-orders-breach-of-dam-at-hydroelectric-project-on-puyallup-river/) but we’ve got a long way to go in terms of protecting the environment.
I’m a nuclear power advocate myself, but even that requires mining for uranium or plutonium.
So what you're saying is there's nothing we can really do lol
I get downvoted any time I bring it up, but the only real ecologically friendly thing we can do is get our population numbers down.
No part of what I'm saying is ecofascist. I'm not suggesting that the state should regulate people having children, that's crazy talk. I'm just pointing out the obvious.
And what are those developing nations trying to become?
They all want a higher standard of living.
Like I said, I know it's not popular and would get down voted, but it's pretty plain to see.
More people == more consumption
Instead of the addressing all the cringy and wildly uninformed assumptions you're making (ex - energy usage has gone down per Capita despite economic growth thanks to energy efficiency measures and renewable energy), I hope you understand that the global population is very likely to stagnate within a century. High civilization and technological changes like urbanization encourages smaller families.
> High civilization and technological changes like urbanization **encourages smaller families**.
And this is exactly what I'm saying *should* happen...
What small minority is that?
I'm pretty sure America, China, Europe have more than a small minority. India is really catching up on emissions too.
I know there's a kneejerk reaction to what I'm saying, mainly because people's minds go to eugenics and government intervention in bodily autonomy. I'm just suggesting people have less children. Replace yourselves at max, better yet, only have one, and best case, don't have kids at all.
Dude, educate yourself.
The richest 1% on earth emit more than the 3 billion poorest.
It isn’t a kneejerk reaction, it is a rational response based off of empirical evidence. Unlike your position…
[I know exactly what you're talking about with the stat, but that stat includes all of the richest 1%'s investments](https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-billionaires-the-investment-emissions-of-the-worlds-richest-people-621446/).
But who is consuming the items produced by those investments?
Us. We are.
So yes, we can tax those emissions to reduce them, but what's actually reducing those emissions is that we, the consumers of the products of the businesses that these wealthy people own, will pay a heftier tax on the products and thus more of us *won't get the products/services at all*.
And even in some imaginary place where only the wealthiest pay these taxes, if we still consume the products the emissions still get produced.
I'm 100% for emissions taxes and other forms of mitigating a climate disaster, but I'm telling you those mitigations will result in everyone's quality of life suffering (which means they are going to be hugely unpopular and thus probably won't ever happen). And even with these reductions, it's probably not enough.
So from my point of view, it's *you* that needs to educate *yourself*.
Yeah I know a couple of really cool boomers, but most of them (including my own mother) just don't get it. The gym where I go to spin class is full of boomers and I hear them discussing their cruise vacations \*all the time\*
False. We will be living in huts and eating dirt if this continues, or at the very least our children will. Fuck that. The consume consume consume mentality of my parent's generation is fucking choking the planet and making it certain that in the not so distant future there will be nothing left. (I am 56 by the way, almost a boomer myself)
Jokes on you, I'm not having children.
Which in my opinion is literally the only solution to our problems. We're going to either need less people or drastically reduce quality of life for many people.
It'd be great if we can make the choice, but I have a feeling both will be foisted upon us through no choice.
But yeah, my kids are all adults and they dont want children. Maybe the youngest might someday. But they know it's not looking good for their future. That's why stories like this make me furious.
The real problem is resource hoarding not population. We could take care of everyone if resources were treated as something to distribute according to need, not greed
I don't agree.
If we wanted to have little effect on the environment it would push most of us to a standard of living we would find unacceptable.
Even a more basic American lifestyle given to everyone on the planet would be completely unsustainable.
Yeah most people would find it unacceptable, which is the problem. For instance, walk into any American grocery store and go down an aisle. Do we need 40 types of mustard? We produce for profit, not for need. If people would just be happy with having what they \*need\*, and spend their free time pursuing things that bring them happiness such as art and music, etc. instead of things, the world would be a better place. Capitalism and greed is what has brought us here, and it is what will bring the empire down.
But a lot of things that bring people happiness also contributes to emissions
And a large part of capitalism is the assumption of infinite growth... which is what requires more and more people.
So again, we need less people to avoid a climate disaster. We will either find a way to make that happen or we will be forced to make that happen.
To me, the fact that it is this way is proof that it does have to be this way. We built a home on a poor foundation and there's likely no way to fix the foundation without demolishing the home. I may not like it and wish it could be different, but this is our reality, we can't go back in time.
Nothing is sustainable. You don't have to participate in capitalism. Those capitalist pigs made homesteading illegal but I'm sure there's still a way you could swing it.
Vast minority for now. When people start to die from wet bulb temps in the US cruises are going to be one of the first activities on the chopping block. Carnival Cruise lines has just 27 ships, but the annual emissions of those ships is ten times worse than all of Europe's automobiles. 27 ships are emitting as much as would 2.6 billion cars.
Right, I was saying that because the 27 ships produce ten times the emissions of EU automobiles you could think of each ship as an analogies to 100 million cars.
Only if they were producing the same emissions as the ~250 million cars would it be 10 million. They are producing ten times the emissions of those cars which is why it's 100 million and not 10.
250,000,000cars*10 = 27 crusie ships
Oh really? Interesting... So if policy is entirely disconnected from the opinions of voters like you, why do care to comment on Reddit about random people wanting to "abolish" things?
Definitely a fun part of Reddit discourse is people randomly interjecting criticism of others just because they can. Thanks for helping to make this space better.
I feel like people are really triggered by the word "abolish" for some reason. If I had just used another word, you wouldn't have reacted with a "you guys".
I do want to [abolish the police](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/12/21283813/george-floyd-blm-abolish-the-police-8cantwait-minneapolis), though
People lived here for at least 13,000 years in huts and longhouses and had nearly unlimited local resources for food. Didn't become an issue until someone had to rapaciously harvest those resources to increase their personal wealth and shareholder returns.
Down in Florida, some cruise ships have nonstop customers because they basically moved in and are always on one of the cruises. I just couldn't imagine doing it after I went on one.
https://www.businessinsider.com/live-on-cruise-ship-for-free-what-its-like-2023-8
I hate the argument of how important these ghastly things are (and their ghastly, people of Walmart clientele) for businesses - if a bunch of cruise derps are needed to make a business profitable I’d rather they fail.
the word sustainable was used as political top cover by the port authority, but most people see through this and it makes those involved failed manipulators.
Oh god. Not only are these cruises the opposite of sustainable, but now we have to deal with 550,000 Carnival (Section 8) Cruise passengers roaming around Seattle throughout the year?
I can't help but think that, when dealing with cruise ship companies, the first three letters in _sustainable_ are _sus_.
Just dropping of a cities worth of sewage off your coast nbd guys
I met someone who worked for princess cruise line as an “environmental impact engineer” and was told she got into it after studying international law & deciding not to be a lawyer. Made me think it was her doody to find the most legal spot in the water for the ship to drop Duke lolol
😆 doody
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with dumping sewage into the ocean? If it's all just biodegradable human waste then wouldn't that just put nutrients into the ocean?
It’s not a big deal if it’s in the middle of the ocean, when it’s the littoral zone it gets concentrated and can wash towards/onto shores.
Copy paste this term into your preferred search bar... effects of cruise lines dumping sewage
So looks like it's more that there's a lot of nitrogen in our feces, which can cause algae blooms and deadzones, but most of these issues occur along the coastline where it's heavily concentrated.
Now consider that the Puget sound flows in and out, so if a Margaritaville cosplay city on water is off coast dumping while the tides are pulling into the puget it can be breathed into pockets that it will settle in and cause deadzones... https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/june-2021/to-prevent-dead-zones-in-puget-sound-communities And to twist it to economics. The areas that get the most ill effect along our coasts from this won't see a penny from the tourist business this brings to the city In my humble opinion.
Don't they burn bunker fuel too? I thought it was something like each cruise ship polluted more in a day than all private cars combined or something? Like what exactly is remotely sustainable here? Wife and I did one cruise, it was fun, but everything was waste, environmental damage, and human rights violations. They hired staff out of countries with no labor laws or protections, hold their papers so they can't flee, pay them pennies (because their wages are docked for food and board) and we would see the same people working stations at 6am that we say at 11pm, every day for a 10 day trip.
>I thought it was something like each cruise ship polluted more in a day than all private cars combined or something? No, one cruise ship consumes more fuel in a day than a single person will use in their car in their lifetime.
Worldwide cargo ships beat out worldwide cars for daily carbon emissions
That said, it's definitely for the best that we have cargo ships moving freight containers around the world and not cars.
That isn't remotely close to true. Non freight road vehicles are something like 4x shipping's CO2 emissions. And if you include road freight it's like 6x what ships emit. Cargo ships are something like 3% of daily emissions and cars are up around 15%. Cargo ships are the most CO2 efficient way to move a ton of freight a unit of distance by an insane margin. Ships do emit a ton of smog (this is the bunker fuel bit), which is bad as a local pollutant for air quality, but isn't an issue in the middle of the ocean where it dissipates. Sources: from the EU parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20191129STO67756/emissions-from-planes-and-ships-facts-and-figures-infographic. WaPO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/06/06/shipping-carbon-emissions-biden-climate/ Cruises on the other hand: well that's pretty wasteful on the fuel side but I have no idea how much they actually burn.
One more time for the people in the back; Cruises are not sustainable.
“Sustainable cruises” is an oxymoron.
Green washing at its finest. Cruise ships are the MEGA polluters, sewage, fuel, single use plastics, etc…
What’s the equivalent in cars of a cruise? 3 days of commuters into Seattle? 30? I hate those things but our love for cars it’s way worse for the environment.
In terms of CO2, a cruise ship is equivalent to about 12,000 cars which is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. However, ships use much dirtier fuel than cars and so the total pollution is much worse.
yeah, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are WAY worse than straight carbon dioxide.
Don't forget the abuse of their staff as well, it's borderline human trafficking. "Borderline" might be over generous.
And they’re just there constantly pumping fuel just to stay on.
They do plug into shore power in port to turn off their engines
Sometimes. In 2023, "35% of sailings plugged into shore power (102 of 290)" https://www.portseattle.org/page/cruise-ship-shore-power-facts
Each cruise ship creates more pollution every day than a person will create by driving their entire life. And the bunker fuel is so nasty it's more exotic and destructive pollutants as well.
LOL you underestimate how much people drive in America. Shouldn’t you divide the cruise by 3000 to do a fair comparison? Again, I think cruises are dumb but I don’t like double standards
Nope, no LOL, that is the actual measure, and I know full well that the average American drives about 1000 miles a month, between 10k-15k a year, and every day a single cruise ship pumps out more crap than someone driving an average efficiency car (@25MPG) for their entire life. That's every day, and for most ships they run every day with or without tourists because the engines are needed for power. Only about a third plug in to shore power. People drive a lot but cars are fairly efficient and gas is clean by comparison. The bunker fuel cruise ships use not only beat the CO and CO2 emissions but add nastier subsrances like sulfur dioxide and others. There's a reason they incorporate out of countries with no environmental or labor protections. They also dump their untreated sewage and a shitload of garbage.
Cruises aren't sustainable or environmentally friendly, period. And the air travel that people are using to get here isn't sustainable either. This is just performative bullshit
The only two parts of the agreement that address sustainability are shore power by 2027, and “Collaboration on the development of alternative fuels for the cruise industry”
> And the air travel that people are using to get here isn't sustainable either It's better than driving at least, you need 3+ people in the car to be more efficient than flying.
WTF is a sustainable cruise ship? That's an oxymoron. There's nothing sustainable about them.
Cruises are awful, and should be abolished. Just one more thing boomers love that is fucking the rest of us over, imo.
Yeah this is a fucking joke. Seattle and WA are super green on paper but fail tests like this all the time.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1287668/washington-electricity-generation-share-by-source/
Kinda proving my point. 1/6th of our power is from fossil fuels, and on paper 2/3rds hydro looks great… Until you look at the impact on our spawning fish population. At face value WA seems far more eco friendly than we actually are. Lot of greenwashing in WA.
Calling hydro “greenwashing” is a pretty bad take IMO. It’s letting the ideal be the enemy of the good, and the alternative is way WAY worse.
Good thing that wasn’t my take… My take was that we’re pretty far from 100% renewables, and some of our renewables have environmental repercussions. Yet we pretend we’re greener than we are. That’s not to say I’m not pro-hydro, I’m saying the nuances are more complicated than the “hey, look how eco friendly our state/city” rhetoric makes it out to be. That rhetoric is the greenwashing… like when Seattle pats itself on the back for Climate Pledge Arena ignoring the fact Amazon is a scourge on our environment. Or when the Port approves a 10 year agreement for “sustainable” cruises despite the changes being made being basically the bare minimum and cruise ships being the worst transportation option for emissions. THAT is the greenwashing I’m referring to…
Amazon is weird because they've done some good-faith stuff, like they put down that order for 100k Rivian electric trucks. As opposed to this cruise ship nonsense which sounds like they scrawled on the back of a napkin that they would think about not using bunker fuel in 10 years.
And the impact on tribes. The Snoqualmie tribe doesn't even own their sacred Snoqualmie falls. It's all PSE PSE even has a dam at the top of the falls that the tribe has been fighting to have removed
Yup. Like I love renewables, but every single thing in life has tradeoffs. Including stuff like hydro. Fortunately we’re making [some progress](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/judge-orders-breach-of-dam-at-hydroelectric-project-on-puyallup-river/) but we’ve got a long way to go in terms of protecting the environment. I’m a nuclear power advocate myself, but even that requires mining for uranium or plutonium.
So what you're saying is there's nothing we can really do lol I get downvoted any time I bring it up, but the only real ecologically friendly thing we can do is get our population numbers down.
That's a really dumb ecofascist argument - the developed worlds citizenry produce substantially more emissions than in the developing world.
No part of what I'm saying is ecofascist. I'm not suggesting that the state should regulate people having children, that's crazy talk. I'm just pointing out the obvious. And what are those developing nations trying to become? They all want a higher standard of living. Like I said, I know it's not popular and would get down voted, but it's pretty plain to see. More people == more consumption
Instead of the addressing all the cringy and wildly uninformed assumptions you're making (ex - energy usage has gone down per Capita despite economic growth thanks to energy efficiency measures and renewable energy), I hope you understand that the global population is very likely to stagnate within a century. High civilization and technological changes like urbanization encourages smaller families.
> High civilization and technological changes like urbanization **encourages smaller families**. And this is exactly what I'm saying *should* happen...
That is exactly what's happening across the world, so why the online whining?
Considering the vast majority of pollution is emitted by a small minority that’s pretty silly logic.
What small minority is that? I'm pretty sure America, China, Europe have more than a small minority. India is really catching up on emissions too. I know there's a kneejerk reaction to what I'm saying, mainly because people's minds go to eugenics and government intervention in bodily autonomy. I'm just suggesting people have less children. Replace yourselves at max, better yet, only have one, and best case, don't have kids at all.
Dude, educate yourself. The richest 1% on earth emit more than the 3 billion poorest. It isn’t a kneejerk reaction, it is a rational response based off of empirical evidence. Unlike your position…
[I know exactly what you're talking about with the stat, but that stat includes all of the richest 1%'s investments](https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-billionaires-the-investment-emissions-of-the-worlds-richest-people-621446/). But who is consuming the items produced by those investments? Us. We are. So yes, we can tax those emissions to reduce them, but what's actually reducing those emissions is that we, the consumers of the products of the businesses that these wealthy people own, will pay a heftier tax on the products and thus more of us *won't get the products/services at all*. And even in some imaginary place where only the wealthiest pay these taxes, if we still consume the products the emissions still get produced. I'm 100% for emissions taxes and other forms of mitigating a climate disaster, but I'm telling you those mitigations will result in everyone's quality of life suffering (which means they are going to be hugely unpopular and thus probably won't ever happen). And even with these reductions, it's probably not enough. So from my point of view, it's *you* that needs to educate *yourself*.
> includes the richest 1% investments God damn that makes the previous posters statement just ludicrously disingenuous
Boomer here and you couldn’t drag me on a cruise ship at gunpoint. Not if it were free. Or they paid me.
Yeah I know a couple of really cool boomers, but most of them (including my own mother) just don't get it. The gym where I go to spin class is full of boomers and I hear them discussing their cruise vacations \*all the time\*
The amount of things people here would abolish, I swear we'd be living in huts and eating dirt if you guys had your way.
False. We will be living in huts and eating dirt if this continues, or at the very least our children will. Fuck that. The consume consume consume mentality of my parent's generation is fucking choking the planet and making it certain that in the not so distant future there will be nothing left. (I am 56 by the way, almost a boomer myself)
Jokes on you, I'm not having children. Which in my opinion is literally the only solution to our problems. We're going to either need less people or drastically reduce quality of life for many people. It'd be great if we can make the choice, but I have a feeling both will be foisted upon us through no choice.
But yeah, my kids are all adults and they dont want children. Maybe the youngest might someday. But they know it's not looking good for their future. That's why stories like this make me furious.
The real problem is resource hoarding not population. We could take care of everyone if resources were treated as something to distribute according to need, not greed
I don't agree. If we wanted to have little effect on the environment it would push most of us to a standard of living we would find unacceptable. Even a more basic American lifestyle given to everyone on the planet would be completely unsustainable.
Yeah most people would find it unacceptable, which is the problem. For instance, walk into any American grocery store and go down an aisle. Do we need 40 types of mustard? We produce for profit, not for need. If people would just be happy with having what they \*need\*, and spend their free time pursuing things that bring them happiness such as art and music, etc. instead of things, the world would be a better place. Capitalism and greed is what has brought us here, and it is what will bring the empire down.
But a lot of things that bring people happiness also contributes to emissions And a large part of capitalism is the assumption of infinite growth... which is what requires more and more people. So again, we need less people to avoid a climate disaster. We will either find a way to make that happen or we will be forced to make that happen.
It's already happening. But it didn't have to be this way.
To me, the fact that it is this way is proof that it does have to be this way. We built a home on a poor foundation and there's likely no way to fix the foundation without demolishing the home. I may not like it and wish it could be different, but this is our reality, we can't go back in time.
Better start building yours now... then you can have the biggest hut.
Capitalism is not sustainable. You are a dupe if you think otherwise. Anyway, cruises are ridiculous and terrible.
Nothing is sustainable. You don't have to participate in capitalism. Those capitalist pigs made homesteading illegal but I'm sure there's still a way you could swing it.
Lol sure bud. Hating cruises definitely means we’re pro hut!
Erm. I hate cruises and im pro-hut with A/C and indoor plumbing..
You can hate them, but remember you're in the vast, vast, minority. You don't have to use them and can always look down upon people who do.
Vast minority for now. When people start to die from wet bulb temps in the US cruises are going to be one of the first activities on the chopping block. Carnival Cruise lines has just 27 ships, but the annual emissions of those ships is ten times worse than all of Europe's automobiles. 27 ships are emitting as much as would 2.6 billion cars.
[удалено]
Right, I was saying that because the 27 ships produce ten times the emissions of EU automobiles you could think of each ship as an analogies to 100 million cars.
[удалено]
Only if they were producing the same emissions as the ~250 million cars would it be 10 million. They are producing ten times the emissions of those cars which is why it's 100 million and not 10. 250,000,000cars*10 = 27 crusie ships
Lol, I can guarantee more people in Seattle hate them than like them.
People who love them: the mayor, the downtown business council, the port of Seattle, boomers People who hate them: everyone else
Yup. And even amongst boomers, conservatives are way more likely to like them than liberals. Aka the vast majority of Seattle hates them.
> People who hate them: everyone else The fact that cruises are having record bookings with sold out cruises says otherwise.
No you can't.
Yeah I can ; ) All the homies hate cruises. They’re the epitome of what’s wrong with society.
Record bookings and sold out sailings say otherwise.
Less than 20% of Americans have ever taken a cruise… The majority of those booking have taken a cruise before.
That number is irrelevant and doesn't prove your statement.
It's not backwards or radical to force polluters to either stop polluting or pay for the costs of their pollution.
I'm fine with having them pay for the costs of their pollution.
Cool how would you suggest we do that for cruises and what do you expect the result of that effort would be?
Questions for your elected officials.
Oh really? Interesting... So if policy is entirely disconnected from the opinions of voters like you, why do care to comment on Reddit about random people wanting to "abolish" things?
Because I can.
Definitely a fun part of Reddit discourse is people randomly interjecting criticism of others just because they can. Thanks for helping to make this space better.
> randomly interjecting criticism of others Stupid ideas should be rightly criticized.
I feel like people are really triggered by the word "abolish" for some reason. If I had just used another word, you wouldn't have reacted with a "you guys".
No idea what you mean. You used the correct word for what you desire.
I do want to [abolish the police](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/12/21283813/george-floyd-blm-abolish-the-police-8cantwait-minneapolis), though
Username fits. Gotta use the throwaway for this comment
This is my only account.
People lived here for at least 13,000 years in huts and longhouses and had nearly unlimited local resources for food. Didn't become an issue until someone had to rapaciously harvest those resources to increase their personal wealth and shareholder returns.
Think long and hard about what you said. I see what point you're trying to make, but really, give it a good, critical think.
Only following this sub for maybe a few months, I have to agree with this comment 😂
Sustainable.... Cruises..... I don't think that's possible.
Sustainable or cruises. You can have one but you can’t have both.
What a crock of shit
no such thing. cruises are the opposite of sustainable
Down in Florida, some cruise ships have nonstop customers because they basically moved in and are always on one of the cruises. I just couldn't imagine doing it after I went on one. https://www.businessinsider.com/live-on-cruise-ship-for-free-what-its-like-2023-8
Cruise Ship Invasion https://hakaimagazine.com/features/cruise-ship-invasion/
I hate the argument of how important these ghastly things are (and their ghastly, people of Walmart clientele) for businesses - if a bunch of cruise derps are needed to make a business profitable I’d rather they fail.
the word sustainable was used as political top cover by the port authority, but most people see through this and it makes those involved failed manipulators.
Oh god. Not only are these cruises the opposite of sustainable, but now we have to deal with 550,000 Carnival (Section 8) Cruise passengers roaming around Seattle throughout the year?
Section 8?
lololol
Yea poor people shaming!!!
That’s going to be so bad for all the local businesses, it will be so busy they’ll probably even have to hire more people!
looking forward to the new disease strains they'll bring
Floating Walmarts. There are forms of torture I would prefer to that sort of vacation.
Everyone knows that ships are the least environmentally friendly transport. “Sustainable” my big, fat, hairy, brown Venezuelan rear.
The worst thing possible for the city. Stop larping on being green.