Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge

J. Clarke writes:
If you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.

Interesting. MOre info is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

The ship is decommissioned and apparently was never cost effective. I
thought from your description that it might still be sailing, making a
more, uh, interesting target for pirates to chase after than the usual
chests full of pieces-of-eight. Arrrr!

Jer wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is, however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind
the ships, which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?

Careful, most of the impetus for wilderness, ocean, etc. preservation
come from people who want to *visit* it. If you manage to cut them off,
they'll stop caring.

On 06 Feb 2007 20:14:45 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:

J. Clarke writes:
If you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.

Interesting. MOre info is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

The ship is decommissioned and apparently was never cost effective. I
thought from your description that it might still be sailing, making a
more, uh, interesting target for pirates to chase after than the usual
chests full of pieces-of-eight. Arrrr!

No, the only civilian nuclear powered ships still in service are
Russian, one cargo ship and several icebreakers.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Jer wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is, however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind
the ships, which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?

Careful, most of the impetus for wilderness, ocean, etc. preservation
come from people who want to *visit* it. If you manage to cut them off,
they'll stop caring.


That's a good point, and one that's certainly not lost on me. Having
had my sea legs now for the better part of my life, I'm more an ocean
person than wilderness, and pollution from ocean vessels is a subject of
some familiarity. Fixing shaft seals, cooling joints, and bilge valves
while still at sea is something of a niche job providing a personal, up
close perspective of what happens below the water line. Most tourists
are clueless, and most of those choose to remain so because they don't
want to know the true cost of their decisions. They'd rather sit around
the sun pool working on their tan lines, sipping umbrella drinks,
waiting for the supper bell, all while believing their recreation is the
only thing important. After all, that's what the marketing dweebs at
the cruise company having been selling them, they bought it, so why
wouldn't they choose to avoid knowing the seedy side of their personal
indulgences? Mind you, I don't blame them for wanting to remain
ignorant, I blame them for choosing to. Heaven forbid they feel
responsible for their own contributions. Maybe you're right, maybe it
is too much to expect these people to actually care about their own
futures and that of their kids.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:57 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:23:33 -0600, Jer wrote:

The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared
about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the
first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant
struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be
compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment
try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that
doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my **** parade.

I realize that this is the standard whinge of the tree huggers.
But lets take a look at your complaint:
The idea that the industry is broken flies in the face of reality.
'Nuff said about that.

Hardly.

Then demonstrate it.

The idea that if any industry cared about the problems that have been
found means you wouldn't have roads, cars, trains, radio, TV, food
from more than 10 miles away, even the computer you use to spread your
untinking crap. All the industries that delevered these things started
out polluting much, much more than they do today. According to you,
none of them cared, and the problems wouldn't have happened. But a
little thought would show that they had no way to even understand the
environmental problems.

They didn't, we did. Due to the pressure, they've cleaned up their act
quite a bit. I'm thankful for that.

Well, that's not what you were trying to say before, is it?

And your **** parade isn't exactly of concern ot the vast majority of
people in the world.

That's part of the problem.

Possibly.
Or that you don't count for much.

If you don't want to cruise, then don't.
However, as I asked before, do you drive a car?

I don't own one now but I used to. I used it quite a bit at first, but
as alternative choices were developed, as little as I needed to - now,
no longer need to own one at all. When I need to get somewhere that a
car is a viable choice, either rent one or a taxi works well.

Ah! So you still pollute. I thought so.
It's easy to blame others when you do the same thing, isn't it?

Because if you do, you need to put yourself on your own **** list.

Where did I advocate cars not be used? Answer: I didn't. Cars are
also a problem, and the prudent use of them would be tremendously
helpful given the nature of that industry and the mindsets of those
involved. This is difficult to do in many urban areas that don't have a
mature public transit system, so, supporting the development of one AND
using it would also be tremendously helpful.

When you rant about pollution, do you really think you can say one
sort is bad, and another sort is OK?

--
San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom admitted to having
an affair with his friend's
wife while he was divorcing
Fox News anchor Kimberly
Guilfoyle. The city may never
forgive him. If there's one
thing they can't stand, it's
somebody who's in bed with
Fox News.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:35:19 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!



How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?

Necessary?
How many *things* are necessary?
Using "necessary" as a criteria is absurd.
Are *you* really necessary?

--
San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom admitted to having
an affair with his friend's
wife while he was divorcing
Fox News anchor Kimberly
Guilfoyle. The city may never
forgive him. If there's one
thing they can't stand, it's
somebody who's in bed with
Fox News.

Jer wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Jer wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is, however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind
the ships, which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?

Careful, most of the impetus for wilderness, ocean, etc. preservation
come from people who want to *visit* it. If you manage to cut them
off, they'll stop caring.


That's a good point, and one that's certainly not lost on me. Having
had my sea legs now for the better part of my life, I'm more an ocean
person than wilderness, and pollution from ocean vessels is a subject of
some familiarity. Fixing shaft seals, cooling joints, and bilge valves
while still at sea is something of a niche job providing a personal, up
close perspective of what happens below the water line. Most tourists
are clueless, and most of those choose to remain so because they don't
want to know the true cost of their decisions. They'd rather sit around
the sun pool working on their tan lines, sipping umbrella drinks,
waiting for the supper bell, all while believing their recreation is the
only thing important. After all, that's what the marketing dweebs at
the cruise company having been selling them, they bought it, so why
wouldn't they choose to avoid knowing the seedy side of their personal
indulgences? Mind you, I don't blame them for wanting to remain
ignorant, I blame them for choosing to. Heaven forbid they feel
responsible for their own contributions. Maybe you're right, maybe it
is too much to expect these people to actually care about their own
futures and that of their kids.

I'm extremely puzzled why conservation isn't a core *conservative*
value, for precisely that reason.

Even though I don't *have* any kids, I'd *still* prefer there to be
humanity on Earth in 200 years. Or 2000 years. (Not *just* on Earth;
but I'd really like the home planet to remain habitable.) Preferably,
if I really get my way, rather few of them, but still running a
high-tech civilization.

Recently, under the guise of global warming skepticism, lots of
conservatives have been behaving as if they don't think humanity can act
on a bit enough scale to impact the planet, but that's just stupid; they
can't *really* believe that.

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:35:19 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.
Nuclear power!


How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?

Necessary?
How many *things* are necessary?
Using "necessary" as a criteria is absurd.
Are *you* really necessary?



Someone has to educate the clueless.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:57 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:23:33 -0600, Jer wrote:

The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared
about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the
first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant
struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be
compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment
try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that
doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my **** parade.
I realize that this is the standard whinge of the tree huggers.
But lets take a look at your complaint:
The idea that the industry is broken flies in the face of reality.
'Nuff said about that.
Hardly.

Then demonstrate it.

Okay. Buying a cruise ticket contributes to global pollution. See?
That wasn't difficult at all, was it? Now, having said that, there's a
whole line of reasoning behind that statement, but you don't seem
interested in knowing what that is, so I'm not wasting my time trying to
educate someone that chooses to remain clue free.

The idea that if any industry cared about the problems that have been
found means you wouldn't have roads, cars, trains, radio, TV, food
from more than 10 miles away, even the computer you use to spread your
untinking crap. All the industries that delevered these things started
out polluting much, much more than they do today. According to you,
none of them cared, and the problems wouldn't have happened. But a
little thought would show that they had no way to even understand the
environmental problems.
They didn't, we did. Due to the pressure, they've cleaned up their act
quite a bit. I'm thankful for that.

Well, that's not what you were trying to say before, is it?
And your **** parade isn't exactly of concern ot the vast majority of
people in the world.
That's part of the problem.

Possibly.
Or that you don't count for much.
If you don't want to cruise, then don't.
However, as I asked before, do you drive a car?
I don't own one now but I used to. I used it quite a bit at first, but
as alternative choices were developed, as little as I needed to - now,
no longer need to own one at all. When I need to get somewhere that a
car is a viable choice, either rent one or a taxi works well.

Ah! So you still pollute. I thought so.
It's easy to blame others when you do the same thing, isn't it?

Are you advocating conservationists stay shuttered? I've managed to
reduce my carbon footprint to a level far beyond most others. All it
takes is a reasonable and honest evaluation of one's energy use. Then,
modify one's lifestyle predicated on leaving the future cleaner that
when you found it. One caveat though... you have to actually give a
**** about not just yourself, but someone else too. It's okay to use
children for the someone else parts, they matter more than you and I do.

Because if you do, you need to put yourself on your own **** list.
Where did I advocate cars not be used? Answer: I didn't. Cars are
also a problem, and the prudent use of them would be tremendously
helpful given the nature of that industry and the mindsets of those
involved. This is difficult to do in many urban areas that don't have a
mature public transit system, so, supporting the development of one AND
using it would also be tremendously helpful.

When you rant about pollution, do you really think you can say one
sort is bad, and another sort is OK?



The use of any energy pollutes, you and I both know this. The issue is
the quality of one's choices predicated on one's values. AFAIC, if
you're not reducing your carbon footprint as much as you can you're not
trying hard enough, which puts your value system in question. An
education can improve one's value system immeasurably. Sometimes that
education offers a choice of choosing not to do something - like using a
cruise tug.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Jer wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Jer wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is, however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air
behind the ships, which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?

Careful, most of the impetus for wilderness, ocean, etc. preservation
come from people who want to *visit* it. If you manage to cut them
off, they'll stop caring.


That's a good point, and one that's certainly not lost on me. Having
had my sea legs now for the better part of my life, I'm more an ocean
person than wilderness, and pollution from ocean vessels is a subject
of some familiarity. Fixing shaft seals, cooling joints, and bilge
valves while still at sea is something of a niche job providing a
personal, up close perspective of what happens below the water line.
Most tourists are clueless, and most of those choose to remain so
because they don't want to know the true cost of their decisions.
They'd rather sit around the sun pool working on their tan lines,
sipping umbrella drinks, waiting for the supper bell, all while
believing their recreation is the only thing important. After all,
that's what the marketing dweebs at the cruise company having been
selling them, they bought it, so why wouldn't they choose to avoid
knowing the seedy side of their personal indulgences? Mind you, I
don't blame them for wanting to remain ignorant, I blame them for
choosing to. Heaven forbid they feel responsible for their own
contributions. Maybe you're right, maybe it is too much to expect
these people to actually care about their own futures and that of
their kids.

I'm extremely puzzled why conservation isn't a core *conservative*
value, for precisely that reason.

That certainly makes two of us.


Even though I don't *have* any kids, I'd *still* prefer there to be
humanity on Earth in 200 years. Or 2000 years. (Not *just* on Earth;
but I'd really like the home planet to remain habitable.) Preferably,
if I really get my way, rather few of them, but still running a
high-tech civilization.

I'm absolutely certain technology will continue it's march to a level we
can only talk about today. The rub is humanity being able to stick
around long enough to benefit from it's existence. There is one other
thing I'm certain of... population growth cannot continue at it's
current rate. As a member of the Sierra Club, my point is best
explained by the wealth of information presented on our website.


Recently, under the guise of global warming skepticism, lots of
conservatives have been behaving as if they don't think humanity can act
on a bit enough scale to impact the planet, but that's just stupid; they
can't *really* believe that.

That has always been the Failing Truth - some really do believe that.
The 'global' word in global climate change is used for all the right
reasons - we're all in this together.



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'