Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge

In article ,
says...
Okay. Buying a cruise ticket contributes to global pollution. See?
That wasn't difficult at all, was it?


Is there anything you can buy that /doesn't/ contribute to global
pollution?

Even walking to the shop has an insignificant, but not non-zero,
contribution.

--
Alan LeHun

In article , zzuns002
@lehun.clara.co.uk says...
not non-zero

bugger....

--
Alan LeHun

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.


SO, you would just toss the cruise industry. What's next? Cars, farm
machinery, Steel mills, semiconductor manufacture? We have a LOT of
mouths to feed, and people to keep happy. I suppose we could return to
a primitive agrarian society, but we could only support a small
percentage of the world's current population. Are you willing to
shuffle off this life to make room for that kind of future?

I have been on several cruises, and it appeared to me that the cruise
ships are pretty much run in compliance with the rules, and with
rational concern for the environment, except for the plume of diesel
smoke trailing behind the ship. Still, I rather suspect that the city
buses in large cities do more for particulate pollution than all the
cruise ships in the world, and they do it every day.

Ron Hunter 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.


SO, you would just toss the cruise industry. What's next? Cars, farm
machinery, Steel mills, semiconductor manufacture? We have a LOT of
mouths to feed, and people to keep happy. I suppose we could return to
a primitive agrarian society, but we could only support a small
percentage of the world's current population. Are you willing to
shuffle off this life to make room for that kind of future?

You and I are already on our way out... will we have done what we can to
leave this place cleaner than when we found it? OTOH, net-zero
population growth is also a big ticket item for me, and I can easily see
not many are paying attention to that either. No, I don't advocate
returning to the stone age (although starting over had been the proffer
of some). More efficient use of all resources, which may (or at times
should) include not using them at all. People hew and cry when they
feel their wallets getting pinched with the price of energy. Well,
doing something stupid is supposed to be painful. That's also a good
reason to stop doing it.


I have been on several cruises, and it appeared to me that the cruise
ships are pretty much run in compliance with the rules, and with
rational concern for the environment, except for the plume of diesel
smoke trailing behind the ship. Still, I rather suspect that the city
buses in large cities do more for particulate pollution than all the
cruise ships in the world, and they do it every day.

Ah yes, the age ol' cop-out, make one thing look better by making
something else look worse. Doesn't work with me, especially since I've
been 'below' and seen the truth. Tell ya what, next time you're
cruising, ask the staff to take you below to the bilge area. If they
take you to the engine room, then they're hiding something, and they're
depending on your continued ignorance to proffer their dirty little
secret. Yes, air pollution is one thing, but ocean pollution from
cruise ships doesn't source in the light of day. Between ports, take a
3am walk along the stern rail, lower a clean bucket into the ship's
draft. After you've collected your sample, fill a 12oz glass and drink
it (that little bit of sea water won't hurt you). Don't want to? Okay,
leave the glass sit for a day. Afterward, look at it, especially in the
bottom. What do you see?

The buses where I come from all burn CNG now. An excellent improvement.
Any bus still burning diesel is owned by someone that don't give a ****.


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

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:28 -0600, Jer wrote:

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.

Buying just about anything contributes to global pollution.

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.

Don't even think that because I see you as being "over the top" means
I don't do my share.
And that's a common impression peoiple like you give: that somehow
you're morrally superior.
Get over yourself.

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.

"As much as you can"?
Obviously, that's not you, since you use a computere for this,when you
obviously don't need to.
Hyperbole doesn't work well, as a rule. The idea that, if I don't do
"as much as I can", then my value system is questionable is a
judgement you must be careful with, because you obviously fail
yourself.
I have no problem with being for a cleaner world; the problem I have
is with people like you who set high goals, then castigate others for
not meeting them, while failing themselves.
Shrieking that others are unclean while being unclean yourself does
your cause more harm than good.

--
Massachusetts' former governor
Mitt Romney said Tuesday he will
announce his candidacy for the
GOP nomination for president next
week. He's a Mormon. It's not
expected to hurt him as long as
Rudy Giuliani is the candidate
with three wives.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:20 -0600, Jer wrote:

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.

And yet, you've managed to **** off more people than you've converted.
On the whole, you're doing more damage than good.

--
Massachusetts' former governor
Mitt Romney said Tuesday he will
announce his candidacy for the
GOP nomination for president next
week. He's a Mormon. It's not
expected to hurt him as long as
Rudy Giuliani is the candidate
with three wives.

In article , 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.

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.
And the Liberal truely couldn't beleive that we as insignificant humans can
have much if any impact on how a planets natural warming and cooling cycles
behave? We had nothing to do with the multitudes of ice ages and warmings
that the Earth has seen.

Jer wrote:
Ron Hunter 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.


SO, you would just toss the cruise industry. What's next? Cars, farm
machinery, Steel mills, semiconductor manufacture? We have a LOT of
mouths to feed, and people to keep happy. I suppose we could return
to a primitive agrarian society, but we could only support a small
percentage of the world's current population. Are you willing to
shuffle off this life to make room for that kind of future?

You and I are already on our way out... will we have done what we can to
leave this place cleaner than when we found it? OTOH, net-zero
population growth is also a big ticket item for me, and I can easily see
not many are paying attention to that either. No, I don't advocate
returning to the stone age (although starting over had been the proffer
of some). More efficient use of all resources, which may (or at times
should) include not using them at all. People hew and cry when they
feel their wallets getting pinched with the price of energy. Well,
doing something stupid is supposed to be painful. That's also a good
reason to stop doing it.


Sometimes a bit of pain is necessary. I am in the process of replacing
my lighting with more efficient fluorescent, and LED, lights. I am
replacing the ones that stay on most, such as nightlights, and other
lights that are almost always on. Currently, there are inadequate
substitutes for incandescent lights for some applications (3 way lamp
bulbs). While this change will probably not make a significant impact
on my electricity bill, I find the light more pleasant, and applied
across the whole population, might even result in building fewer new
power plants.


I have been on several cruises, and it appeared to me that the cruise
ships are pretty much run in compliance with the rules, and with
rational concern for the environment, except for the plume of diesel
smoke trailing behind the ship. Still, I rather suspect that the city
buses in large cities do more for particulate pollution than all the
cruise ships in the world, and they do it every day.

Ah yes, the age ol' cop-out, make one thing look better by making
something else look worse. Doesn't work with me, especially since I've
been 'below' and seen the truth. Tell ya what, next time you're
cruising, ask the staff to take you below to the bilge area. If they
take you to the engine room, then they're hiding something, and they're
depending on your continued ignorance to proffer their dirty little
secret. Yes, air pollution is one thing, but ocean pollution from
cruise ships doesn't source in the light of day. Between ports, take a
3am walk along the stern rail, lower a clean bucket into the ship's
draft. After you've collected your sample, fill a 12oz glass and drink
it (that little bit of sea water won't hurt you). Don't want to? Okay,
leave the glass sit for a day. Afterward, look at it, especially in the
bottom. What do you see?


I don't think any cruise line would allow passengers into the
engineering spaces, although this would certainly be interesting. NOT
going to dangle a line into the wake of a ship going 25 knots, thanks.
And I wouldn't drink sea water. Definitely not wholesome, even if taken
from miles from the wake of a ship!

The buses where I come from all burn CNG now. An excellent improvement.
Any bus still burning diesel is owned by someone that don't give a ****.

GMAN wrote:
In article , 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.

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.
And the Liberal truely couldn't beleive that we as insignificant humans can
have much if any impact on how a planets natural warming and cooling cycles
behave? We had nothing to do with the multitudes of ice ages and warmings
that the Earth has seen.

We might be exacerbating the problem. Just how much, or whether, is a
bit of a controversy. I suspect we aren't helping, but I have faith in
the designer of the system.

Ron Hunter wrote:
Jer wrote:
Ron Hunter 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.


SO, you would just toss the cruise industry. What's next? Cars,
farm machinery, Steel mills, semiconductor manufacture? We have a
LOT of mouths to feed, and people to keep happy. I suppose we could
return to a primitive agrarian society, but we could only support a
small percentage of the world's current population. Are you willing
to shuffle off this life to make room for that kind of future?

You and I are already on our way out... will we have done what we can
to leave this place cleaner than when we found it? OTOH, net-zero
population growth is also a big ticket item for me, and I can easily
see not many are paying attention to that either. No, I don't
advocate returning to the stone age (although starting over had been
the proffer of some). More efficient use of all resources, which may
(or at times should) include not using them at all. People hew and
cry when they feel their wallets getting pinched with the price of
energy. Well, doing something stupid is supposed to be painful.
That's also a good reason to stop doing it.


Sometimes a bit of pain is necessary. I am in the process of replacing
my lighting with more efficient fluorescent, and LED, lights. I am
replacing the ones that stay on most, such as nightlights, and other
lights that are almost always on. Currently, there are inadequate
substitutes for incandescent lights for some applications (3 way lamp
bulbs). While this change will probably not make a significant impact
on my electricity bill, I find the light more pleasant, and applied
across the whole population, might even result in building fewer new
power plants.

I've not used incandescents in years, all lights here are LED. For
those interested in this particular issue...

http://www.onebillionbulbs.com




I have been on several cruises, and it appeared to me that the cruise
ships are pretty much run in compliance with the rules, and with
rational concern for the environment, except for the plume of diesel
smoke trailing behind the ship. Still, I rather suspect that the
city buses in large cities do more for particulate pollution than all
the cruise ships in the world, and they do it every day.

Ah yes, the age ol' cop-out, make one thing look better by making
something else look worse. Doesn't work with me, especially since
I've been 'below' and seen the truth. Tell ya what, next time you're
cruising, ask the staff to take you below to the bilge area. If they
take you to the engine room, then they're hiding something, and
they're depending on your continued ignorance to proffer their dirty
little secret. Yes, air pollution is one thing, but ocean pollution
from cruise ships doesn't source in the light of day. Between ports,
take a 3am walk along the stern rail, lower a clean bucket into the
ship's draft. After you've collected your sample, fill a 12oz glass
and drink it (that little bit of sea water won't hurt you). Don't
want to? Okay, leave the glass sit for a day. Afterward, look at it,
especially in the bottom. What do you see?


I don't think any cruise line would allow passengers into the
engineering spaces, although this would certainly be interesting. NOT
going to dangle a line into the wake of a ship going 25 knots, thanks.
And I wouldn't drink sea water. Definitely not wholesome, even if taken
from miles from the wake of a ship!

Sometimes, you have to grease the staff to get below deck. I've dangled
many times - in fact, it's a primary reason I'm aboard - that and pics
from below. I'm a diver, a little sea water won't hurt anyone, or just
let it settle in the bottom of the glass.


The buses where I come from all burn CNG now. An excellent
improvement. Any bus still burning diesel is owned by someone that
don't give a ****.




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