Are our beloved cruiseships contributing to global warming and if so by how much?

[That sinking feeling]

5 hours ago, tip said:

Two Things:

 

1.  Watch “The Big Bang Theory” or “Young Sheldon” (U.S. television sitcoms) and you will no doubt recognize Sheldon Cooper’s mother.

2.  Do you also believe that the Earth is flat?

You are meant to say three things when you start with two things.

 

It's a Spanish inquisition dont you know.

[That sinking feeling]

And yes the earth is flat. It's a disc. And if you reach the end you will just fall off.

[Toofarfromthesea]

Anyone who believes the climate change stuff and still cruises, flys, and heats their home with fossil fuels is outing themselves as hypocrites.  As in SO MANY things:

 

NEVER listen to the words.

 

ALWAYS watch the actions.

 

Last I heard, those Oxford students who DEMANDED their college immediately divest from fossil fuel companies haven't taken up the college head's offer to shut off the central heating in their quarters.

[DarrenM]

I am a hypocrite. Absolutely. Love cruising and not stopping.

[DarrenM]

But I also try to be as low carbon as possible most if the time.

 

Denying man made climate change is idiotic.

[lenquixote66]

8 hours ago, That sinking feeling said:

And yes the earth is flat. It's a disc. And if you reach the end you will just fall off.

According to Kyrie Irving the earth is flat.

[DarrenM]

If the earth is flat I am Donald Trump

[Joebucks]

On 1/30/2020 at 3:13 PM, That sinking feeling said:

Now that's were we differ. I wasnt saying people shouldn't cruise. We all just need to be more aware and try to be as carbon neutral as possible.

 

I accept I am a hypocrite and as guilty as the next person.

 

My point was aimed at those that seem to think there isn't an issue. I suspect they are same people that believe the earth is flat or that it was created 5000 years ago.

 

We all still have to live and have the right to enjoy this life and not revert back to the stone age. 

 

That there is the problem with the social justice culture we have. "Be as carbon neutral as possible" sounds very noble, but what does that really quantify? Everyone wants to enjoy their luxuries, developments from bulldozed forests, travel, etc. But what are we really ready to do except for "asking others to be responsible"? Textbook political nonsense.

[Toofarfromthesea]

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

 

That there is the problem with the social justice culture we have. "Be as carbon neutral as possible" sounds very noble, but what does that really quantify? Everyone wants to enjoy their luxuries, developments from bulldozed forests, travel, etc. But what are we really ready to do except for "asking others to be responsible"? Textbook political nonsense.

 

Yet the elites flout the very things they advocate for.  Like the candidates supporting the Green Nude Eel while piling up massive numbers of private plane hours.  But that's OK because they offset them by making payments to the protection racket called 'carbon offsets'.  It is all flummery.

[RocketMan275]

8 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Yet the elites flout the very things they advocate for.  Like the candidates supporting the Green Nude Eel while piling up massive numbers of private plane hours.  But that's OK because they offset them by making payments to the protection racket called 'carbon offsets'.  It is all flummery.

Carbon offsets are the modern equivalent of 'indulgences' sold by the church in medieval times.  

 

One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death.

 

Purchasing carbon offsets and indulgences enriched the seller and allowed the purchaser to feel better about their sins.

[Cruzaholic41]

LOL at “Green Nude Eel.”  😂

[ilikeanswers]

3 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Carbon offsets are the modern equivalent of 'indulgences' sold by the church in medieval times.  

 

One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death.

 

Purchasing carbon offsets and indulgences enriched the seller and allowed the purchaser to feel better about their sins.

 

There is one critical difference between indulgences and carbon offsets. Indulgences were a monopoly whereas with carbon offsets there is a wide variety from different providers. If you do your research you can in fact have carbon offsets that actually have a positive effect and are not just scams or projects that cause more harm than good. But it really comes down to the purchaser making the effort of researching their options and not just mindlessly ticking a box on a form.

 

What Are Carbon Offsets

[RocketMan275]

10 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

There is one critical difference between indulgences and carbon offsets. Indulgences were a monopoly whereas with carbon offsets there is a wide variety from different providers. If you do your research you can in fact have carbon offsets that actually have a positive effect and are not just scams or projects that cause more harm than good. But it really comes down to the purchaser making the effort of researching their options and not just mindlessly ticking a box on a form.

 

What Are Carbon Offsets

Yes, but the critical similarity is their ineffectiveness.  Just like indulgences, they are sold to those who feel guilty and the profits go to those who scam the gullible.  

[ilikeanswers]

1 minute ago, RocketMan275 said:

Yes, but the critical similarity is their ineffectiveness.  Just like indulgences, they are sold to those who feel guilty and the profits go to those who scam the gullible.  

 

Ineffective is perhaps an exaggeration. Their impact is minimun and is no substitue to big industry changes but if you choose the right programs it can have a positive impact albeit a small one. Carbon offsets are not a scam in themselves but the can be used as a scam. You just have to research carefully to make sure your money is going to a program that will have the greatest impact.

[RocketMan275]

1 minute ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Ineffective is perhaps an exaggeration. Their impact is minimun and is no substitue to big industry changes but if you choose the right programs it can have a positive impact albeit a small one. Carbon offsets are not a scam in themselves but the can be used as a scam. You just have to research carefully to make sure your money is going to a program that will have the greatest impact.

You mean the greatest minimal impact?

Here's are a few questions:  all the carbon offsets purchased to date have resulted in an expected lowering of the temperature in 2050 by how many degrees?  How is that different from 'ineffective'?  Why isn't that a scam?  In effect, the only two things carbon offsets have accomplished is allowing those who purchase them to feel good about themselves and enriched those selling them.  Exactly the same result as purchasing indulgences.

[ilikeanswers]

7 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

You mean the greatest minimal impact?

Here's are a few questions:  all the carbon offsets purchased to date have resulted in an expected lowering of the temperature in 2050 by how many degrees?  How is that different from 'ineffective'?  Why isn't that a scam?  In effect, the only two things carbon offsets have accomplished is allowing those who purchase them to feel good about themselves and enriched those selling them.  Exactly the same result as purchasing indulgences.

 

There is no way to be sure that it hasn't help slow the progress and at the end of the day if a carbon offset program is the reason a forest stays unlogged and helps give families clean cooking facilities that saves their respiratory health I can't see how it is a complete scam if it is helping to improve certain communities.

[RocketMan275]

1 minute ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

There is no way to be sure that it hasn't help slow the progress and at the end of the day if a carbon offset program is the reason a forest stays unlogged and helps give families clean cooking facilities that saves their respiratory health I can't see how it is a complete scam if it is helping to improve certain communities.

The problem is this:  these carbon offsets provide an excuse for carbon expenditures.  They allow people to justify their carbon, 'it's OK, I bought offsets'.  This is particularly upsetting since, as you admit, there is little basis to think they are effective.  In effect, they can lead to more carbon than if there were no offsets.  Very much like purchasing indulgences produced more sin.

[ilikeanswers]

16 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

The problem is this:  these carbon offsets provide an excuse for carbon expenditures.  They allow people to justify their carbon, 'it's OK, I bought offsets'.  This is particularly upsetting since, as you admit, there is little basis to think they are effective.  In effect, they can lead to more carbon than if there were no offsets.  Very much like purchasing indulgences produced more sin.

 

I do agree with you on this point. We saw this happen with recycling which has ended up with us increasing our plastic output by a 1000%. If carbon offsets are treated as supplementary then it is ok but if we treat it as the solution then we have a problem where people aren't willing to make the sacrifice or do what is more difficult to have the big impacts we need in carbon reduction.

[RocketMan275]

44 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I do agree with you on this point. We saw this happen with recycling which has ended up with us increasing our plastic output by a 1000%. If carbon offsets are treated as supplementary then it is ok but if we treat it as the solution then we have a problem where people aren't willing to make the sacrifice or do what is more difficult to have the big impacts we need in carbon reduction.

That is exactly the case.  Support for fighting climate change evaporates when people understand the sacrifices required.  I read one study in the Guardian that listed the changes necessary for UK to become carbon neutral.  Flights limited to 200 per day.  Mass forced migrations from the country to the cities.  No private autos.  Almost total reliance upon non-meat diets.  Try selling that.  In fact, some surveys indicate that people are only willing to spend less than $10 per year to fight climate change.

 

I wonder if they really believe in their global warming claims when they fly private jets to global warming conferences.  Is it sacrifice for many but business as usual for the elites?

Edited February 5, 2020 by RocketMan275

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 2/4/2020 at 4:15 PM, ilikeanswers said:

 

I do agree with you on this point. We saw this happen with recycling which has ended up with us increasing our plastic output by a 1000%. If carbon offsets are treated as supplementary then it is ok but if we treat it as the solution then we have a problem where people aren't willing to make the sacrifice or do what is more difficult to have the big impacts we need in carbon reduction.

 

You know where that plastic that came down those 10 rivers in Asia and Africa, making up 90% of the plastic in the oceans, largely came from?  Our 'recycling'.  Until recently most of our recycled plastic was shipped off to China and other faraway countries where they made some 'recycling' use of it and then the rest went down the river.  Had we never 'recycled' that plastic to China to Asiatic Rivers to the Oceans what would have happened to it?  It would have gone into a modern, environmentally sound landfill.  Where it would never have gotten anywhere near an ocean.

 

Now that China no longer is taking that 'recycled' material it gets dealt with in a much better way that doesn't end up in the ocean.  

[ilikeanswers]

59 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

You know where that plastic that came down those 10 rivers in Asia and Africa, making up 90% of the plastic in the oceans, largely came from?  Our 'recycling'.  Until recently most of our recycled plastic was shipped off to China and other faraway countries where they made some 'recycling' use of it and then the rest went down the river.  Had we never 'recycled' that plastic to China to Asiatic Rivers to the Oceans what would have happened to it?  It would have gone into a modern, environmentally sound landfill.  Where it would never have gotten anywhere near an ocean.

 

Now that China no longer is taking that 'recycled' material it gets dealt with in a much better way that doesn't end up in the ocean.  

 

Actually what we need to do is move to a close looped production cycle. We need to stop producing virgin plastic and start utilising the recyled plastic. Puting things in the ground doesn't stop leaching and the plastic will still break down into micro particles. It is because of landfill that micro plastic has ended up in our soil and therefore the food we eat and floating around as dust in the air we breath. If we can close the production cycle it would mean at least we would stop producing new plastics.

Edited February 6, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[Toofarfromthesea]

12 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Actually what we need to do is move to a close looped production cycle. We need to stop producing virgin plastic and start utilising the recyled plastic. Puting things in the ground doesn't stop leaching and the plastic will still break down into micro particles. It is because of landfill that micro plastic has ended up in our soil and therefore the food we eat and floating around as dust in the air we breath. If we can close the production cycle it would mean at least we would stop producing new plastics.

 

If we could have utilised the recycled plastic in a way that made sense we would have done that instead of shipping it off to China, to end up in our oceans.  Most recycling doesn't make economic sense as China has learned and which is why they no longer take ours in.  In many cases it takes more resources to use recycled materials rather than making new, yet THAT impact on the environment is never talked about.  How about the carbon footprint (if you believe in them) of the trash pickup trucks that can't pick everything up in one trip because they need to make a separate trip to pick up each category of 'recyclables'?  Ever hear THAT addressed?  Recycling is far more of an exercise in virtue signalling than saving the planet.

 

Consider Baltimore.  A story just came out that for the last 7 years they have had people separating out glass for 'recycling'.  But none of the glass was actually recycled, because their recycling plan never became operational.  Now they admit they can't recycle glass, but they want people to still separate it out.  Why?  

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-0206-recycling-baltimore-county-20200205-3pre6ls2yzcdnotpxnpw35na7a-story.html

 

Because someday they might be able to recycle that glass?  Meanwhile they want people to incur the effort, and the city to bear the costs, without any environmental payoff at all?

 

Contrary to the editorial's claims we are not 'drowning in garbage'.  There are studies that show that the next 1000 years of US garbage, at the current rate, would require an absurdly low part of 1% of our farmland to be put into modern, environmentally sound landfills.  The kind with liners and none of the (minimal) plastic leaching that occurred with the old style landfills.  Putting stuff in a modern landfill is probably the best and safest way of protecting the planet from it.  Because in a way, landfills are wonderful recycling mechanisms.  When the useful life of a landfill ends what happens is that it gets turned into parklands.  Or other useful things, like the land under the facility where the US Open, in tennis, is played.  Or a golf course is built on land that previously didn't even exist, before it became a landfill.

 

https://mises.org/library/three-myths-about-trash

[ilikeanswers]

4 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

If we could have utilised the recycled plastic in a way that made sense we would have done that instead of shipping it off to China, to end up in our oceans.  Most recycling doesn't make economic sense as China has learned and which is why they no longer take ours in.  In many cases it takes more resources to use recycled materials rather than making new, yet THAT impact on the environment is never talked about.  How about the carbon footprint (if you believe in them) of the trash pickup trucks that can't pick everything up in one trip because they need to make a separate trip to pick up each category of 'recyclables'?  Ever hear THAT addressed?  Recycling is far more of an exercise in virtue signalling than saving the planet.

 

Consider Baltimore.  A story just came out that for the last 7 years they have had people separating out glass for 'recycling'.  But none of the glass was actually recycled, because their recycling plan never became operational.  Now they admit they can't recycle glass, but they want people to still separate it out.  Why?  

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-0206-recycling-baltimore-county-20200205-3pre6ls2yzcdnotpxnpw35na7a-story.html

 

Because someday they might be able to recycle that glass?  Meanwhile they want people to incur the effort, and the city to bear the costs, without any environmental payoff at all?

 

Contrary to the editorial's claims we are not 'drowning in garbage'.  There are studies that show that the next 1000 years of US garbage, at the current rate, would require an absurdly low part of 1% of our farmland to be put into modern, environmentally sound landfills.  The kind with liners and none of the (minimal) plastic leaching that occurred with the old style landfills.  Putting stuff in a modern landfill is probably the best and safest way of protecting the planet from it.  Because in a way, landfills are wonderful recycling mechanisms.  When the useful life of a landfill ends what happens is that it gets turned into parklands.  Or other useful things, like the land under the facility where the US Open, in tennis, is played.  Or a golf course is built on land that previously didn't even exist, before it became a landfill.

 

https://mises.org/library/three-myths-about-trash

 

As long we keep making virgin plastic it keeps pushing recycled material out of the market. The truth is we have to switch off the plastic tap. Burying everything in the ground is not going to stop the micro plastics, the fact that it is in our food system and the air we breath is evidence enough that there is too much plastic in the world. This stuff harbours harmful bacteria and attracts toxic chemicals and heavy metals.  Landfills will not make micro plastics safer or reduce production of plastic. It will be like recycling and make us feel like we can produce more of the stuff.

 

Of course recycling is not the only answer, for a start we need to be making things that have longevity, all non essential single use plastic should be gotten rid off along with fast fashion which is the source of most plastic found in fish and lots of packaging could either be ditched or replaced with something truely biodegradable. This is just the tip of the iceberg of things that need to change now that we have electronic waste as the new minefield of trash. We just keep producing more stuff and burying it is not a long term sustainable solution. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[RocketMan275]

4 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

If we could have utilised the recycled plastic in a way that made sense we would have done that instead of shipping it off to China, to end up in our oceans.  Most recycling doesn't make economic sense as China has learned and which is why they no longer take ours in.  In many cases it takes more resources to use recycled materials rather than making new, yet THAT impact on the environment is never talked about.  How about the carbon footprint (if you believe in them) of the trash pickup trucks that can't pick everything up in one trip because they need to make a separate trip to pick up each category of 'recyclables'?  Ever hear THAT addressed?  Recycling is far more of an exercise in virtue signalling than saving the planet.

 

Consider Baltimore.  A story just came out that for the last 7 years they have had people separating out glass for 'recycling'.  But none of the glass was actually recycled, because their recycling plan never became operational.  Now they admit they can't recycle glass, but they want people to still separate it out.  Why?  

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-0206-recycling-baltimore-county-20200205-3pre6ls2yzcdnotpxnpw35na7a-story.html

 

Because someday they might be able to recycle that glass?  Meanwhile they want people to incur the effort, and the city to bear the costs, without any environmental payoff at all?

 

Contrary to the editorial's claims we are not 'drowning in garbage'.  There are studies that show that the next 1000 years of US garbage, at the current rate, would require an absurdly low part of 1% of our farmland to be put into modern, environmentally sound landfills.  The kind with liners and none of the (minimal) plastic leaching that occurred with the old style landfills.  Putting stuff in a modern landfill is probably the best and safest way of protecting the planet from it.  Because in a way, landfills are wonderful recycling mechanisms.  When the useful life of a landfill ends what happens is that it gets turned into parklands.  Or other useful things, like the land under the facility where the US Open, in tennis, is played.  Or a golf course is built on land that previously didn't even exist, before it became a landfill.

 

https://mises.org/library/three-myths-about-trash

Well said, it's time people realize that nice sounding things like recycling are often counter productive and only result in profit for those pushing those programs.  

[RocketMan275]

2 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

As long we keep making virgin plastic it keeps pushing recycled material out of the market. The truth is we have to switch off the plastic tap. Burying everything in the ground is not going to stop the micro plastics, the fact that it is in our food system and the air we breath is evidence enough that there is too much plastic in the world. This stuff harbours harmful bacteria and attracts toxic chemicals and heavy metals.  Landfills will not make micro plastics safer or reduce production of plastic. It will be like recycling and make us feel like we can produce more of the stuff.

 

Of course recycling is not the only answer, for a start we need to be making things that have longevity, all non essential single use plastic should be gotten rid off along with fast fashion which is the source of most plastic found in fish and lots of packaging could either be ditched or replaced with something truely biodegradable. This is just the tip of the iceberg of things that need to change now that we have electronic waste as the new minefield of trash. We just keep producing more stuff and burying it is not a long term sustainable solution. 

Landfills are a viable long term solution.  Far more cost effective than the alternatives.