Cruising and the environment

[Tom47]

https://www.insider.com/which-cruise-lines-do-most-damage-to-the-environment-ranked-2019-7

DW and I usually cruise with RCI family, but we are considering Princess, Oceania and Regent Sevens Seas, because of itineraries.

Any comments, thoughts?  Disney does not suit us.

[Ashland]

45 minutes ago, Tom47 said:

https://www.insider.com/which-cruise-lines-do-most-damage-to-the-environment-ranked-2019-7

DW and I usually cruise with RCI family, but we are considering Princess, Oceania and Regent Sevens Seas, because of itineraries.

Any comments, thoughts?  Disney does not suit us.

Nice of you to post this..but it has no bearing on the cruise/cruiseline I choose. I too cruise RCI (25+) and one each of Celebrity & Princess for their particular itinerary ...also not interested in Disney.

[mom says]

The article is irrelevant to me as far as cruise line selection goes.  We select our cruises based on itinerary first and then ship amenities that are of value to us. Followed by price. A rating by a group I've never heard of based on criteria that are vague at best has no impact for us.

[c-boy]

" F "  for transparency  

[chengkp75]

You'll notice that the only line to get an "A" in transparency is Disney.  The other cruise lines got an "F" because they wouldn't share any data with Friends of Earth, hence the poor grades.  FOE has stated that the transparency grade is a major part of the overall grade.  This FOE "annual report" has been around for a long time, and is ripe with distortions, assumptions, and misstatements of regulations.  I remember one a couple of years ago, where they published a photo of a cruise ship surrounded by brown water, with a caption that this was evidence of an untreated sewage discharge.  It was really the ship stirring up bottom sediment through the use of bow and stern thrusters.  I have no use for FOE or any of their slanted opinions.

Edited July 1, 2019 by chengkp75

[Tom47]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You'll notice that the only line to get an "A" in transparency is Disney.  The other cruise lines got an "F" because they wouldn't share any data with Friends of Earth, hence the poor grades.  FOE has stated that the transparency grade is a major part of the overall grade.  This FOE "annual report" has been around for a long time, and is ripe with distortions, assumptions, and misstatements of regulations.  I remember one a couple of years ago, where they published a photo of a cruise ship surrounded by brown water, with a caption that this was evidence of an untreated sewage discharge.  It was really the ship stirring up bottom sediment through the use of bow and stern thrusters.  I have no use for FOE or any of their slanted opinions.

Thanks for information.

[Heidi13]

Saw FOE in the first paragraph and stopped reading, since getting facts correct is not high on the list of priorities. There are also way more than 16 cruise lines, so how did they focus on those 16.

 

If you are considering Oceania & Regent, you may also want to check out Viking, which is a private company not connected to any of the big 3.

[Tom47]

7 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Saw FOE in the first paragraph and stopped reading, since getting facts correct is not high on the list of priorities. There are also way more than 16 cruise lines, so how did they focus on those 16.

 

If you are considering Oceania & Regent, you may also want to check out Viking, which is a private company not connected to any of the big 3.

We do get Viking brochures, but they don't have the itineraries that we want.  Also, recent Viking mishaps in Budapest  and off the Norway coast have us a little leery.  DW, after reading about mishaps and watching people winched aboard helicopters in 40 foot seas says no Viking for me!!  DW's 1st choice is Azamara, I like Celebrity and Az equally with RCI our next choice.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Tom47

[evandbob]

Despite the major mass cruise lines informing us that they are totally environmentally conscience driven, I hope that no one here will ever agree with their green PR propaganda.

 

I cruise often, and am under no delusions that cruising is environmentally friendly.  Perhaps new designs and LNG ships may nudge the needle a bit towards responsibility.

 

Flying and cruising are presently two of the worse mass transportation pollution offenders.  Unless or until cruisers demand greener cruise practices, the lines will continue their wasteful practices.

[clo]

3 minutes ago, evandbob said:

Flying and cruising are presently two of the worse mass transportation pollution offenders.

Are non-cruise ships better, worse or the same?  Tankers, containers, etc.

[cruiseryyc]

If you're interested in protecting the environment - don't go on a cruise.

[clo]

3 minutes ago, cruiseryyc said:

If you're interested in protecting the environment - don't go on a cruise.

What about car/train/airplane/bus etc?

[cruiseryyc]

1 minute ago, clo said:

What about car/train/airplane/bus etc?

Same applies - makes living in the 21st century pretty hard doesn't it? 😉

[clo]

5 minutes ago, cruiseryyc said:

Same applies - makes living in the 21st century pretty hard doesn't it? 😉

I think there are degrees of protection of the environment.  And I also believe that we each need to do at least something(s) to help.

[Tom47]

DW and I still do land tours and road trips, but cruises are convenient.

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, clo said:

Are non-cruise ships better, worse or the same?  Tankers, containers, etc.

Modern cruise ships have less impact than cargo ships.

[NantahalaCruiser]

On 7/1/2019 at 4:14 PM, Tom47 said:

https://www.insider.com/which-cruise-lines-do-most-damage-to-the-environment-ranked-2019-7

DW and I usually cruise with RCI family, but we are considering Princess, Oceania and Regent Sevens Seas, because of itineraries.

Any comments, thoughts?  Disney does not suit us.

Do you expect any "advocacy group" - conservative or liberal - to ever give an unbiased rating or opinion?

[BlueRiband]

If you believe that cruise lines are wrecklessly damaging the environment why allow them to continue doing so by giving them your business?  Plenty of people decide not to buy certain products or services because they don't like their provider's policy on one issue or another. 

[evandbob]

1 hour ago, BlueRiband said:

If you believe that cruise lines are wrecklessly damaging the environment why allow them to continue doing so by giving them your business?  Plenty of people decide not to buy certain products or services because they don't like their provider's policy on one issue or another. 

 

 

I just stated that cruising is not "green", despite what a cruiseline tells you about "their priority is protecting the environment".  I would hope that other cruisers are not unaware of this fact.

 

Cruising can become less damaging if shareholders, customers and the public demand changes in how ships operate.  Change is effected in small increments, so every step in a greener direction is welcome.

 

Citing other examples of polluting transportation only shows how large the issue is, not that it is insurmountable.  Others do it too is no excuse (darn, is that my mother's voice speaking?)

 

If I am part of the problem by continuing to cruise (or cool my house or drive a car or fly to a port or resort), I can also be part of the solution by raising awareness and pushing for healthy change.  Hopefully, people will see it is cost effective to be environmentally aware and responsible, rather than continue polluting ways that turn out to be more expensive and damaging than correcting them.

 

 

[Aplmac]

On 7/1/2019 at 4:14 PM, Tom47 said:

https://www.insider.com/which-cruise-lines-do-most-damage-to-the-environment-ranked-2019-7

 

How come no-one dares to ask the awkward question

How much damage to the atmospheric environment

do airlines and aircraft have on our planetary health?

 

Aircraft fans will tell you that, and any given time day or night

there are between 12,000 and 14,000 aircraft up there

spreading AvGas pollution and burnt-kerosene particles

at altitudes between 10,000 ft. and 40,000 ft.

 

Very few people even think about this endless pollution

- where nothing's supposed to be!

 

When the horrible truth about this finally comes out

marine pollution by cruise ships will pale in comparison!

[navybankerteacher]

13 hours ago, clo said:

Are non-cruise ships better, worse or the same?  Tankers, containers, etc.

 Possibly about the same - the difference being that tankers and container ships  are in large part essential in moving food, fuel, products, etc. from places which have them to places which need them - and, while we may LIKE to cruise we do not really NEED to. 

[navybankerteacher]

10 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Modern cruise ships have less impact than cargo ships.

Perhaps to move the ships, but does  this contemplate the massive amounts of energy  required to air condition spaces, refrigerate food (and drink, of course), process waste water —- not to mention handling the trash  generated?

[Aplmac]

10 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Modern cruise ships have less impact than cargo ships.

 

I suspect you are right! ^

 

A few yrs. ago I did a behind-the-scenes tour of a Royal Caribbean ship

guided by the ship's Environmental Officer. I was in a group of local hoteliers.

We were all impressed by the amount of effort they go to

to curb waste products going overboard.

Cardboard, glass and plastic waste gets compressed and stored

for proper disposal and recycling, via appropriate sources on shore.

 

See photos included below, taken in their "grunge department" below deck

where we saw a sack full of broken glass, and flat-folded cardboard cartons

that previously held supplies and food items.

They do their best, these days!

 

About the only thing cruise ships spit out, far at sea is processed grey water.

Oh sure now and then Ship will Happen

but things are a lot LOT better than they were two or three decades ago

when crew would happily dump big cans of general garbage overboard

when we were asleep in our cabins - and the sharks following the ship

knew it was Dinner Time.

.

[clo]

15 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

and, while we may LIKE to cruise we do not really NEED to. 

Which is something I think about regularly.  Do we need a car?  Do we need a new car?  Do we waste food?  And on and on.

[c-boy]

39 minutes ago, evandbob said:

 

 

I just stated that cruising is not "green", despite what a cruiseline tells you about "their priority is protecting the environment".  I would hope that other cruisers are not unaware of this fact.

 

Cruising can become less damaging if shareholders, customers and the public demand changes in how ships operate.  Change is effected in small increments, so every step in a greener direction is welcome.

 

Citing other examples of polluting transportation only shows how large the issue is, not that it is insurmountable.  Others do it too is no excuse (darn, is that my mother's voice speaking?)

 

If I am part of the problem by continuing to cruise (or cool my house or drive a car or fly to a port or resort), I can also be part of the solution by raising awareness and pushing for healthy change.  Hopefully, people will see it is cost effective to be environmentally aware and responsible, rather than continue polluting ways that turn out to be more expensive and damaging than correcting them.

 

 

so your on board with the direction the industry is taking . https://www.cat.com/en_US/news/engine-press-releases/caterpillar-strengthens-lead-in-lng-marine-propulsion-with-cruise-ship-orders.html ,   https://www.shell.com/inside-energy/cruising-into-a-cleaner-future.html