Local Residents Reaction To Cruise Ship Passengers

[Harry Lake]

3 hours ago, Joebucks said:

Getting 3 or so amazing tacos for about $5 blew the pants off of all of the other crap people obsess over.

We used to live at Lake Tahoe and nearby was a Mexican place that had "Taco Tuesday." Six different tacos for under $2 each. And I totally agree with you. We haven't done a lot of cruises but don't remember EVER going back to the ship for lunch. And boarding late enough to have super lunch on shore.

[cruisemom42]

4 minutes ago, Harry Lake said:

We used to live at Lake Tahoe and nearby was a Mexican place that had "Taco Tuesday." Six different tacos for under $2 each. And I totally agree with you. We haven't done a lot of cruises but don't remember EVER going back to the ship for lunch. And boarding late enough to have super lunch on shore.

 

clo, is that you? 😉

[Harry Lake]

18 minutes ago, K32682 said:

Their loss.

Exactly. But I'm betting they didn't feel that way. Ah well.

[slidergirl]

14 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Kind of funny someone would think they are saving the planet by taking a smaller cruise ship.  

No, just leaving a smaller footprint.  No one is so naive that any cruise or plane trip or land vacation is non-polluting and totally green.  One makes choices to do what one can to lessen the load.  

[fruitmachine]

1 hour ago, slidergirl said:

No, just leaving a smaller footprint.  No one is so naive that any cruise or plane trip or land vacation is non-polluting and totally green.  One makes choices to do what one can to lessen the load.  

The impact per passenger - which is what counts if the same number of people travel - is surely more in a small ship than a big ship?

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, fruitmachine said:

The impact per passenger - which is what counts if the same number of people travel - is surely more in a small ship than a big ship?

Absolutely.  The carbon/waste impact of smaller ships on a per passenger basis is greater than on a small ship than on a large one.  It’s no difference than flying business class versus economy.  The business class environmental footprint is much higher per person than with an economy class ticket.

 

Let’s face it, modern travel isn’t exactly a “green” activity. 

[SelectSys]

On 11/2/2023 at 1:33 AM, hallasm said:

Norge fjords Zero emission zones - ban of cruise ships

The Norwegian Parliament has adopted a resolution to stop emissions from cruise ships in the Norwegian World Heritage fjords by 2026. The majority of Cruise ships will not be able to navigate the UNESCO Heritage fjords to the ports of Flåm and Geiranger from 2026.

 

However, there is a proposal to allow the use of biogas (Bio LNG) under certain circumstances for a transitional period of 5 years, so that new cruise ships powered by bio LNG can still sail the fjords until 2030.

LNG powered ships like MSC Euribia, AIDAnova, Costa Smeralda, P&O Iona and possible more, who can use bio LNG will be able to visit Flåm and Geiranger after 2026.

Better get there soon before all the new restrictions get in place!  The bottom line is that all these steps will reduce the number of people visiting these sites by causing prices to rise to meet these government restrictions. 

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, slidergirl said:

No, just leaving a smaller footprint.  No one is so naive that any cruise or plane trip or land vacation is non-polluting and totally green.  One makes choices to do what one can to lessen the load.  

 

I understand and tend to agree, but is the difference that significant or is it to make someone feel good about their choice -- I don't know.  And I suppose if everyone agreed to use only small cruise lines it is possible the impact would be worse.  Not pointing fingers because I would have to point them at myself.  Seems no matter how it is cut, we are involved in a vacation pastime that isn't terribly friendly to the environment. 

[SelectSys]

7 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

…  we are involved in a vacation pastime that isn't terribly friendly to the environment. 

 

On my last cruise I saw the tape of the “captain’s corner” chat.  A passenger asked the question why the water to wash hands at the buffet entrance needed to be so warm.  The premise of the question was that by lowering the temperature of the water, energy consumption by the ship could be reduced materially.  

 

My bottom line is to enjoy affordable tourism while I can.

Edited November 6, 2023 by SelectSys

[Joebucks]

18 hours ago, slidergirl said:

No, just leaving a smaller footprint.  No one is so naive that any cruise or plane trip or land vacation is non-polluting and totally green.  One makes choices to do what one can to lessen the load.  

 

The "environmental" concerns from larger cruise ships is potential damage to reefs (which is overblown) and extra trash and consumption because of increased headcount. In theory, you might limit "local impacts" by limiting tourism. Don't kid yourself that it's "saving the climate" though. People will still fly, drive, boat, or cruise elsewhere.

 

Ask the average person if they are "saving the environment" by traveling on a big vs small ship. Your average idiot will say the smaller ship because there is "less carbon footprint." Not only are the emissions lower per passenger on today's larger ships, but they're also using LNG which has 30% less emissions than oil. The premise would be that smaller ships are limiting travel activities. 

 

One cargo ship has more emissions than 50 million cars. It's all nonsense. Look, I won't be throwing things in the ocean or being intentionally wasteful. However, I'm not going to be part of this religion.

 

[Keksie]

4 hours ago, Joebucks said:

 

The "environmental" concerns from larger cruise ships is potential damage to reefs (which is overblown) and extra trash and consumption because of increased headcount. In theory, you might limit "local impacts" by limiting tourism. Don't kid yourself that it's "saving the climate" though. People will still fly, drive, boat, or cruise elsewhere.

 

Ask the average person if they are "saving the environment" by traveling on a big vs small ship. Your average idiot will say the smaller ship because there is "less carbon footprint." Not only are the emissions lower per passenger on today's larger ships, but they're also using LNG which has 30% less emissions than oil. The premise would be that smaller ships are limiting travel activities. 

 

One cargo ship has more emissions than 50 million cars. It's all nonsense. Look, I won't be throwing things in the ocean or being intentionally wasteful. However, I'm not going to be part of this religion.

 

If people are really concerned about going green, leaving a small footprint etc. why are they even on a cruise website?  They should be staying home, walking and freezing in the dark.  

[ldubs]

May the next dominant species have the best of luck!  

[cruisemom42]

39 minutes ago, ldubs said:

May the next dominant species have the best of luck!  

 

I'm just afraid it's going to be cockroaches.

[Harry Lake]

5 hours ago, Joebucks said:

Look, I won't be throwing things in the ocean or being intentionally wasteful. However, I'm not going to be part of this religion.

If every person and company and country took/takes that stance it IS going to make a difference. Not a good difference.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I'm just afraid it's going to be cockroaches.

Why do you fear that?

 

Actually, the next dominant species may not even be alive. It could be AI, Artificial Intelligence.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Why do you fear that?

 

 

Surely you've heard all the tropes about cockroaches being able to survive high levels of radiation (e.g., a nuclear attack)?

 

[ontheweb]

29 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Surely you've heard all the tropes about cockroaches being able to survive high levels of radiation (e.g., a nuclear attack)?

 

Yes, I have heard that. And after through human stupidity, the human race is wiped out, why should we care if the cockroaches take their rightful place as the inheritor of the earth?

 

I am more concerned with AI taking over during our lifetime.

Edited November 7, 2023 by ontheweb
added last paragraph

[CPT Trips]

8 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Why do you fear that?

 

Actually, the next dominant species may not even be alive. It could be AI, Artificial Intelligence.

Invest in Cyberdyne to cover that option. 

[CPT Trips]

17 hours ago, Joebucks said:

 

The "environmental" concerns from larger cruise ships is potential damage to reefs (which is overblown) and extra trash and consumption because of increased headcount. In theory, you might limit "local impacts" by limiting tourism. Don't kid yourself that it's "saving the climate" though. People will still fly, drive, boat, or cruise elsewhere.

 

Ask the average person if they are "saving the environment" by traveling on a big vs small ship. Your average idiot will say the smaller ship because there is "less carbon footprint." Not only are the emissions lower per passenger on today's larger ships, but they're also using LNG which has 30% less emissions than oil. The premise would be that smaller ships are limiting travel activities. 

 

One cargo ship has more emissions than 50 million cars. It's all nonsense. Look, I won't be throwing things in the ocean or being intentionally wasteful. However, I'm not going to be part of this religion.

 

LNG powered cruise ships are   not really a solution when you realize that the median ship size for this group of cruise ships is over 5,000 pax, the average size is also over 5,000. They will add to the the adverse impact of that ships of this size have  on many ports. https://www.cruisemummy.co.uk/lng-cruise-ships/

 

If the car/cargo ship comparison is correct, that’s a good thing goes toward proving the efficacy of the cut individual vehicle emissions “religion.” A religion that has been battled by many corporations, politicians, and media manipulators. 
 

[slidergirl]

On 11/7/2023 at 5:00 AM, Joebucks said:

 

The "environmental" concerns from larger cruise ships is potential damage to reefs (which is overblown) and extra trash and consumption because of increased headcount. In theory, you might limit "local impacts" by limiting tourism. Don't kid yourself that it's "saving the climate" though. People will still fly, drive, boat, or cruise elsewhere.

 

Ask the average person if they are "saving the environment" by traveling on a big vs small ship. Your average idiot will say the smaller ship because there is "less carbon footprint." Not only are the emissions lower per passenger on today's larger ships, but they're also using LNG which has 30% less emissions than oil. The premise would be that smaller ships are limiting travel activities. 

 

One cargo ship has more emissions than 50 million cars. It's all nonsense. Look, I won't be throwing things in the ocean or being intentionally wasteful. However, I'm not going to be part of this religion.

 

It's not just the climate.  The average idiot may think the environment is just climate.  Social environment is just as important.  Try living in a place that gets overrun by tourists and your local stores are replaced by Diamonds International and other tourist-oriented chains.  Have to drive a good distance to get your groceries because your bodega is now a Chanel store.  

As for ship size, why would only gigantic ships with "greener" fuel be built?  Why not smaller ones, too?  Why would you have to have a bunch of small ships to replace one gigantic ship?  That would have the same adverse effect on the port PLUS where would you dock them all?  

 

OO

[ldubs]

On 11/7/2023 at 9:53 AM, Harry Lake said:

If every person and company and country took/takes that stance it IS going to make a difference. Not a good difference.

 

Presuming we go on cruises, all of us on these forums are taking that stance.  

[cruisemom42]

I think we have to accept that travel is not really an eco-friendly enterprise. Cars, RVs, planes, trains, ships take us where we want to go, but if the travel is voluntary then we're choosing to add to the problem. Unfortunately there aren't really any great alternatives at this point.

 

I just accept that travel is an activity that is irreplaceable to me, and I try to do other things that are within my power to reduce my "footprint" such as choosing to live where I can walk rather than drive to many local places to shop and eat; recycling; being mindful of/reducing home energy use, etc.

 

When better alternatives exist, I'll adopt them if I can. But I'm not going to stop traveling.

 

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

I think we have to accept that travel is not really an eco-friendly enterprise. Cars, RVs, planes, trains, ships take us where we want to go, but if the travel is voluntary then we're choosing to add to the problem. Unfortunately there aren't really any great alternatives at this point.

 

I just accept that travel is an activity that is irreplaceable to me, and I try to do other things that are within my power to reduce my "footprint" such as choosing to live where I can walk rather than drive to many local places to shop and eat; recycling; being mindful of/reducing home energy use, etc.

 

When better alternatives exist, I'll adopt them if I can. But I'm not going to stop traveling.

 

 

Likely that most of us on these forums feel the same way.  Probably most of the population in general.   We are all for protecting the environment until it means we must sacrifice the things we enjoy doing. 

[SelectSys]

On 11/7/2023 at 8:34 AM, ldubs said:

May the next dominant species have the best of luck!

You mean the AI's? 🙂

 

23 hours ago, slidergirl said:

Try living in a place that gets overrun by tourists and your local stores are replaced by Diamonds International and other tourist-oriented chains. 

Hasn't that happened in some of the mountain communities as well where mountain sports exist?  The stores might not be Diamonds International, but many don't serve or are priced beyond the means of the locals.

 

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

I try to do other things that are within my power to reduce my "footprint" such as choosing to live where I can walk rather than drive to many local places to shop and eat

I do that too, however it's driven more from the perspective of trying to be healthy rather than further limiting my environmental profile.

 

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

I think we have to accept that travel is not really an eco-friendly enterprise

For sure with air travel being the most CO2 intensive.  For my most recent trip involving flights to Honolulu and from Sydney generated about 2.5 tons or over 1 year of CO2/person budget as determined by activists.

https://curb6.com/calculators/plane

 

Hopefully I will never see the day where travel once again becomes only an activity for the very rich.

 

BTW - with respect to the original question, I am all for tourists being in my own community as it adds to the level of services that we enjoy and helps economic activity.  The big negative is beach parking at times in the summer.

Edited November 9, 2023 by SelectSys

[slidergirl]

4 hours ago, SelectSys said:

You mean the AI's? 🙂

 

Hasn't that happened in some of the mountain communities as well where mountain sports exist?  The stores might not be Diamonds International, but many don't serve or are priced beyond the means of the locals.

 

I do that too, however it's driven more from the perspective of trying to be healthy rather than further limiting my environmental profile.

 

For sure with air travel being the most CO2 intensive.  For my most recent trip involving flights to Honolulu and from Sydney generated about 2.5 tons or over 1 year of CO2/person budget as determined by activists.

https://curb6.com/calculators/plane

 

Hopefully I will never see the day where travel once again becomes only an activity for the very rich.

 

BTW - with respect to the original question, I am all for tourists being in my own community as it adds to the level of services that we enjoy and helps economic activity.  The big negative is beach parking at times in the summer.

Yes, it's happened in mountain towns.  That's my experience in my town.  Can't go up to Main St. to eat anymore as it's way too chi chi and expensive for me.  Stores are stocking things for the tourist and are too expensive for me.  Used to take 15 minutes from my house to Main St., now it's 30 in the winter,  And, don't get me started about Sundance Film Festival...  The Summer season is getting just as crowded lately.  We used to be "smog-free" up here in the winter (the inversion layer that occurs), but now it's here.  Parking - non-existent unless you want to pay $20-$30 an hour.  Sucks if you are an employee and have to try to park somewhere and you only get paid maybe $15/hr.  I'll walk 1/2 mile to the bus stop to get the electric bus into town if I'm going just around Main St., but I have to drive to my lodge for work as there is no transportation up that high on the mountain.  I save up chores and appointments so I only have to drive down to the city once a month.  I do what I can. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by slidergirl