• kemmyLilmister@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    cruise ships are so ridiculously bad for society and the environment, it’s completely ridiculous. The insane air pollution, affecting the air quality of the cities they visit, tourists that walk around a city without supporting the local gastronomy and shops, underpaid staff from developing countries, that spend most of their time onboard,…

  • PapaFredranco@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if these ships were squeaky clean, I don’t understand the appeal of cruises. The environmental impact seals the deal for me.

    • Serinus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I love going on cruises, but if there’s one reason I won’t it’s the environmental impact.

      Honestly we should consider any ship running on bunker fuel to be an active military threat.

      Those ships are going to be a significant part of the multiple Katrina-level events I expect to hit Florida in the next 15 years.

      Is it okay to accept missile launches against the continental United States as long as the weapon is real slow?

        • Serinus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d rather not effectively try to sell people on cruises, but a balcony on the ocean is pretty awesome. Once you’re on the ship it tends to be lower stress than typical traveling. And most importantly, no cars. Fuck cars.

          You can probably accomplish a lot of the same just by going with a good group of friends to a non-cruise destination. Maybe the people I went with was the biggest part of the experience.

    • phikshun@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then there would be fewer of them, which is objectively better for all life on this planet. Seems fine tbh.

  • Zdvarko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    And the element cobalt is used to reduce or remove the sulphide in the process but don’t pay attention to that, it’s the manufacturing of batteries thats killing all the children…

    • fidodo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But imagine you give up your car for the environment and your impact is less than a millionth of a single cruise ship. What’s the fucking point if we can’t stop the big fuckers?

  • BattleGrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    And this is AFTER the sulphur reduction measures? LOL. Anyhow sulphur creates aerosol effect & cools the atmosphere. It will exacerbate after we phase that out too.