341
Cruise ships really need to disappear if we are gonna keep this planet somewhat livable. Mega polluters.
The problem isn't the ships it's the insane amount of diesel they suck down. We already run giant ships powered by nuclear reactors.
Honest question: do the use diesel? A lot of big ships when they are not in a nation's waters burn bunker oil which is significantly worse.
While googling this, it seems like there is an international cap on marine fuels for 0.5% sulphur.
https://www.cruisemapper.com/wiki/752-cruise-ship-engine-propulsion-fuel
A lot of ports and shipping areas require 0.1% sulphur content.
A lot of places I've read say things along the lines of "cruise ships run on diesel, specifically MDO or MGO".
E.g.
https://luxurytraveldiva.com/what-does-a-cruise-ship-use-for-fuel/
Here's a thing about MDO and MGO.
https://maritimepage.com/what-are-mgo-and-mdo-fuels-marine-fuels-explained/
MGO is 0.1% sulphur content.
MDO is 2% sulphur content.
For comparison, car diesel sulphur content is like 0.001%.
Best source I can find for bunker fuel is 3.5%.
So, MDO/MGO are better than bunker fuel, I guess. Feels like a rebrand with minor improvements, so everyone can say "yeh, it's just diesel. Not bunker fuel".
But 2% MDO is still a 40% improvement over 3.5% bunker fuel.
Seems like there is a lot of changing and outdated information on this.
And it being related to international trading, laws and standards... There doesn't seem to be a reliable definitive source on it.
My takeaway is "yeh, it's not bunker fuel. It's diesel. But it's not diesel as we know it from driving cars, trucks, tractors and other plant"
load more comments
(2 replies)
Cruise ships are pretty big polluters, yes. Cruise passengers have about 8x the emissions that they'd have from a comparable land-based vacation.
But when people talk about ship pollution, they're usually talking about non-carbon pollution.
For example, ships often burn heavy fuel oil, which produces tons of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, and NOX, which depletes the ozone and causes smog and asthma.
Cruise ships are bad for the environment, but there's honestly bigger fish to fry. Gas power plants are way, way worse for the planet.
Are you comparing power plants to cruise ships?
From the comparisons I've made in the past, they're also relatively cheap compared to land based vacations. For some reason, it's cheaper to make your hotel float.
Then there's places where ships are more inherent to the experience, like transiting the Panama canal, or coastal regions of Alaska or Norway. Places that are too remote to get to by most other means.
But fuck Caribbean cruises. That's a boat taking you from one tourist outdoor shopping mall to another.
Cruises oughta be banned for how polluting they are. Rich folks can have em back when theyve cleaned up their climate mess.
No they may not. We acknowledge they’re filthy, rife with noro and other viruses, and aside from other pollution, dump raw sewage into open water.
Acquaintance went on a cruise. I made "covid cruise" jokes before he left. Well he came back and guess what.
load more comments
(1 replies)
when theyve cleaned up their climate mess.
Ah, a doe eyed optimist, I see.
This oligarch party ain't stopping until everything that can burn does. At this point hope is irrational, a side effect of rational despair.
No one tells the wealth class anything. They tell us, and we obey like good lil capital generating livestock.
The old gods must die. Clash of the titans time.
Apart from the areas others have mentioned they are also absolutely terrible for the local environment due to the number of tourists they drop on an area. We should ban them for that alone
load more comments
(21 replies)
Refund paid in monthly installments seems like a huge red flag too…yikes. Hopefully these passengers can come out of this mostly okay at least.
Yeah that was my first thought. I'm willing to bet the company declares bankruptcy soon.
Seems like fraud to announce that close to leaving, the monthly payments on top makes it worse.
Was wondering if I floated a bad thousand dollar check if my restitution would be allowed in monthly installments.
(with a few extra steps) yes
Wage garnishment, repayment plans, etc. The difference is for you it typically requires litigation before you're "allowed" to. Technically it's probably the same for them if someone challenged it, but they have the benefit of litigation costing less than all the paid lump sums, where your proverbial thousand-dollar check would not.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So they sold tickets to a cruise... But they didn't have the ship ready.
It's worse even, they couldn't afford the ship. They claimed the sale was taking too long, when they couldn't afford it, and another company bought it out from under them.
Larger companies do this often... but they build their own ships
Mmmm. What fun. Stewing in a disease-ridden floating money-sponge for three years. Marvellous.
Idk man. You go hang out on a cruise for a bit you will find some old people who have made cruising their entire retirement plan. Basically just staying on boats going from port to port until they die.
Which actually doesn’t sound all too bad. I’d think it’d get old after the first few weeks (I never heard Cupid Shuffle so many damn times in one week), but hey, whatever floats your boat.
It's cheaper than a lot of retirement homes in America. Cruises outside of Caribbean voyages in peak season are like 90% retirees. It's a more viable option for a lot of people. If this 3yr cruise was a lot cheaper per day, it would make a lot of sense for them.
Plus if you tick that little box, you (your estate/ descendants) save on funeral fees with a ‘navy burial’ at sea. The cabin boy-things garb your corpse in whatever finest they discover in your wardrobe/suitcase and slip you off a Teflon-coated plank into the gentle deep and sharks.
Is this real? I know nothing about cruises, that seems so insane and yet so... Practical.
The article said $29k/yr, and cruise prices generally include food. That’s cheaper than living most places
Not my idea of a good time either but it was appealing to some people. Cruises are incredibly popular. I'd only go if it were free and I was unable to sell the ticket(s).
load more comments
(9 replies)
So… if I wanted to do a scam… and I’d sell tickets to a cruise ship for 3 years, upfront payment of $90k… let’s say I sell 2000 seats for $180mil.
Is that enough money to disappear forever and live under a false identity?
I am legally required to say no.
~~yes tho~~
Maybe, maybe not. But if you're paying back in monthly installments, there's still going to be a lot of interest for you to live off of in the meantime.
Yeah, I’ll… pay it back. Promise.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Why are we linking to a Fox News affiliate?
The article itself seems quite factual and straightforward. The comment section on the other hand…
~~Is it just me or does 10k a year for full accommodations seem wildly cheap?~~
Fml I need coffee
Even at $30k per year it was ridiculously cheap. I have a friend of a friend that was going to do this for his retirement. $2500 per month for a room and board that allows you to spend your life sailing from port to port is actually a great deal, and if/when you need more medical care you simply move back off of the ship. The idea was that passengers could just buy another ticket and keep sailing for as many years as they wanted.
I called this one.
- It sounded too good to be true. I had a feeling that they wouldn’t launch and if they did it’d be a floating Fyre Festival except with senior citizens who would not be able to escape.
- Cruise ships are Petri dishes as it is. The idea of a cruise consisting of mostly elderly people who stay on board and mingle with crowds in the various ports of call sounds like a death cruise. Just imagine a viral outbreak on that ship that was killing passengers, resulting in a lockdown.
- It was basically someone watching Wall-E and deciding that the dystopian part was actually a pretty idea.
$30k/year is what I saw...
To be fair, 2.5k a month is what some people spend on rent+food+utilities. Assuming all food onboard is paid for, it's sounds like an ok deal for someone who actually wants to temporarily live on a cruise ship and has the income/savings to pay for all of it upfront.
I agree. The only major difference I see, is you most likely have to at least pay for one year up front. I have heard of people doing exactly as you suggested, so it’s not really as crazy of an idea as it may sound.
If I could afford the upfront cost, I would definitely try it.
It does kinda sound like a fun way to spend 3 years, but it will probably suck. It’s not going to be a good room. You’re gonna get sick no matter what you do. And unless you actually have money leftover, you’re not going to be doing much in the ports. Also, you’ve got no storage for 3 years of souvenirs.
Oh and if you miss the boat, you’d have to fly to the next port to get back on.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Even 30k a year seems way cheap. Most of these "live at sea" "cruises" are orders of magnitude more expensive.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lmao this small business paper where I grew up just did a little blurb on a local executive "living at sea" for three years - article came out days after this was all canceled
Womp womp
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
341 points (96.0% liked)
News
23422 readers
2610 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS