We should make partying illegal. Alcohol, smoking, drugs, overeating, loud music etc. All of these are bad for you and providing the goods hurts the environment.
Stop partying. You're destroying the planet when you do.
Whether you need to party or not, you will need to consider the specific details. Smoking goes into the air. Some drugs will also go into the air. Music also goes into the air but only temporarily and it can easily be isolated.
You should not just make everything illegal, because you will need freedom of speech, too.
This is whataboutism that fails to engage with the argument. Lots of things are potentially bad, we should consider the tradeoffs when prompted. In this case, we're discussing cruise ships, not <insert other thing>.
It’s a piss poor reason to ban something because “it serves no utilitarian value. But we aren’t going to fight For changes to the much larger commercial shipping industry that is causing the same type of harm”
The article specifically said they aren’t targeting commercial shipping. Before making up meaningless arguments, at least read the article. They specifically said they aren’t “walking” and “they are just chewing gum”
Ah, so I must solve all problems that impact my desired end state? This sounds perilously familiar, are you in my management chain?
Like, snark aside, I said "we", not "they", intentionally. There's a whole lot of people working on these problems. That these folks aren't targeting commercial shipping does not mean in the slightest that it's not happening. When I go to town meetings and say "hey, high-density housing is good for [town]!", it's not somehow less legitimate that I'm not going to the next town over and advocating for it there, too.
It's not about "solving" the problem. It's about taking away something people enjoy that you happen to not care about. If we take this to its logical conclusion then everything you do for enjoyment will also call under the umbrella of "no utilitarian value".
Again, they specifically said they are going after them because “Cruises don’t serve any purpose”. It’s like saying we are going after cigarettes for causing cancer. But not going after asbestos because cigarettes “don’t serve a purpose”.
No matter how you try to spin it, it’s a stupid argument.
Here's how considering trade-offs went for the people in the article:
"I don't like cruises. Cruises also cause harm. Let's ban cruises."
They're okay with banning cruises because they don't like them. Well, I don't like parties, so let's ban them too.
It's easy to "give up" things you don't enjoy, but you don't get to decide what other people enjoy. Maybe cruises to other people are the highlight of their life. You don't know that. You can't know that.
Every reason you give to take something away that people like they will eventually use on things you like.
Soon it will be hard to find reasons to be alive. Can’t go outside because it’s 120 degrees. Can’t go for a hike because of the smoke and wildfires. Can’t drive to the store because of the flooding. Can’t buy food because the crops failed.
This article is seemingly more about NOx, not CO2. It should be relatively easy to address the NOx problem as technology exists. I think if the activists narrowly focused on this, they might actually be able to get somewhere.
I’m glad they are focusing on other pollutants. Lots of people go from ships pollute a lot to they produce a lot of CO2, when they really make other pollutants and are pretty efficient for CO2.
Article also mentioned sulfur oxides. Those should get better as ships are forced to convert to low sulfur fuel,
Seriously, if you believe that to happen soon, then it will happen irrespective of anything we do now because that change is already in the system. At that point, not enjoying the time now as much as possible would be a waste - so no reason to reduce anything anymore.
Doc Smith would find that assertion embarrassing, I think.
The good news is that across the world, this sort of hand-flapping is being ignored. In reality, we have already begun doing the right thing. We're already averting the worst-case scenario. But that isn't a repair job. We're slowly the rate of getting-worse. We have to do more to arrest that, to get to a net-zero state and then a net-negative state, because we can't predict that whoever we stick with the check will then be in as advantageous a place as we are to pull that brake.
This has immediate and short-term benefits even if one is too selfish to care about our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Within living memory, rivers in the United States were too foul in which to swim and now, for the most part, they're not. Cities in the West were choked with smog and now, for the most part, they're not. And bringing it back to the topic at hand: cruise ships foul the ports they land in; you can smell it on shore and the trash they leave in their wake is obvious, and as a side benefit they also have extremely disproportionate climate impact. "What if...we didn't do that?" is not a difficult question and not one to rend one's shirt over.
Doing the right thing is better for us, now, as well as for our descendants.
I am not the doomer, I was outlining the consequences of a doomerist position (and there is indeed historical precedent on how people reacted to impeding doom like the plague).
I'm aware of current progress (worked there myself a bit) and past successes on environmental issues.
What 'voisin described is the near-future state for many places and and in some places the current state. It isn't remotely controversial to describe our current El Nino situation as median twenty years' hence.
The only reason to trot out "well if you believe that, why would we do anything at all?" is to discourage action because it isn't perfect.
I don't see anyone saying that we should forego medicine and science, or global communication, or even industry--though we should be smarter about what we make and how we distribute it.
But you (and I! I've done this too!) probably don't need to trivially junket through the Med or to have a weekend in Costa Rica to self-actualize. If we want to do it, we should pay for our externalities. A cruise ship's externalities are extremely fucking high, and they're paid for by...nobody, and all of us, at the same time.
"Need" is such a loaded word... let's just find better fuels for cruise ships, let local communities decide if they want them to dock etc. and then people can continue enjoy cruises if they want to.
"Just" find "better fuels" than extremely energy-dense fossil fuels that, when you remove externalities from the equation, are already near a local maximum. D'oh! It's so forehead-slappingly easy! We should just do that!
What you're really saying--whether or not you know it, and I don't know if ignorance or knowledge is worse here--is that we should "just" come back to this in twenty or thirty or a hundred years and in the meantime now we have created a silver-platter excuse to do nothing and continue the outlandishly negative global consequences on everyone for a hypothetical future that you can neither predict nor roadmap.
Here's another one: once energy storage is solved as you posit, maybe then cruise lines should exist. If people want them. Until then, they should be priced with their externalities in and if that kills them (it probably will!) then they failed capitalism, gg no re.
If you want serious discussions and progress on the issues you care about, I would strongly suggest to not lob accusations based on wild interpretations at people.
If you were at all interested in a "serious discussion", you already would've substantiated something, rather than "just invent better fuels" (yes! obviously! but how about today's problems?!) and you wouldn't have retreated to this wispy objection now.
Humans have existed (and I suspect lived happy lives) for far longer than planes and cruise ships have traversed the Earth. Certainly humans have eaten meat for as long as there have been humans, but I doubt with the frequency that modern industrial agriculture provides.
It seems like the attitude is basically "now that I know these things are possible, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be inevitable". But it's possible to do lots of things that fall somewhere inside or outside of this or that person's ethical boundaries, except that we realized there are some things that are deleterious to the wellbeing of humans over time.
I can't tell if it's a refusal to believe that large-scale negative changes that have already begun have an inertia that makes them continue to make things worse, or an inability to conceptualize eventual realities beyond certain time horizons, or else some hardline "I need to satisfy my urges whatever anyone else says" thing... but it's disappointing that folks who get so much benefit from being part of society so vocally and proudly refuse to participate in making a positive contribution to it.
Seriously, where did this conspiracy come from?! I see it everywhere across vastly different swaths of the internet that "the libruls are gonna take your meat." It's always meat.
Like some think tank who wanted to demonize environmentalism just made up this idea that the democrats are gonna force salads on people and it apparently resonated.
It’s amazing how easily people can draw the line from “Politician X once said something critical of Y” to “Everyone in Politician X’s party wants to take away your Y!”
Yes, how could humans possibly enjoy being alive without flights or cruises? There is no way humanity could continue without comforts so intrinsic to the species.
Aviation is responsible for about 3.5% of climate change, so I think it is significant. Reducing coal use should remain a priority, but I'm sure that industry will find many excuses for not reducing coal.
What concerns me about aviation is that the fuel isn't sufficiently taxed and that empty flights are often made just so that the airlines can keep their airport privileges.
Fuel taxation or slot rules are fair points. Ultimately need to just have carbon neutral fuel for aviation (at prices so that the world continues to get smaller).
If I ever get on an airplane again it'll be too soon, and god willing I'll never have to go on a cruise. (Also I gave up meat over a decade ago and don't miss it)
Good for you. How well do you think that generalizes to other people? Can you imagine people who might have more motivation than you to get on a plane? Who enjoy eating meat and would miss it more than you do? Those reasons might or might not be sufficient for them to continue doing those things, but they exist. Those for whom a thing is easy should perhaps show a bit of normal human sensitivity to the fact that others might find it more difficult.
