Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > People > Chit - Chat for Cruisers
Register Forgot Password?

Chit - Chat for Cruisers Open Forum for non-cruise posts. Please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric that could be considered offensive. We reserve the right to edit or delete for any reason.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 04:57 PM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,827
Default

AR:

I'm all for wind farms, especially using newer technology turbines that do not require high speed rotation to generate higher amounts of electricity, to meet local population needs.

The only thing that scares me is that some "tree hugger", "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard" or other group will block it because they may block the migratory path of the darter sparrow or the turbines may distort someone's view of their neighbor and they can no longer spy on them.

I also have issues with people cringing at the mere word nuclear or giving a gaffaw about solar farms or automatically thinking that Hydrogen or Ethanol are the ONLY alternatives to oil to fuel our vehicles and lifestyles. There are other means: What ever happened to the electric car? Battery design is far superior than it was in 2001.

What ever happened to the ideas of steam power? Geothermal? Biomass that isn't driven by Archer Daniels Midland? Garbage burners? (tried with mixed results) There are alternatives and they are out there.

In the interim: Do what you can to lessen your impact on the world but you don't have to wipe your rear end with basswood leaves................ yet.

BTW: If someone uses Brasil as a model of energy self sufficency I'll really go off.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 05:01 PM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

That's really funny :-)

Rob


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike M
AR:

I'm all for wind farms, especially using newer technology turbines that do not require high speed rotation to generate higher amounts of electricity, to meet local population needs.

The only thing that scares me is that some "tree hugger", "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard" or other group will block it because they may block the migratory path of the darter sparrow or the turbines may distort someone's view of their neighbor and they can no longer spy on them.

I also have issues with people cringing at the mere word nuclear or giving a gaffaw about solar farms or automatically thinking that Hydrogen or Ethanol are the ONLY alternatives to oil to fuel our vehicles and lifestyles. There are other means: What ever happened to the electric car? Battery design is far superior than it was in 2001.

What ever happened to the ideas of steam power? Geothermal? Biomass that isn't driven by Archer Daniels Midland? Garbage burners? (tried with mixed results) There are alternatives and they are out there.

In the interim: Do what you can to lessen your impact on the world but you don't have to wipe your rear end with basswood leaves................ yet.

BTW: If someone uses Brasil as a model of energy self sufficency I'll really go off.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 06:45 PM
mehawk's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston aka Space City, Texas, USA
Posts: 9,687
Default

AR, I am pointing out that there are whack jobs out there.

I do practice conservation.

I use electricity generated from windfarms, even though the whack jobs say that is dangerous for birds.

I drive to work four days each week and the distance covered is a meager 8 miles round trip. When I am off work, I don't drive at all. My car stays parked for 3 days as I walk to the store.

I recycle all my paper and plastic goods. I used paper sacks from the grocery store because they are biodegradable. I use my A/C only as I prepare for bed and it is set at 80F.

Point is... everything that any organism does is going to generate carbon or other dangers into the atmosphere. Yes, I fully agree that mankind is the leader in this disgusting contribution and it is mankind who has to clean up the act. But, let's get the whack jobs out of the way so politics can properly
__________________
Michael

Cruised more times than I can remember.

Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Courage and perserverance have a magical talisman; before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into the air.

Pick your company wisely! Hang around people who are going to help you become all God created you to be.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 07:05 PM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,827
Default

The argument that wind farms kill birds is basically an out of date argument and didn't carry much weight when it had some merit. Newer technology wind turbines turn much slower and generate far more electricity than the older 20th Century versions.

A bird would basically need to go back to flight school if a relatively slow moving wind turbine took it out.


I'm not saying that wind energy is the "Holy Grail" of energy but it is one of many bullets that can be used to power our energy arsenal.

OMG: Did I just say "Energy Arsenal".

Take care,
Mike (Going to his room)
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 07:37 PM
Fieldmouse's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,109
Default

Either way...at the speed at which environmental events are happening globally....I don't think any of us will have long to wait to see who’s theory is right!

The cold reality is, most of these environmental events will continue to become catastrophic.

We’re not just talking weather here, but diminishing vital links in the chain of life, for us, animals and plant life. Parts of this chain, we the general public are not even aware of, but they are key links to a healthy planet, and these links are disappearing! This is directly caused by MAN and not some ‘earth cycle’.

We are daily impacted by man’s greed, ignorance and general neglect of our only home.

1.The slash and burning of the Amazon forest. (continues this very day and hour)
2. Indiscriminate industrialization. Without adequate planning it destroys the surrounding ecosystem.
3. Damming rivers and waterways without true consideration of the environmental impact.
4. Deep sea coral destruction (a vital food chain link)
5. Treating the ocean as a never ending supplier of Tuna, shrimp, etc. for indiscriminate consumption.
6. Over hunting (killing a species until it’s extinct or at least near extinction)

Any of the above events, happening one at a time, might not affect us so much...but, these events and hundreds of others not mentioned, happening all together, at the same time, exponentially add to the mix of 'global warming'...and a very stressed ecosystem.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 08:20 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Miamisburg Ohio
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
I found this new article tonight. I think this is happening and I do believe that generally the information in Gores movie is accurate.

"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement."

By the way why pick on the famous only, how about the president flying all over in that 747, he should fly coach.too? How about you, how much do you waiste? Maybe you should sell your cars and ride the bus or train, or maybe walk?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...C-RSSFeeds0312
Ah sirobin, how I am enjoying our written joust! Yes, you are correct in saying that “generally? the information in the movie is correct. Let us review:

The movie presents a good deal of information but always presents the worst-case scenario and tends to embellish some of the facts. Perhaps this was done for shock value, but shock value is not good science.

For instance, a 2005 joint statement by the science academies of the Western nations (ref http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf), including the National Academy of Sciences, warns of sea-level rise of four to 35 inches by the end of the 21st century. The film mentions this very study, but then says that a sea-level rise of 20 feet is the probable outcome. Not what the statement said at all.

The former VP then states that the entire Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could melt rapidly. In the movies own version of “shock and awe? and we are suddenly shown a view of flooded NY City streets, not flooded by a few inches, or 35 for that matter. We are then shown a view of NY City flooded by the 20 feet (my guess), which had been previously alluded to. While many scientists have backed the joint statement, give or take a few inches, I challenge anyone to find a reputable source that backs the 20 foot flood number given in the movie.

A recent major study in Science Magazine (ref http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../311/5768/1754) concluded that the current warming might add an additional three inches to the sea level by the end of this century.

Now Science Magazine is hardly a right wing organization. And some, like Aidan – might truly believe that “Many on the right wing know nothing of the evidence, but are convinced it is all a lie and a liberal plot.? But this is a reputable source that belives that global warming is taking place. Just not at the extreme rate mentioned in the film.

The former VP also describes how the Earth's atmosphere is relatively thin, then declares, "… that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide." On this the well meaning man from Tennessee has confused his issue and his audience. (ref http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html - carbon dioxide study center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.) Carbon dioxide has molecular bonds that vibrate on the same wavelengths at which infrared energy radiates upward from Earth's surface; the vibration warms CO2, trapping heat. Nitrogen, does not absorb energy on those wavelengths. It is the chemistry of carbon dioxide, not its density that makes the difference. Granted, he got the science wrong but we understood his point.

And sirobin, you remember the point on made to you previously on this topic concerning the error the movie made about melting permafrost and the flooding island in the South Pacific. As you have already graciously conceded this point I will not dwell on it further here.

I have pointed out to you that this is not the first error or misstatement of fact mentioned in the movie, a movie that is supposed to be giving us science fact. Again, the movie, “generally? speaking is correct. However, it cannot be taken as gospel.

Finally, if there is a $10 million dollar campaign to smear the former VP and the movie, I have yet to receive a dime. Pity, it would pay for my next cruise. And as for the president flying in Air Force One, wasn’t Al Gore shown flying in a private jet during the movie? Just a thought.
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 09:36 PM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

I respectfully disagree.

First, there is so much dis information on the internet about global warming its real easy to find quotes, links and information that contradicts science.

Exxon mobil has been waging war on the truth about co2 emmisions for years. Its well documented.this is not in their interest to allow people to get upset about global warming.

Make no mistake about this. Global warming exists, its mostly caused by human activity, it can be reversed, and its time we all stop fight each other about this and instead start to unite against the big corporation like exxon mobil who only care about profit.

Its us, you, me, our families, our kids against greed, and our future rests in our ability to rationalize and work together to eliminate as much pollution as we can as fast as we can. Big oil wants us to fight one another, you must see this as I know you are a very intelegent person.

This is not a football game, with two sides of americans. We are all together and we are fighting greed.

I do agree with one point you make clearly in all of your text. Its not clear how severe the impact will be. In my mind any impact is too much. Even in rosy scenerios people die, diseas is rampant. So why not clean up our act??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian and Phyllis in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
I found this new article tonight. I think this is happening and I do believe that generally the information in Gores movie is accurate.

"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement."

By the way why pick on the famous only, how about the president flying all over in that 747, he should fly coach.too? How about you, how much do you waiste? Maybe you should sell your cars and ride the bus or train, or maybe walk?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...C-RSSFeeds0312
Ah sirobin, how I am enjoying our written joust! Yes, you are correct in saying that “generally? the information in the movie is correct. Let us review:

The movie presents a good deal of information but always presents the worst-case scenario and tends to embellish some of the facts. Perhaps this was done for shock value, but shock value is not good science.

For instance, a 2005 joint statement by the science academies of the Western nations (ref http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf), including the National Academy of Sciences, warns of sea-level rise of four to 35 inches by the end of the 21st century. The film mentions this very study, but then says that a sea-level rise of 20 feet is the probable outcome. Not what the statement said at all.

The former VP then states that the entire Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could melt rapidly. In the movies own version of “shock and awe? and we are suddenly shown a view of flooded NY City streets, not flooded by a few inches, or 35 for that matter. We are then shown a view of NY City flooded by the 20 feet (my guess), which had been previously alluded to. While many scientists have backed the joint statement, give or take a few inches, I challenge anyone to find a reputable source that backs the 20 foot flood number given in the movie.

A recent major study in Science Magazine (ref http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../311/5768/1754) concluded that the current warming might add an additional three inches to the sea level by the end of this century.

Now Science Magazine is hardly a right wing organization. And some, like Aidan – might truly believe that “Many on the right wing know nothing of the evidence, but are convinced it is all a lie and a liberal plot.? But this is a reputable source that belives that global warming is taking place. Just not at the extreme rate mentioned in the film.

The former VP also describes how the Earth's atmosphere is relatively thin, then declares, "… that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide." On this the well meaning man from Tennessee has confused his issue and his audience. (ref http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html - carbon dioxide study center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.) Carbon dioxide has molecular bonds that vibrate on the same wavelengths at which infrared energy radiates upward from Earth's surface; the vibration warms CO2, trapping heat. Nitrogen, does not absorb energy on those wavelengths. It is the chemistry of carbon dioxide, not its density that makes the difference. Granted, he got the science wrong but we understood his point.

And sirobin, you remember the point on made to you previously on this topic concerning the error the movie made about melting permafrost and the flooding island in the South Pacific. As you have already graciously conceded this point I will not dwell on it further here.

I have pointed out to you that this is not the first error or misstatement of fact mentioned in the movie, a movie that is supposed to be giving us science fact. Again, the movie, “generally? speaking is correct. However, it cannot be taken as gospel.

Finally, if there is a $10 million dollar campaign to smear the former VP and the movie, I have yet to receive a dime. Pity, it would pay for my next cruise. And as for the president flying in Air Force One, wasn’t Al Gore shown flying in a private jet during the movie? Just a thought.
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old August 8th, 2007, 01:43 AM
Mean Dean's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 2,281
Default

Mike,

Since you seem to have an interest in technology, you might find this interesting.

Oregon State University researchers are working on perfecting the design of energy-generating buoys that bob about in the ocean like corks, and produce electricity. The swells don't have to be large for them to produce power, and unlike the wind, the ocean always has waves.

The buoys are anchored off-shore, just below the surface, so you wouldn't even know they're there. If you're interested, you might be able to learn more at OSU's website!

Dean
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old August 8th, 2007, 08:45 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Many good points being made here. Excellent to see it being treated seriously. I'm going to answer several posts here in no particular order, so thanks for your patience in reading through it. I'll state that I am a scientist (with a PhD), not so that you automatically believe what I say of course, but so that you know I'm unlikely to be talking absolute rubbish on the scientific issues. At least not intentionally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
Exxon mobil has been waging war on the truth about co2 emmisions for years. Its well documented.
I've not seen the evidence but of course the big oil companies do have a vested interest in making the problem look smaller than it is, and so I can easily believe that. It would be unsurprising if they attempted to imply that the opinion were more divided than it really is. However, the simple fact is that most scientists working in climate research back the idea that climate change is happening and that it's human driven. Most people can see that personal smear attacks on Al Gore or others are not really relavent, whether or not they are justified. That said, hypocricy by those advocating lifestyle changes works strongly against their cause.

I really want to just back up and hammer home the point that it really is the vast majority of climate scientists who back the hypothesis that climate change is real and that it is human driven. In 2004 the journal Science published a study http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 in which they found 978 scientific papers published from 1993 to 2003 on climate change. Of these, not one single paper disputed this hypothesis. Not one. (In some of these papers it was not necessary to discuss the validity of the hypothesis or otherwise.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian and Phyllis in Ohio
...that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide.
I haven't seen this film, but that's seriously funny. Someone should tell Mr Gore that carbon dioxide makes up less than one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
Its not clear how severe the impact will be. In my mind any impact is too much. Even in rosy scenerios people die, diseas is rampant. So why not clean up our act??
Well said sir! The exact impact is impossible to gauge, since the climate is complex nonlinear system. We need to be very careful indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Dean
...energy-generating buoys that bob about in the ocean like corks, and produce electricity.
This is interesting. Salter's duck http://secure.theengineer.co.uk/liCh...ave+master.htm is the classic design from the 1970s, and is still the most efficient. It was almost implemented but the British government pulled the plug on the funding in the eighties due to miscalculating the cost by a factor of ten. Questions have also been asked about how much influence the nuclear industry had on the decision making process...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Dean
How do we get all the carbon back underground where it belongs?
Well the great news is that mother nature does it for us! When a plant grows, it turns carbon dioxide in the air into solid carbon compounds: its stalk, leaves and so on. When that plant dies it rots or burns (or is eaten) and the carbon is re-released as carbon dioxide. But, for example, if the plant falls into a bog and sinks, then the carbon is not released. Mosses and lichens form peat, and eventually coal (and diamonds ) in this way, taking carbon out of the atmosphere. So we don't have to do anything about getting rid of the carbon dioxide - we just have to concentrate on producing less carbon dioxide every year than nature is capable of getting rid of for us. Not easy - but certainly possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
Point is... everything that any organism does is going to generate carbon or other dangers into the atmosphere.
Just a couple of comments for clarity, not as a criticism of your central points. As I explained above, some organisms actually take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Also, we don't generate carbon as such, we 'liberate' it into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. Carbon itself isn't a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike M
I also have issues with people cringing at the mere word nuclear or giving a gaffaw about solar farms or automatically thinking that Hydrogen or Ethanol are the ONLY alternatives to oil to fuel our vehicles and lifestyles. There are other means: What ever happened to the electric car? Battery design is far superior than it was in 2001.

What ever happened to the ideas of steam power? Geothermal? Biomass that isn't driven by Archer Daniels Midland? Garbage burners? (tried with mixed results) There are alternatives and they are out there.
Mike, I agree that a wide range of energy sources are desirable. I just want to point out the problem with electric cars or anything based on batteries. This is energy storage not generation. You still need to produce the electricity in the first place, by some means. Hydrogen has the same problem, you need electricity to produce it. Ethanol is different, but there are a whole host of other issues with ethanol.

I'm personally anti-nuclear (at least in terms of fission) because of the waste issues and the risk of accidents. But fusion could be worth a shot. It's pretty safe and low waste. The new international fusion reactor (ITER) www.iter.org could pave the way for this technology, but fusion has a funny habit of always being thirty years away. Wind turbines work now. By the way incineration is not great from a carbon dioxide point of view, but some of the other ideas you mention: solar, geothermal could certainly be in the mix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse
We are daily impacted by man's greed, ignorance and general neglect of our only home.
I agree with you and sirobin. We don't need to go back to living in caves, but we need to be more careful and we will need to make sacrifices. The developing world is catching up, and why should they be expected to polute less than we do? I think that we have been too greedy. Oh, and there are far too many of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirrobin171
What we need to know is how much Co2 you emit driving around in one day in comparison to your small part of the emissions your foot print creates on a cruise ship in one day.

Does anyone know how we would calculate this?
Ho hum. Well it's not that straightforward, but there are ways of calculating your annual emissions. There are various calculators online but I recomment this website http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hicalliving.g2 which walks you through the calculations. So if you divide the result by 365 then you've got your daily estimate for living at home. I did work mine out but I don't know where I put the bit of paper, it was between three and six tonnes of carbon dioxide per year anyway.

Now we have to get the estimate for the cruise. There are three main categories where our emissions come from: Travel, household (mainly heating - and cooling if you live in a hot country) and stuff you buy (mainly food). So I'm guessing that heating and electricity plus the travel side are basically covered by the engine so we need to take the ship's total emissions and then add something for the stuff that's brought onto the ship. Finally of course the connecting travel needs to be added on. Anyone know where I can find out about ship emissions as a starting point? Maybe I'll email the cruise lines?

Thanks a lot if you've read all that!

Owen.

** Edit for broken formatting
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old August 9th, 2007, 06:44 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

So, I've got some statistics. It's only rough but a company called clean cruising www.cleancruising.com.au reckons on 0.32 kg per person per kilometer. (No idea how accurate that is, but it's a starting point.) So I would say, very, very roughly 140 kg per person per day on a typical cruise. I generate about 10kg on an average day at home, so that's pretty bad.

Using George Monbiot's estimates (see link in earlier post) I would estimate adding just (just ) another 10kg per day for the food and stuff that's brought onto the ship per person per day. Let's assume that electricity and heating is included in the engine emissions. Then we have a nice round 150kg of carbon dioxide per person per day. Thats 24 stone for unreconstructed Brits or 330 lb for unreconstructed Americans, and it's a slightly scary figure. It's three times the average daily output of an American, six times the average daily output of a Brit or five hundred times that of the average Tanzanian.

So, I'd be interested whether people agree with the results of my (rough, first draft) calculation. I'd also be interested to hear what people's ordinary daily carbon dioxide ouptut is (see the link in my previous post for example - or google a web calculator) and whether anyone still thinks we can cruise without feeling guilty. Yes, I'm looking at you sirobin.

I think I'm going to be doing some serious offsetting! (I reserve the right to have pressed the wrong button on my calculator at any time - any corrections warmly welcomed. )

** Edited for typos.
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #71 (permalink)  
Old August 9th, 2007, 07:23 AM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

I never claimed to have any scientific evidence.

I have to say that I don't understand the calculation, but I don't believe it either.

Using what little common sense I have, there are on an everage cruise 2000 people who don't have to drive. Even if there are 2000 couples that drive together sharing a car (Which we know is not accurate), that's still 1000 cars off the road for the duration of the cruise. Think about that, 1000 tail pipes idle for week.

I'm sorry but I don't see a few of generators and an engine spewing out what a 1000 cars can spew out, while it is allot.

Maybe it is easier to calculate this based on fuel consumption somehow?

I looked at cleancruising.com.au, while they do have a number for emmisions per passenger, we need an accurate, fair number for each person who drives, which I am sure we can find on the net somewhere, I will look.

If we can simply add up this fair number per driver and it comes to more than the per passenger number I will concede this point.

Another Perspective, incase I am wrong so i still dont feel guilty. They state the following.

"Example: a typical 10 night South Pacific cruise generates approximately 1.8 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per passenger which can be offset by planting 8 Australian native trees."

So if I am wrong then lets all plant trees to offset our vacations either thru an agency or lets find a way to do it on our own.

By the way, thanks so much for your input so far, I dont want you to think they are not appreciated :-)

Thx

Rob
Quote:
Originally Posted by ommthree
So, I've got some statistics. It's only rough but a company called clean cruising www.cleancruising.com.au reckons on 0.32 kg per person per kilometer. (No idea how accurate that is, but it's a starting point.) So I would say, very, very roughly 140 kg per person per day on a typical cruise. I generate about 10kg on an average day at home, so that's pretty bad.

Using George Monbiot's estimates (see link in earlier post) I would estimate adding just (just ) another 10kg per day for the food and stuff that's brought onto the ship per person per day. Let's assume that electricity and heating is included in the engine emissions. Then we have a nice round 150kg of carbon dioxide per person per day. Thats 24 stone for unreconstructed Brits or 330 lb for unreconstructed Americans, and it's a slightly scary figure. It's three times the average daily output of an American, six times the average daily output of a Brit or five hundred times that of the average Tanzanian.

So, I'd be interested whether people agree with the results of my (rough, first draft) calculation. I'd also be interested to hear what people's ordinary daily carbon dioxide ouptut is (see the link in my previous post for example - or google a web calculator) and whether anyone still thinks we can cruise without feeling guilty. Yes, I'm looking at you sirobin.

I think I'm going to be doing some serious offsetting! (I reserve the right to have pressed the wrong button on my calculator at any time - any corrections warmly welcomed. )

** Edited for typos.
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old August 9th, 2007, 09:38 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
I have to say that I don't understand the calculation, but I don't believe it either.
Sorry, I've probably not been clear enough here. What don't you understand about the calculation? I could well have got it wrong, but which bit loses you? I will try to clarify it if you tell me. I'm just making a first attempt at getting some figures, but I think we're in the right area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
Using what little common sense I have, there are on an everage cruise 2000 people who don't have to drive. Even if there are 2000 couples that drive together sharing a car (Which we know is not accurate), that's still 1000 cars off the road for the duration of the cruise. Think about that, 1000 tail pipes idle for week.

I'm sorry but I don't see a few of generators and an engine spewing out what a 1000 cars can spew out, while it is allot.
Alright, let's look at it from that angle. I guess people aren't driving 24 hours a day as a rule. Let's be generous and say 6 hours a day as opposed to the ship steaming for about 12 hours a day. So now we're only saving the equivalent of 500 cars, or 1000 cars only running half the time.

Now we've got the energy from 500 cars to play with. A cruise ship for 4000 people is going to weigh in at upwards of 50,000 tonnes, and a car weighs about a tonne. So if we roped our 500 cars to the cruise ship and all put our feet down, each one would have to pull about 100 times its own weight, and I don't think we'd go anywhere very fast. Hence, assuming that the ship ever does move, I'm afraid it's going to need to use a lot more energy than the hypothetical cars are saving, and pump out more carbon dioxide as a result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
Maybe it is easier to calculate this based on fuel consumption somehow?

I looked at cleancruising.com.au, while they do have a number for emmisions per passenger, we need an accurate, fair number for each person who drives, which I am sure we can find on the net somewhere, I will look.

If we can simply add up this fair number per driver and it comes to more than the per passenger number I will concede this point.
Yes, fuel consumption would be a pretty reasonable way to do it I think. As with cruise ships, cars vary a lot. Here's one useful site for getting data on current car models http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ which is kindly provided by the British government. It gives you the carbon dioxide in grammes per kilometer, so you can work something out from that, or go to fuel consumption as you point out. You'd need some estimate of the average distance driven per day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
So if I am wrong then lets all plant trees to offset our vacations either thru an agency or lets find a way to do it on our own.
I'm with you all the way. I've been giving thought to the best way to do this. Tree planting is a bit dodgy I think, or can be. I'm going to think more about this but I think there are good options available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
By the way, thanks so much for your input so far, I dont want you to think they are not appreciated :-)
That's my very great pleasure. Thanks for sticking with the debate and being keen to get to the facts. We need more people who think for themselves.[/quote]
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old August 10th, 2007, 10:23 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default How to offset

Hi again everyone. Sorry to bore you all again but here's some advice on how you can do a carbon offset. I've written it almost as a short article. Comments, questions, corrections and suggestions very gratefully accepted.

Why offset?
Sirobin and I are still working away at the numbers but it looks to me as though most people are going to generate a fair bit more carbon dioxide, and other global warming agents, while they're away on their cruise than they would at home. And in any case we're all producing a lot of of these emissions all the time, which can't be good. We're all trying to cut down, and we should keep working on that, but we can only do so much.

Offsetting means that someone somewhere doesn't put some carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to offset your actions, or it could be that some carbon dioxide is pulled back out of the atmosphere somehow. Offsets can be achieved in the simplest of ways, such as handing out energy efficient light bulbs to people who couldn't afford to buy their own. So it seems to me that it's going to be a good idea to offset carbon emissions due to cruising. Well it's not going to do any harm is it? In fact, it would be great to offset our other emissions too! A good resource on offsetting is the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset.

Some people are dead against offsetting. I don't agree with the arguments against, because however you look at it, it must be better than not offsetting. However, here's a very clever man putting the argument against offsetting much better than I could: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006...g-indulgences/. If you still want to do some offsetting, then read on.

How much will it cost?
Not as much as you might expect! If you follow the proceedure I describe below then you will be looking at about 45 US dollars per person for a 7 day cruise, or about 90 US dollars per person if you double offset (see below). That's really not a lot compared to the price of the cruise!

Which offset organisation do I use?
There are lots to choose from. Just google 'carbon offset' for a whole list. I'm not an expert, but I've done some research and I've come up with a recommendation, though I'd encourage you to do some research yourself and make your own choices. However, here's the company I like the look of best: www.myclimate.org. They're used by (among others) the world wildlife fund and Ben & Jerry's.

(Note: I have no affiliation with any carbon offset companies. Nor do I know anyone involved in any such companies. For complete openness however please note that I am an employee of the Swiss federal government and that myclimate is a spinoff of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology where I have an office. I found this out after deciding to recommend the company!)

The reasons I'm recomending myclimate are:
1) I found two comparison studies of different offset schemes. One comparison www.cleanair-coolplanet.org was done by an American environmentalist group, and one http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets/ by a collaboration between Tufts University and the University of Stockholm. Myclimate was one of the few schemes which was highly rated by both studies. This means the carbon savings are likely to be real and properly counted.
2) The scheme uses a wide range of different projects, so all your eggs aren't in one basket.
3) Althought it's a Swiss organisation, (prices are in Swiss francs, use www.xe.com to convert to your local currency) the scheme funds projects mainly in the developing world, with the aim of improving the quality of life of the locals at the same time.
4) Tree planting is avoided in favour of energy saving and use of renewables. Trees are great but they may only have a short term effect, it's hard to quantify how much carbon they take in, and they don't really kick in for a good few years.
5) They have an easy to use web interface. You can calculate your household, car and flight emisssions with their webform or (once we've got a number) enter your cruise emission in tonnes, then just pay by credit card.

How do I do it?
So if you want to use this approach then this is what you do:
1) Follow this link www.myclimate.org.
2) Click the funny star-spangled-union-jack thingy to get the English version (or show off your language skills by doing it in German).
3) If you want to offset your flights, driving or general household expenses for the year, click the big blue buttons, fill in the forms and follow the instructions on the screen. You can make your whole year carbon neutral.
4) Now you can do the cruise itself. Click the big blue CO2 button (or select CO2 emissions on the side panel). You now have to enter a number of tonnes. There's some uncertainty here, but for the sake of simplicity I'll suggest you take the length of your cruise (in days), multiply by 0.2 and enter that number. (So, for a seven day cruise you'll be entering 1.4 in this box.) Then click 'offset!' and 'add this flight to my shopping cart'. Click 'Proceed to checkout', give your credit card details and you're done. I'll come back and edit the numbers if and when we have a better idea.

But what about those trees?
I was pretty disappointed when I found out that trees weren't the best way to go for carbon offset, just because I love forests and think it's great to preserve them. The way I look at it, the offset described above takes the the sting out of the cruise straight away, but in the long term we can do a lot of good to prevent global warming, and in other ways, by preserving the world's forests. So what I'm going to do myself is to double offset. (Think of this as an added extra you can do if you can afford it.) I'll offset for the immediate damage with myclimate and then I'll do some good for the future by offsetting the same amount of carbon again with an organisation that protects forests and lets them regenerate and regrow. If the regrowth is permanent, then it's a proper carbon dioxide offset.

For this purpose I'm going to use (and recommend) http://www.carbonbalanced.org/, part of the World Land Trust. They work with local groups to buy forest or other threatened land throughout the world and keep it in a good state. They look out for forest that's in danger and then they buy it up pronto. They take account of the fact that only new and permanent growth can be counted as carbon offset so once the land is bought the forests will be protected in perpetuity. So far they've secured 350,000 acres.

Thanks again for all your patience in reading this. I hope it's been of some help and interest.
Owen.

** Edited to add extra facts
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old August 10th, 2007, 03:34 PM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

First I would like to thank you OMMTHREE, for what I can only describe as a coherent, intelligent, informative document on how to do carbon offsets.

I would say that I also do not agree with the person who argues against offsets because its sells complacency. I do think in some respects it does do this, but we MUST start doing something now about this problem, and if this is what we can do, this is what we must do.

I would say I am not totally convinced that cruising is so much dirtier than just living normally, but its pretty apparent that in one respect its still pollution and I would say in my opinion its probably not enough to say "well just because I am not using my normal resources I am not going to worry about all the Co2 being released on my cruise". So I am going to make use of the carbon credits also.

I think most importantly.

I wonder how we as a group of consumers could affect change in this matter. I mean, I think it would be very cool if maybe we could get one of the big cruise lines to start buying carbon credits, or even match credits that we buy? I think that would be a cool project we could undertake here that would not only do some good, but also draw some attention to our group and set an example to other companies.

What do you all think about coming together to flex our buying muscle to get this done?

I will check and see if any of them already buy any carbon credits as well and update this post.

Finally, I have submitted this URL to this very thread to googles index for inclusion in google, so when someone searches carbon credits and cruise ships it should be one of the results. I hope the site admins don't mind me doing so, this site is probably indexed anyways by bots, I have just targeted the search terms more finely.

If you are interested in targeting a URL to google, you can do so for free at http://www.google.com/addurl/?continue=/addurl


--UPDATE--

I sent the following email to RCCL and Carnival's corporate relations.

To whom it may concern,

I received your contact email from your corporate contact web page and have a question that maybe you can help answer. I wanted to contact you directly as I thought this would not be appropriate to ask thru your reservations telephone center.

I am simply a customer of your's in the past who also belongs to cruisemates.com as a member and cruisecritic.com as a member.

Currently we have a rather long thread going on the board about cruising and global warming pollution. The question has been posed, does Carnival or Royal Caribbean purchase carbon credits to offset the pollution generated by its ships during cruises?

So, does your company purchase or plan on purchasing carbon credits in the future?

Would your company consider implementing a program which would allow passengers to purchase carbon credits from a vendor you would work with as an add on to their cruise fair?

Would your company consider matching the credits the customer purchased in this program if you did implement such a program?

Here is a link to the thread currently ongoing at cruisemates.com

http://cruisemates.com/forum/viewtop...80191&start=60

I have linked to the third page so you don't have to start on page one, but I would suggest reading all three pages from start to finish so you can see how impassioned your customers are about this issue.

Finally, it is important to note, that I do not represent the administration or ownership of either of these web sites, I am simply a user and a customer with a question that we would like an answer to that will be posted with your permission in this thread.

I would also like to note with complete respect, that if we do not receive some type of answer, I will be forced to post your response as "no response" to this thread.

Thank You so much for your time.

Rob
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old August 13th, 2007, 10:56 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Great work sirobin.

I think you're right that a collective flexing of muscle would be extremely useful here. Sadly the interest in this thread seems to have rather dropped off, possibly due to my long boring posts.

What would be great would be if we could get together as many as possible people of like mind, and then really write to all the cruise lines asking them on behalf of a sizeable number of people, for example:

1) What exactly their emissions are per km per person
2) How they are working on reducing them
3) Whether they offset or would consider doing so
4) Whether they would consider matching passenger offsets (I particularly like this - great idea!)
5) What they do on other environmental issues like water treatment etc.

But we could flesh that out. I feel I'm too much of a newbie to take the lead on this, but how about putting together a group, maybe as part of this community or separately? A brief web search didn't throw up any pre-existing groups of this nature.
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #76 (permalink)  
Old August 13th, 2007, 11:24 AM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

Thanks. Lets see if they respond to my request first. They are sort of in a tight spot (if they care at all about all the users here and at cruisecritic), they either respond or they allow me by default to put their response as "No Response" on this thread.

If they don't respond we have an instant rallying cry to bring people together to get answers, and if they do respond they either tell us yes we have this and that, or we are planning this or that, or they tell us they are not doing anything, then we also have a rallying cry for a group to advocate greener ideas in the cruise industry.

So lets give them a couple days to respond, we will plan according to their response.

Thx
Rob





Quote:
Originally Posted by ommthree
Great work sirobin.

I think you're right that a collective flexing of muscle would be extremely useful here. Sadly the interest in this thread seems to have rather dropped off, possibly due to my long boring posts.

What would be great would be if we could get together as many as possible people of like mind, and then really write to all the cruise lines asking them on behalf of a sizeable number of people, for example:

1) What exactly their emissions are per km per person
2) How they are working on reducing them
3) Whether they offset or would consider doing so
4) Whether they would consider matching passenger offsets (I particularly like this - great idea!)
5) What they do on other environmental issues like water treatment etc.

But we could flesh that out. I feel I'm too much of a newbie to take the lead on this, but how about putting together a group, maybe as part of this community or separately? A brief web search didn't throw up any pre-existing groups of this nature.
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old August 13th, 2007, 12:45 PM
mehawk's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston aka Space City, Texas, USA
Posts: 9,687
Default

I don't agree with the carbon credit issue. Can anybody intelligently infer to me why it is acceptable to burn more carbon in one area of this country if we "pay" for the inconvience of our luxury in another part of the country. I understand the position of the ideal but in my humble opinion, the reduction of our activities in our lifestyles would more than offset any needs for expenses to enjoy our life. Who, exactly, reaps the financial benefits of the monetary exchanges that we embellish? What gives this group, or person, the RIGHT to use these financial considerations?

By the way, have any of you who trumpet the benefits of carbon credits actually done any type of research to acclimate yourselves as to what this actually is? Two companies in the entire world have used the Kyoto Protocol to begin the collection of these "permits" to further the Kyoto agreement. An example used is... a company buys credits to be able to generate carbon because its product of goods or services generated produces the carbon. This credit goes to companies to plant trees which removes the carbon. Incredible! These landscaping firms are going to plant the trees regardless, and the company, itself, could hire the landscapers to do the work themselves without getting another "quasi-governmental" agency involved. Again, I challenge, who exactly gets the monetary benefit of these credits? My opinion... the leaders of these agencies and their political backers. There is no governmantal regulation that is implying or coercing consumers or manufactuers to purchase these credits. In my opinion, it is all a political machine... no party lines, I must emphasize, exist here... but the movement exists to feed a political movement. By simply restructuring the basis of these movement, it can move forward without restraint or disagreement. Simply put... make it a governmental issue, not a political issue and it will gain more acceptance and credence among the world's population.

Off the soapbox...
__________________
Michael

Cruised more times than I can remember.

Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Courage and perserverance have a magical talisman; before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into the air.

Pick your company wisely! Hang around people who are going to help you become all God created you to be.
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old August 14th, 2007, 11:27 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Sirrobin, I agree, it's a good starting point. Let's see what comes back. Give them a few days.

Mehawk, thanks for your interesting points. I'm fully in agreement with a lot of what you've said there. I'll try to answer a couple of your points though if I may. I'd be interested to hear back from you, whether or not you're convinced by any of my arguments.

First of all, I completely agree with you that the best way to cut emissions is to do it ourselves, locally, hence my first two proposed questions to the cruise lines in my previous post. Many of us are making cuts, including you and I. Unfortunately we have a long way to go before we produce a sufficently small quantity of green house gasses to be sustainable. Of course the figures are extremely wooly, but accroding to my calculations, despite my best efforts, I'm still producing far too much carbon dioxide. So there is a problem.

Now, somewhere along the way we've confused carbon trading and carbon offsetting on this thread. These are two related but distinct processes. We need to just clarify this before we go any further. Carbon trading is where companies are compulsarily or volontarily set carbon dioxide emission caps (could also be applied to private citizens, but never tried yet). If they exceed these caps then they can 'buy' carbon credits from companies who have produced less than the maximum they are permitted. The idea then is that the caps are gradually lowered until the overall target emission level is reached. Carbon offsetting on the other hand is a volontary process undertaken by individuals wherby they pay an intermediary to absorb an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide to that which they have emitted, or to prevent that quantity of emission elsewhere. I think both these schemes have a place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
Can anybody intelligently infer to me why it is acceptable to burn more carbon in one area of this country if we "pay" for the inconvience of our luxury in another part of the country.
Let me try. You can judge whether or not it's intelligent. I'll concentrate on volountary individual carbon dioxide offsets at first. Of could you can argue that it's an unfair that one person can make someone else do his dirty work for him simply by virtue of being richer, but that's the economic system we live in. If we insist that we sort out the rights and wrongs of the world's economy before we start fixing things in the environment, then there might be nothing much left to sort out. The bottom line for me is that an emission cut's an emission cut, no matter where it takes place.

Take an a silly analogy. Lets just say that I dumped a lorry load of horse manure in your garden (don't worry: I won't) then I'm guessing you wouldn't care whether I cleaned it up myself or whether I hired someone else to do it, just so long as it was cleared up. The same goes for emissions. If I pay to replace some old style light bulbs in Africa then I've saved just as much carbon dioxide as if I'd replaced my own. No difference whatsoever in outcome except one of them feels a bit like cheating, and maybe it is, but it still works. Of course ideally I buy both sets of lightbulbs!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
Who, exactly, reaps the financial benefits of the monetary exchanges that we embellish? What gives this group, or person, the RIGHT to use these financial considerations?
I'm note sure I follow your question. In carbon offset schemes, you pay for carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced somewhere, so the profit goes to the companies providing that service, for example the light bulb manufacturers in my above example. But I don't see the problem there; they're providing a service like any other. We can't expect people to work for nothing just because they're doing something positive for the planet rather than making a mess of it.

Yes, it does seem unfair that we can continue our priveliged lifestyles while paying for people, often in developing countries, to save carbon dioxide on our behalf and it's not a perfect scheme. But responsible offset companies look for ways of making the deal benificial to both sides. For example myclimate.org funds a fantastic scheme to install methane burners at sewage plants in the developing world. That's methane (twenty times as bad as carbon dioxide) that would otherwise go straight into the atmosphere. Instead it's burnt, but it's burnt in generators to produce electricity for local people who would otherwise have none. Of course when the developing world catches up and we no longer have the option of making 'cheap' savings like this then things will change. We have to make sure that technology, our infrastructure and our way of life, not to mention politics, has moved on by then!

In carbon trading schemes those companies who have performed well in making cuts make a profit at the expense of those which have done badly. The end effect is that more polluting products will become more expensive or their manufacturers will go out of business. Again I don't see the real problem there in the long term.

Or is your criticism more, as you imply later in your post, with the agencies and companies involved in implementing these schemes? You're worried that they're creaming off too much of the money involved perhaps? That's a very reasonable point but can you make any specific accusations? If so, that sort of thing, I agree with you completely, massively undermines the whole system. Or do you mean just that it's badly managed, which I can't possibly disagree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
There is no governmantal regulation that is implying or coercing consumers or manufactuers to purchase these credits.
Maybe there's none in the US, but I'm afraid that the US is a little behind when it comes to climate change, being one of two major countries not to have ratified the Kyoto agreement and until this year at least the largest producer of greenhouse gasses. In the EU such a cap and trade system is in force, and though it's not working brilliantly as yet, it's there and is going to get tighter. I quite agree carbon trading must be enforced, with steadily falling, sensibly set caps for it to be in the least effective. Carbon offsets remain, of course, volountary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
Two companies in the entire world have used the Kyoto Protocol to begin the collection of these "permits" to further the Kyoto agreement.
Not sure where you get those figures. One carbon exchange alone (European Carbon Exchange) has done business worth over 1 billion tonnes of carbon. This is a very active market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
...a company buys credits to be able to generate carbon because its product of goods or services generated produces the carbon. This credit goes to companies to plant trees which removes the carbon.
I think this is a good example of a carbon trading system working well. The end product is less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... unless you're right and those trees were going to get planted anyway. But that's why, and I agree with you wholeheartedly here, you have to be extrememly careful about aditionality. That is, making sure that offsets go to projects which would not have been done otherwise and making sure that emission caps are placed at a fair level in trading schemes so that companies all have to work comparably hard to save emissions - not continue with 'business as usual'. In other words the company would have to plant more trees than it did before to get any credit. The latter is extremely difficult to do sensibly, and I think will always be rather arbitrary, raising difficult questions about new entrants to the market, which industries to squeeze hardest and so forth. Again though, I think we have to give up on it being completely fair. The key point is that the sum of all the emission caps must come down, and fast. Someone has to make those decisions somehow.

The former problem, aditionality for personal offsets, whilst still tricky, is more tractible. All decent offset companies make an effort to ensure adittionality for their offsets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
By simply restructuring the basis of these movement, it can move forward without restraint or disagreement.
I agree there are problems with the carbon trading system, but what sort of restructuring did you have in mind? What could we do as a community, in general or as cruisers, to push things in the right direction in terms of offsets?

Have I had any luck in convincing you that personal offsetting is a good idea? Looking forward to hearing back. Feel free to rip into my arguments. It's just great that this stuff is being talked about.

Owen.
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old August 14th, 2007, 11:57 AM
tutak's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 44
Default

Her is a link to an interesting website.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
__________________
Support the Boy Scouts
Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old August 14th, 2007, 06:01 PM
mehawk's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston aka Space City, Texas, USA
Posts: 9,687
Default

The two places in the world where are listed here...

Credits can be exchanged between businesses or bought and sold in international markets at the prevailing market price. There are currently two exchanges for carbon credits: the Chicago Climate Exchange and the European Climate Exchange.

There ar at least four exchanges for carbon credits: the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, NordPool, and PowerNext


Uh oh. I don't like this this. Look who is speaking...
Louis Redshaw, a former trader at Enron and now head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital predicts that "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall." [1]
^ Herald Tribune Business: Carbon trading: Where greed is green.[1]

I have located who is getting the money from all of this...
The founder, Chairman and CEO of CCX is economist and financial innovator Dr. Richard L. Sandor, who was named a Hero of the Planet by Time magazine for his founding of CCX.
__________________
Michael

Cruised more times than I can remember.

Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Courage and perserverance have a magical talisman; before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into the air.

Pick your company wisely! Hang around people who are going to help you become all God created you to be.
Reply With Quote
  #81 (permalink)  
Old August 15th, 2007, 08:43 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

tutak: I hate to say it but I'm afraid that's a pretty dodgy website. There are a lot of things called 'papers' on there which are trying to look like scientific papers but haven't been published in any peer-reviewed journals. For example they criticise a publication by the Royal Society but these criticisms are made by self-selected 'specialists' who have, for the most part, failed to have their thoughts on climate changed published in any proper published journal.

Mehawk: With the greatest of respect I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. There are two exchanges and also at least four? Someone says carbon could become a big market and someone else runs a carbon exchange?
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #82 (permalink)  
Old August 18th, 2007, 01:24 PM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

Update 8/18

No respose to my email from either company as of yet. I have found a new contact at one of the cruise lines that is going to help me get a response. I will update when I know more.

Rob


Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
First I would like to thank you OMMTHREE, for what I can only describe as a coherent, intelligent, informative document on how to do carbon offsets.

I would say that I also do not agree with the person who argues against offsets because its sells complacency. I do think in some respects it does do this, but we MUST start doing something now about this problem, and if this is what we can do, this is what we must do.

I would say I am not totally convinced that cruising is so much dirtier than just living normally, but its pretty apparent that in one respect its still pollution and I would say in my opinion its probably not enough to say "well just because I am not using my normal resources I am not going to worry about all the Co2 being released on my cruise". So I am going to make use of the carbon credits also.

I think most importantly.

I wonder how we as a group of consumers could affect change in this matter. I mean, I think it would be very cool if maybe we could get one of the big cruise lines to start buying carbon credits, or even match credits that we buy? I think that would be a cool project we could undertake here that would not only do some good, but also draw some attention to our group and set an example to other companies.

What do you all think about coming together to flex our buying muscle to get this done?

I will check and see if any of them already buy any carbon credits as well and update this post.

Finally, I have submitted this URL to this very thread to googles index for inclusion in google, so when someone searches carbon credits and cruise ships it should be one of the results. I hope the site admins don't mind me doing so, this site is probably indexed anyways by bots, I have just targeted the search terms more finely.

If you are interested in targeting a URL to google, you can do so for free at http://www.google.com/addurl/?continue=/addurl


--UPDATE--

I sent the following email to RCCL and Carnival's corporate relations.

To whom it may concern,

I received your contact email from your corporate contact web page and have a question that maybe you can help answer. I wanted to contact you directly as I thought this would not be appropriate to ask thru your reservations telephone center.

I am simply a customer of your's in the past who also belongs to cruisemates.com as a member and cruisecritic.com as a member.

Currently we have a rather long thread going on the board about cruising and global warming pollution. The question has been posed, does Carnival or Royal Caribbean purchase carbon credits to offset the pollution generated by its ships during cruises?

So, does your company purchase or plan on purchasing carbon credits in the future?

Would your company consider implementing a program which would allow passengers to purchase carbon credits from a vendor you would work with as an add on to their cruise fair?

Would your company consider matching the credits the customer purchased in this program if you did implement such a program?

Here is a link to the thread currently ongoing at cruisemates.com

http://cruisemates.com/forum/viewtop...80191&start=60

I have linked to the third page so you don't have to start on page one, but I would suggest reading all three pages from start to finish so you can see how impassioned your customers are about this issue.

Finally, it is important to note, that I do not represent the administration or ownership of either of these web sites, I am simply a user and a customer with a question that we would like an answer to that will be posted with your permission in this thread.

I would also like to note with complete respect, that if we do not receive some type of answer, I will be forced to post your response as "no response" to this thread.

Thank You so much for your time.

Rob
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #83 (permalink)  
Old August 31st, 2007, 05:38 PM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

Here is carnivals official response. It should be noted royal caribbean has not responded at all yet.

Carnival Cruise Lines has implemented a number*of*initiatives in order to address the air emission impact of the ships.* The initiatives are divided in three control *categories; operational, technology and fuel consumption controls.* Within each of the categories we have implemented the following:
*
1.*operational controls
*** - optimization of diesel generators
*** - increased periodical cleaning of propellers & hull (*reduces**friction coefficient)
*** - destination specific fuel requirements ( ecosystem specific and regulatory driven)
*
2.* technology based controls
**** - application of specific paints ( less friction coefficient)
**** - Trim optimizing system
**** - installation of fuel homogenizers ( improve combustion process)
*
3. *fuel consumption controls - using less fuel
*
Currently we are making assessment in terms of the various organizations that offer carbon trading at international levels.
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #84 (permalink)  
Old September 12th, 2007, 10:03 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
Here is carnivals official response. It should be noted royal caribbean has not responded at all yet.

Carnival Cruise Lines has implemented a number of initiatives in order to address the air emission impact of the ships. The initiatives are divided in three control categories; operational, technology and fuel consumption controls. Within each of the categories we have implemented the following:

1. operational controls
- optimization of diesel generators
- increased periodical cleaning of propellers & hull ( reduces friction coefficient)
- destination specific fuel requirements ( ecosystem specific and regulatory driven)

2. technology based controls
- application of specific paints ( less friction coefficient)
- Trim optimizing system
- installation of fuel homogenizers ( improve combustion process)

3. fuel consumption controls - using less fuel

Currently we are making assessment in terms of the various organizations that offer carbon trading at international levels.

Nice one!

Good that they've replied, and good that they're doing something. It's a bit light on the details though. It would be nice if they had given us some before and after figures on their emissions.

Any ideas for a next step?
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #85 (permalink)  
Old September 13th, 2007, 05:26 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

How about this for an idea?

I could submit the idea to the cruisemates editor that we could write an article on this subject. I'm not talking about a campaigning article telling people what they should or shouldn't do, but rather a simple informative piece. Rather like the recent one on alcohol policies, this would outline the environmental policies of the various companies. The great thing is that this would give us a lot more leverage for getting info from the companies involved and it would be agreat starting point for any campaign. I'd be more than happy to put in some legwork on this. Anyone else keen?
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #86 (permalink)  
Old September 13th, 2007, 09:02 AM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

Thats a great idea. I am on board.
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #87 (permalink)  
Old September 13th, 2007, 09:25 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

OK, I'll make an approach to the editors and see if they'll let us do it. If anyone else want to help out, please say.

(edit)

Sirobin, I PMd you my email address so we can start to bounce some ideas about.
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #88 (permalink)  
Old September 13th, 2007, 11:00 AM
mehawk's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston aka Space City, Texas, USA
Posts: 9,687
Default

Save the world!!
__________________
Michael

Cruised more times than I can remember.

Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Courage and perserverance have a magical talisman; before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into the air.

Pick your company wisely! Hang around people who are going to help you become all God created you to be.
Reply With Quote
  #89 (permalink)  
Old September 13th, 2007, 11:05 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
Save the world!!
Well OK, but no promises.
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #90 (permalink)  
Old September 25th, 2007, 10:18 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ommthree
OK, I'll make an approach to the editors and see if they'll let us do it. If anyone else want to help out, please say.

(edit)

Sirobin, I PMd you my email address so we can start to bounce some ideas about.
Still no reply from the editors.
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
happening, kimmiegirl, sf, weather

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is happening in Galverston tonight? Lombard Chit - Chat for Cruisers 8 January 30th, 2008 08:24 PM
Does anybody know what is happening to the Celebration? Thomas Chit - Chat for Cruisers 2 August 25th, 2007 02:18 PM
It's Happening Again... js2003 Carnival Cruise Lines 3 July 10th, 2006 10:25 PM
What's happening Liz hill Cunard 3 November 22nd, 2004 11:24 AM
What's happening? PapaBill Chit - Chat for Cruisers 20 July 15th, 2003 03:40 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:17 PM.
design by: Themes by Design

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1