With the EU voting on new air quality rules, satellite data shows that 98% of people face pollution above limits recommended by the World Health Organization.
Spoiler: Most Europeans don’t live near major ports. You can discuss a lot about cargo ships, but the cruise industry shouldn’t be at all allowed to cruise into major ports and poison the population. It’s totally possible to build clean ships. We don’t have to accept this!
I’m also opposed to cruise ships, but entire cities rely on tourism for survival. The sheer human suffering which would result from a ban is incalculable.
cruise ships do little for local tourism. The people only spend a short time, maybe buy some souvenirs and have a meal. Meanwhile the pollution drives away land based tourists, that would actually spend time and money in the local economy.
Local tourism businesses disagree with your assessment. Every town which has banned or seeks to ban cruise ships has been almost universally rebuked by tourism businesses. It’s true that cruise tourists spend less than other tourists, but it’s income which would otherwise not enter the local economy.
This article provides an interesting case study on New Zealand and cruise spending. The economic benefits are clear and convincing. If this were to end, thousands of direct and supporting businesses would fail, and tens of thousands of people would be without work. It would create a large GDP and budget gap, too, meaning cut social services.
I guess people forget that ships originally where powered 100% by wind and manpower. Would love to see that coming back in some form, but seems like it’s just not profitable enough (yet).
Given the mass of modern ships, wind doesn’t generate enough force to manoeuvre and thrust ships anywhere close to safety and efficiency. The math just doesn’t work. It would take a 5x5km kite (extremely rough estimate) with perfect wind conditions at all times. Maersk is trialing kite thrust augmentation right now, which is projected to reduce oil consumption, but not by a large margin.
It’s obviously not as energy-efficient as burning fossil fuels, so it’s a hard sell. Honestly, I just want it to come back for the looks (and obviously the environmental health benefits).
The vast majority of ships can be powered from shore, they’re doing it all the time in wharfs. Ports actually having the infrastructure is another issue, especially when they’re small and the ships large, but IIRC the EU is requiring things to be implemented by 2030.
And it’s not exactly trivial: Powering a canal/river barge with a couple of electrical systems is no biggie, that’s basically connecting up a house or even just camper, but ocean-going container ships need a couple of megawatts peak power, cruise ships over ten.
Spoiler: Most Europeans don’t live near major ports. You can discuss a lot about cargo ships, but the cruise industry shouldn’t be at all allowed to cruise into major ports and poison the population. It’s totally possible to build clean ships. We don’t have to accept this!
I suppose it depends what you mean by “near.” Around 41% of Europeans live in coastal regions. Most of them live in larger urban areas near ports. That’s hundreds of millions of people.
I’m also opposed to cruise ships, but entire cities rely on tourism for survival. The sheer human suffering which would result from a ban is incalculable.
cruise ships do little for local tourism. The people only spend a short time, maybe buy some souvenirs and have a meal. Meanwhile the pollution drives away land based tourists, that would actually spend time and money in the local economy.
Local tourism businesses disagree with your assessment. Every town which has banned or seeks to ban cruise ships has been almost universally rebuked by tourism businesses. It’s true that cruise tourists spend less than other tourists, but it’s income which would otherwise not enter the local economy.
This article provides an interesting case study on New Zealand and cruise spending. The economic benefits are clear and convincing. If this were to end, thousands of direct and supporting businesses would fail, and tens of thousands of people would be without work. It would create a large GDP and budget gap, too, meaning cut social services.
I guess people forget that ships originally where powered 100% by wind and manpower. Would love to see that coming back in some form, but seems like it’s just not profitable enough (yet).
Given the mass of modern ships, wind doesn’t generate enough force to manoeuvre and thrust ships anywhere close to safety and efficiency. The math just doesn’t work. It would take a 5x5km kite (extremely rough estimate) with perfect wind conditions at all times. Maersk is trialing kite thrust augmentation right now, which is projected to reduce oil consumption, but not by a large margin.
It’s obviously not as energy-efficient as burning fossil fuels, so it’s a hard sell. Honestly, I just want it to come back for the looks (and obviously the environmental health benefits).
I wonder whether vertical wind turbines would be powerful enough to power a ship?
The vast majority of ships can be powered from shore, they’re doing it all the time in wharfs. Ports actually having the infrastructure is another issue, especially when they’re small and the ships large, but IIRC the EU is requiring things to be implemented by 2030.
And it’s not exactly trivial: Powering a canal/river barge with a couple of electrical systems is no biggie, that’s basically connecting up a house or even just camper, but ocean-going container ships need a couple of megawatts peak power, cruise ships over ten.