BrikoX@lemmy.zip to World NewsEnglish · 1 year agoAmsterdam bans cruise ships to limit visitors and curb pollutionwww.bbc.co.ukexternal-linkmessage-square32fedilinkarrow-up1238arrow-down14cross-posted to: news@lemmy.worldglobalnews@lemmy.zipnews@kbin.social
arrow-up1234arrow-down1external-linkAmsterdam bans cruise ships to limit visitors and curb pollutionwww.bbc.co.ukBrikoX@lemmy.zip to World NewsEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square32fedilinkcross-posted to: news@lemmy.worldglobalnews@lemmy.zipnews@kbin.social
minus-squareMikelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up75arrow-down2·1 year agoFantastic news. Every major destination should commit to banning these monstrosities until they all disappear.
minus-squareitchy_lizard@feddit.itlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down9·1 year agoHoenslty it’s a better way to cross the ocean than planes, climate wise
minus-squarehairyfeetlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·1 year agohttps://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green Not at all. This article is 17 years old and planes have only gotten more efficient whilst the same old cruise ships continue to so the seas. Plus a more recent article https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-greener-boat-vs-plane-emissions-5185547
minus-squareitchy_lizard@feddit.itlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down8·1 year agoThis is green washing. Making planes burn less fuel is nice, but it doesn’t change the physics of burning them St high altitude. The only way to fix that is to burn lower to the ground. Ships will always be more environmental friendly way to cross oceans.
minus-squareigorkrawlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 year agoSource please? This is not how my understanding of physics works
minus-squareitchy_lizard@feddit.itlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-21 year agoLiterally read the link above. They mention the issues of nitrogen oxides exponentionally fucking up the atmosphere when burned at high altitude, but they they totally leave that out when calculating only co2 in the conclusion
Fantastic news. Every major destination should commit to banning these monstrosities until they all disappear.
Hoenslty it’s a better way to cross the ocean than planes, climate wise
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green
Not at all. This article is 17 years old and planes have only gotten more efficient whilst the same old cruise ships continue to so the seas.
Plus a more recent article
https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-greener-boat-vs-plane-emissions-5185547
This is green washing. Making planes burn less fuel is nice, but it doesn’t change the physics of burning them St high altitude.
The only way to fix that is to burn lower to the ground. Ships will always be more environmental friendly way to cross oceans.
Source please? This is not how my understanding of physics works
Literally read the link above. They mention the issues of nitrogen oxides exponentionally fucking up the atmosphere when burned at high altitude, but they they totally leave that out when calculating only co2 in the conclusion