Now sulphur oxide is nasty stuff, and regulated out of vehicle emissions for good reason. Fuel conditioning and catalytic convertors take care of this. But those things add cost, and why would a cruise ship company do it if they are not compelled legally and their customers don’t mind?
I don’t feel bad for giving my friends who go on cruises a hard time over this. Most will say they simply do not care about the environment. They are not immediately threatening their own immediate habitat. These are the people who go on cruises. The fact that the cruise industry exists is a sad mark on humanity.
> But those things add cost, and why would a cruise ship company do it if they are not compelled legally and their customers don’t mind?
Because their owners give a shit about the world they're leaving to their children?
Oh, well, I suppose they don't, then, do they?
This is a myth. The business judgement rule gives corporate directors extremely wide latitude on how they run their business.
Point taken regarding "pollution," though. I will note that all the links quoted in this thread clearly state SOx or particulates, not specifically "pollution," so that misstatement falls on me in this case.
With respect to CO2, they are still pretty bad; one voyage is roughly equivalent to transporting the same number of passengers on a flight from Tokyo to London [0].
---
[0]: https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-shi...
---
[0]: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday...
[1]: https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/luxury-cruise-gia...