to travel overseas to places like New York.. it takes only 3 days or so to travel from the UK to New York, so why isn't someone exploring this option. I do not mean cruises I mean ships that simply are doing the jobs of planes but creating [presumably] less pollution.
I know this option would not be suitable for business people who maybe have to get to meetings on time, etc but for travellers with 2 weeks holidays wouldn't this be an option. There could also be journeys laid on for people travelling throughout Europe as well. Of course the whole Australasia to the Rest of the world journey would be problematic as it could end up taking weeks but what do you think?
2007-04-09 02:22:18 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
Fair enough forget the ships but I really don't want hear people moaning about other people flying if they are not looking for viable alternatives themselves!!
2007-04-09 02:36:14 · update #1
Most of us have travelled by Plane Or Ship but why is it that no one has ever though of building a passenger Sub. This seems logical to me.
2/3 of the planet is covered in water yet very few of us have ever seen what is under the sea, with a say glass fronted sub so people can view there surrounding's I am sure that this type of transport would be a winner. Hope this has been of some help. A holiday cruse under the sea fantastic.
2007-04-09 02:46:43 · answer #1 · answered by coofooman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Planes do cause polution and in 2006 were responsible for 4.6% of all human greenhouse gas emissions. Not a lot compared to the overall total but a significant contribution all the same.
Ships also cause pollution but to a lesser extent. Don't have a figure but at the very most it's 5 16ths of the amount planes cause - probably quite a bit less.
I guess the reason why so many people take planes is the speed and conveneince. If someone were wanting to go by ship they'd have to make their way to the coast, in the UK it's not a problem as it's a small island with several ports but if you lived in Denver or Moscow or any one of the thousands of landlocked cities it would be a major inconveneice. In fact, the easiest way to get to the coat would be to fly there.
It would only really work if you were travelling from a coastal location to another coastal location. If I wanted to get from say London to LA or Tokyo to New York it would take so long as to be impractical - the whole holiday would be taken up getting there and back. Plus of course, there's the cost factor - flights are generally a lot cheaper than sailing.
Amother reason, and this would apply in my case, is that some people don't particularly enjoy the travelling - I find it boring and would much rather be at the destination having a good time. Days of being stuck on ship with nowhere to go would drive me mad. I get bored on a two hour sailing across the English Channel.
2007-04-09 02:38:18 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everybody seems to be terribly worried about losing a hypothetical 6 days of their "vacation".Forget it! When the oil is finished and we are back to sail the journey time-europe-u.s. will be about 20 days.Besides,with no jobs,most people will be too busy trying to produce enough food to support themselves,they will not have time (or money) for frivolous "vacations". Transport will be (as it was before) reserved for essential reasons.
2007-04-09 03:20:27 · answer #3 · answered by mactheboat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Large fast ships are very expensive to run.
Slower ships do polute much less, but in our fast paced world, they aren't very viable.
A ship also has additional expenses, a large crew, catering, cabin service. entertainments.
An aircraft has a handfull of crew for a couple of hundred passengers and can make 5-10 trips a week. An equivalent ship would have a crew of dozens and make 5-10 trip a month.
2007-04-09 02:33:01 · answer #4 · answered by brockulfsen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why waste 6 days of a vacation on a boat in the North Atlantic. I think you will also find that the ships use more fuel than the planes.
2007-04-09 02:37:10 · answer #5 · answered by Gene 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey, you are right!
Only 3 days there and 3 days back, well that's a week gone just travelling!
Oh, and how much fuel does a super liner use to move ONE inch, from a dead stop?
2007-04-09 02:28:44 · answer #6 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Also, in addition to the first answer, the garbage produced by all those people will go right into the ocean.
2007-04-09 02:30:53 · answer #7 · answered by poseidenneptune 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
specific, they do yet on distinctive stages. some cutting-component trains run completely on potential or have little or no pollution.Airplanes on the different hand could pollute extra because of the jet gas they burn.
2016-10-02 10:12:17 · answer #8 · answered by matzen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like Atlantic ferries, good idea of sorts but what will power them? am only trying to add to a good point!:-)
2007-04-09 02:35:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋