europe - australia by ship

And just think of the output if he were to herd a mob of cattle all the way via the long paddock.

The emission would be horrendous.

#17 My folks have got a late 70s set of Funk & Wagnalls on the shelf too. Fascinating reading - so much that was that now isn't.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>However, nothing can jutsify a cruise ship in enviornmental terms, surely? Give your average cruise ship take 2-3 jumbos, but uses a massive amount of fuel, that would have to be the most wasteful?<hr></blockquote>Im going to do some maths on this, to see how it works out. Lets say a cruise ship takes 1200 people, thats 3x747s or A340s. A cruise ship would plow the coast for 7 days, at sea for about 4. Thats 96 hours of fuel burning travel. For the same comparison, lets say, for the exercise, a long haul from Melbourne to London takes 24 hours. For 1200 aircraft passengers to accumulate 96 hours of travel, is the equivalent of 3 long haul aircraft fully loaded (400 passengers), doing a return Melbourne to london trip 3 times. Thats 96 hours of travel for 1200 people.
Now if the argument revolves around the most EFFICIENT form of transport, then air travell wins hands down, comparing distance covered over time. Cost effective I would say the same. But in terms of environmentally efficient modes of transport, I think we need to examine this further. Stay tuned.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>doing a return Melbourne to london trip 3 times.<hr></blockquote>That should be twice. 48 hours return x2.
So fuel burnt per passenger per hour of travel is what we need to look at, discounting other environmental issues and other net gains such as kilometres covered.

In terms of fuel burning - what I find MOST offensive (so much so that my hackles rise to heights way above the carbon emissions of high flying jumbos) are those disgusting and obnoxious mobile advertising signs in Sydney (DO you folk in other countries have these %#!%##^* things as well??)

By which I mean cars, trucks and motorcycles with advertising trailers whose SOLE purpose is to drive around the streets advertising something or other. VISUAL and ENVIRONMENTAL pollution - double whammy.

Sometimes I have seen three motorbikes towing trailers following each other around the streets, one after the other.
Whatever lowlife advertising executive thought this little gem up needs a large rusty billboard shoved up his jacksy.

Its a shame there is not a grass roots group who actively encourage people to boycott products that advertise this way.

(Grrrr....I'm getting angry just thinking about it!)

Think I better head out for coffee and cake...

#20 -- The most direct surface route from England to Brisbane would be straight across the Atlantic to the Panama Canal, then straight across the Pacific to Brisbane. I can't be bothered working out what that is, but it's not much longer than the shortest air route, and certainly not 26,000 km. (Of course, there aren't passenger ship going on those routes regularly, but if we ever gave up air travel, there would be).

The net extra CO2 generated by taking a cargo ship to Oz is zero. Of course, the net CO2 saved by not flying is also zero. it's a big world, and Mr Pudding is only one person. So if it makes him feel better, go for it.

I believe though that taking the trans-siberian is much more reliable than trying to ship all the way. There's a hell of a lot of trade between Australia and China and you'd be sure to find something.

Also, cargo-ships aren't set up for passengers so a) you'll be extreeemly bored, and b) it's extreeemly expensive, and c) it may well be extreeemly slow.
But plenty of links have been provided so good luck and enjoy!

London - Panama - Brisbane by ship= 22,550 km

London - Singapore - Brisbane by air = 17,050 km

#41 -- That's looks right: so it's longer by surface transport, but it's not 26,000 km.

What about all the shitting people do on ships over six weeks, as opposed to 24 hrs on a plane? What about the gennies, pumps, aircon, heaters, nav systems, fridges, washing machines etc running all the time, and discharging waste, as well as the propulsion? Never mind the atmospheric pollution, what about the ever-present diesel slick on the water that accompanies 90% of the world's sea traffic? What if the cargo is oil or coal or gas, and you're helping offset the transport costs as a passenger, thus making it cheaper for the client to burn?

And why oh why do people think long haul cargo ships - essentially industrial workplaces, where bedspace - any space - is at a premium, where liability insurances apply, and will shoot through the roof if passengers are taken on, where crew numbers must be kept at a minimum to ensure competitiveness, where extra passengers means having to keep more staff to look after them , would readily accept passengers, and the only reason that it's not being done more often is wow like no-one's ever thought of it before? Sure, some purpose built dual-function vessels do, but have you seen what they charge?