Green Group Aims at Cruising but Some Shots Misfire
Seatrade Insider
December 4, 2009
Friends of the Earth released another report on cruise ship pollution, timed to coincide with Oasis of the Seas' entry to service. But unlike its glib September environmental ‘report card' on cruising, FOE's new 56-page tome got little media pickup.
Perhaps that's because it's heavier going. Or even old news, in that it rehashes environmental violations dating back to the early 1990s that have been thoroughly aired elsewhere. Most would agree the industry is different now.
Yet in ‘Getting a Grip on Cruise Ship Pollution,' FOE claims to take ‘a detailed look at the various ways in which the cruise industry has harmed -- and continues to harm -- the environments in which cruise ships travel.'
Marcie Keever, FOE's Clean Vessels Campaign director, said the report ‘shines a light on an industry that has long avoided comprehensive environmental regulation and pollution controls.' She added: ‘Cruise ships continue to dump sewage into our waters and poison our air with engines that burn bottom-of-the-barrel bunker fuel.'
FOE ignores how much the industry has changed for the better, how regulated shipping and particularly cruising are today and how the world needs to tackle environmental issues on a holistic basis because regulatory patchworks and singling out sectors are simply not effective.
Aspects of the FOE report seem contradictory. It peppers lengthy discussions of existing regulations with charges that cruising is unregulated. No surprise that Cruise Lines International Association took issue with the environmental group's paper, on this and other counts.
‘Once again information put forth by the campaigners at Friends of the Earth is not based on the facts,' CLIA said, adding that FOE overlooks how lines comply with and often exceed regulations worldwide. FOE, however, doesn't think there is enough regulation and wants the US, at least, to do more.
When it comes to wastewater, FOE alleges cruise ships wantonly discharge raw sewage. Pointing to the use of US Coast Guard approved Type II Marine Sanitation Devices or advanced purification systems in use anywhere the ships sail worldwide, CLIA counters: ‘No untreated black water is discharged from CLIA ships.'
Disputing FOE's contention that discharges are not adequately regulated or enforced, CLIA also noted that early this year, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules that regulate 26 discharges incidental to normal vessel operations, encompassing even rainwater runoff. In CLIA's view, all discharges of concern into US waters from commercial ships are now regulated.
CLIA also maintains that FOE misrepresents this year's wastewater testing by the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation by reporting that violation notices were issued to 13 of 18 ships. According to an analysis by the Alaska Cruise Association, of 3,378 tests conducted on cruise ships, 3,318 passed, for a rate of 98.2%. CLIA added that the effluent standards of these tests exceed those of any municipal wastewater treatment plant in Alaska and most locations in the continental US.
Among FOE's 46 recommendations is requiring ships to use fuel with a sulfur content of no more than 0.5% within 24 nautical miles of the US coast immediately and 0.1% percent by 2012.
The International Maritime Organization took action on reducing SOx, NOx and particulate matter for all shipping worldwide in adopting amendments to MARPOL Annex VI in late 2008. The new global standards call for a progressive reduction and allow for countries to create Emission Control Areas with stricter limits. SOx emissions will be reduced from the current 4.5% to 3.5% in January 2012, then to 0.5% in January 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018.
The limits acceptable in ECAs will be reduced from the current 1.5% to 1% in July and further to 0.1% in January 2015. ECAs are in force in the Baltic and the North Sea, and the US and Canada have jointly proposed an ECA ringing the coasts of both countries. California regulations and the European Union's new alongside rules, coming into effect next year, also call for low sulfur fuels.
Cruise operators are concerned about the costs and availability of distillate. A larger environmental issue is that refining it increases carbon dioxide emissions, contributing to global warming. This illustrates the complexity of environmental matters that current regulations may render irreconcilable.
Another FOE recommendation is ‘Establish federal government support for ports to develop capacity for cold ironing, and require all cruise ships operating in US ports to have capability to use cold ironing in ports where it is available within two years of cold ironing being available.'
Cruise ships typically have been first in line to hook up to shore power but, again, the issue is more complex than meets the eye. If cold ironing is beneficial depends on many factors, not least whether the shoreside energy source is clean. FOE doesn't delve into that.
A comprehensive study commissioned by the European Commission did. As reported at Seatrade Europe in September, it found shoreside electricity for cruise ships could provide greater social benefits than costs in a number of European ports but, for most destinations, the costs outweigh the gains.
Cost-benefit calculations found that only 38 ports could see higher social benefits than costs from shore power. The study also found that shoreside electricity is ‘relatively unattractive' from an economic perspective and has ‘several inefficient aspects' from an environmental perspective.
Shore power would create significant emissions in countries like Spain and Greece that generate most of their electricity from emission-intensive coal. Countries like France and Sweden produce high amounts of electricity from renewable sources or nuclear power, and in such regions shore power could help reduce harmful emissions, the EC study found.