Cruise ship Environmental report card

[Tom47]

See http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/ac/7/4988/Cruise_Ship_Report_Card_2014.pdf

 

Also http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/04/3599528/cruise-lines-sewage-2014/?wpisrc=nl_rdin&wpmm=1

 

Celebrity does not get a very good rating

 

Tom:confused:

[Host Jazzbeau]

From your second link: "The analysis, which worked off of federal data, did show that some of the 16 cruise lines assessed are slowly becoming more environmentally friendly." And yet every single cruise line was rated as worse this year. That sounds like politically-motivated "science" to me.

[Tom47]

From your second link: "The analysis, which worked off of federal data, did show that some of the 16 cruise lines assessed are slowly becoming more environmentally friendly." And yet every single cruise line was rated as worse this year. That sounds like politically-motivated "science" to me.

 

I think the downgrade was due to the fact that 16 cruise lines refused to respond to the info request. All got an F in transparency. How is that politically motivated? :confused:

[Host Jazzbeau]

Why do they owe the time of day to this non-governmental group?

[gek]

"In evaluating your environmental performance we consider your treatment of sewage to be just as important as your treatment of our information request".

 

I guess that sort of makes sense :rolleyes:

[xmarksx]

Why do they owe the time of day to this non-governmental group?

 

Agreed, I would give them all an A for choosing to not be transparent.

[Merriem]

Why do they owe the time of day to this non-governmental group?

 

Well, when it is published for all to read, don't you think the facts are important?

[Host Jazzbeau]

Well, when it is published for all to read, don't you think the facts are important?

 

The facts are that all the cruise lines were found to be following all applicable laws, and that their environmental record improved year over year. So for this group to then give them all failing grades -- just because they chose not to suck up to a self-appointed nanny -- is political manipulation. Why is it assumed that all non-profit groups are "public interest," while all corporations are ipso facto not?

 

[This is a personal comment -- please see my signature.]

[Tom47]

The facts are that all the cruise lines were found to be following all applicable laws, and that their environmental record improved year over year. So for this group to then give them all failing grades -- just because they chose not to suck up to a self-appointed nanny -- is political manipulation. Why is it assumed that all non-profit groups are "public interest," while all corporations are ipso facto not?

 

[This is a personal comment -- please see my signature.]

 

I think that you and I have differing views on the environment. Two of my three grandchildren have Cystic Fibrosis, an incurable terminal genetic lung disease. CF doctors told my daughter that 1 particle of tobacco smoke in their lungs could cause pneumonia and death. I applaud and support all efforts to improve the environment. If you want to call me politically motivated that makes you the lesser person, not me.

 

Tom:)

Edited December 8, 2014 by Tom47

[jmmcruiser]

I think that you and I have differing views on the environment. Two of my three grandchildren have Cystic Fibrosis, an incurable terminal genetic lung disease. CF doctors told my daughter that 1 particle of tobacco smoke in their lungs could cause pneumonia and death. I applaud and support all efforts to improve the environment. If you want to call me politically motivated that makes you the lesser person, not me.

 

Tom:)

 

The cruise ship "Could" strike a barnacle and the resulting collision "could" shear off an azipod, all passengers could be lost... you get the point.

 

I have a family member with CF, I think your logic on most statements you've made in this thread are equally shaky at best.

[Tom47]

The cruise ship "Could" strike a barnacle and the resulting collision "could" shear off an azipod, all passengers could be lost... you get the point.

 

I have a family member with CF, I think your logic on most statements you've made in this thread are equally shaky at best.

Do you get your info from Fox news? I get my information from CF doctors who treat my grandchildren. Tell me about your medical degree

Edited December 8, 2014 by Tom47

[Host Jazzbeau]

Do you get your info from Fox news? I get my information from CF doctors who treat my grandchildren. Tell me about your medical degree

 

But here you're getting your information from Friends of the Earth. And if you read it carefully you will see that they aren't documenting that cruise ships are causing pollution that could hurt your grandchildren -- only that cruise lines refuse to answer their demands for information. I don't see any medical science, only political grandstanding.

[Tom47]

The comment about the tobacco particle is a direct quote from a CF doctor treating my granddaughter who was in the neo natal ICU. OBVIOUSLY,you know more than he does.

That makes you either a Noble prize winner or someone who wants to trivialize my concern for my grandchildren. If it is the second, I consider it to be a vile disgusting comment

[teecee60]

Do you get your info from Fox news? I get my information from CF doctors who treat my grandchildren. Tell me about your medical degree

 

Disgusting vile comments?

 

I thought the thread was about the environmental concerns of cruise ship operations as opposed to a genetically inherited disease concerning your family members. :confused:

 

From your comment, it sounds like you get your info from MSLSD. I would be exceedingly interested in seeing the documentation of your environmental, waste treatment, and engineering credentials.

Edited December 9, 2014 by teecee60

[xmarksx]

Tom, if you are truly concerned about these environmentalist causes why are you cruising? Lets be honest, it's not the most ecologically sound vacation option unless you are interested in something partially sail driven. Regardless, lashing out against members of this board will not forward your cause. To the contrary, it seems detrimental to your argument.

 

Before you go hating on me, I was a card carrying Sierra Club member in the 1980's and donated my fair share to WWF (not the wrestling group) yearly. I just see some of these groups as having less than pure motives or taking a shotgun approach to every social justice issue, not just the environment. I took a look at their website, they appear to be one of those shotgun groups.

Edited December 9, 2014 by xmarksx

[parallax]

I was at the Department of Justice in the 1990s when they prosecuted some of the cruise lines for illegal dumping. While I was not a prosecutor on the case, some of the stories I heard about RC's activities were quite frightening. That being said, I believe that the cruise lines have been much more conscientious on environmental issues.

 

On the other hand, i am sometimes troubled when some industries, such as the cruise lines, refuse to share certain information. For example, the cruise lines have refused to give statistics on the number crimes committed on their ships. I think having public safety information is always important.

Edited December 9, 2014 by parallax

[4774Papa]

While I am concerned about the environment, I would want to look more closely at the evaluation criteria FOE used.

 

Here it is:

 

Grading methodology for the 2014 Cruise Ship Report Card

Friends of the Earth’s Cruise Ship Report Card ranks 16 major cruise lines and 167 cruise ships -- Carnival Cruise Lines, Celebrity Cruises, Costa Cruises, Crystal Cruises, Cunard Cruise Line, Disney Cruise Line, Holland America Line, MSC Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Lines, Oceania Cruises, P&O Cruises, Princess Cruises, Regent Seven Seas Cruises, Royal Caribbean Int’l, Seabourn Cruise Line and Silversea Cruises -- according to four environmental criteria: Sewage Treatment, Air Pollution Reduction, Water Quality Compliance and Transparency.

 

•To determine a cruise line’s Sewage Treatment grade, we compared the number of cruise ships in the cruise line that have installed advanced sewage treatment systems against the total number of ships in the cruise line.

•To determine the Air Pollution Reduction grade for each ship in a cruise line, only ships that dock at a port and plug in to available shoreside power hookups were graded. In addition, ships were given credit if they only utilize low sulfur fuels continuously at levels lower than required by international and U.S. law.

•To determine the Water Quality Compliance grade for ships operating in Alaska, we used 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 notices of violation issued for individual cruise ships to each cruise line by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Ships were given an "N/A" if they traveled to Alaska but avoided Alaska’s strong water quality standards by discharging outside of those protected waters.

•To determine the Transparency grade for each cruise line we graded each line based on whether it responded to our 2014 requests for information regarding their environmental practices.

•The grades for each of the four criteria were averaged to calculate the Final Grade for each cruise line.

 

 

It seems that X did well on the sewage issue, but not so well on the air pollution.

The key seems to be if the cruise ships can plug into local power sources.

 

That may depend on the availability of power at ports. Remote ports may not have that option. Celebrity does cruise to a lot of more remote locations.

 

Of course, some of the other cruise lines like Princess and Holland America do as well.

 

After looking at FOE and their history, I see they are anti-nuclear, which tells me that they have that blind spot. I suppose anytime fossil fuel is used, it aggravates some environmental group, unless their rich supporters with private jets have to burn some.

[gek]

It seems that X did well on the sewage issue, but not so well on the air pollution.

The key seems to be if the cruise ships can plug into local power sources.

 

 

How is this an advantage if the power is sourced from fossil-fuels anyway? Or if sourced from Nuclear power stations, which FoE are obviously opposed to?

 

Organisations such as FoE are as much about pushing a political agenda as they are about actually doing something for the environment. This is why companies ignore them and refuse to respond to information requests. The work they do would be far more valuable if they actually praised companies when they get it right rather than throwing hissy fits when no one will talk to them.

[4774Papa]

How is this an advantage if the power is sourced from fossil-fuels anyway? Or if sourced from Nuclear power stations, which FoE are obviously opposed to?

 

Organisations such as FoE are as much about pushing a political agenda as they are about actually doing something for the environment. This is why companies ignore them and refuse to respond to information requests. The work they do would be far more valuable if they actually praised companies when they get it right rather than throwing hissy fits when no one will talk to them.

Good points.

If the cruise ship plugs into local power and that power is created by burning fossil fuels, what is the advantage vs. using ships engines?

Also, concur on the political agenda.