Environmental impact

[Kkkkatyo]

I have cruised with a variety of cruise lines, but am now reluctant to cruise at all due to what the ships are emitting into our oceans and skies. The research has be quite alarming and it is only going to get worse. My question is whether or not there is a cruise line that is actively implementing ways of lessening that impact. If not my conscience will not allow me to cruise!

[c-boy]

your first post on this site and you choose this subject ....   agenda ?

[clo]

19 minutes ago, Kkkkatyo said:

The research has be quite alarming

Could you provide a link about this?  Not doubting you but I'd appreciate reading about it.  TIA.

[Kkkkatyo]

I chose this topic because I love cruising and am hopeful that someone has information on a cruise line that is more environmentally friendly or is actively researching ways to lower their impact. 

[Cruiser_1977]

@Kkkkatyo Each major cruise line has their own environmental policy. Here are some links:

https://www.princess.com/aboutus/environmental-responsibility

http://www.rclcorporate.com/environment/

https://www.ncl.com/about/environmental-commitment

 

Could you please provide a link to the research you mention?

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by JennyB1977

[RocketMan275]

53 minutes ago, c-boy said:

your first post on this site and you choose this subject ....   agenda ?

This is at least the third similar post in as many weeks.  Yes, agenda.

[VMax1700]

Even if there is a cruise line that is 'environmentally friendly' the tractor units/rigs hauling the food & drink to the cruise port in the refrigerated units will negate any saving. 

 

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, Kkkkatyo said:

I have cruised with a variety of cruise lines, but am now reluctant to cruise at all due to what the ships are emitting into our oceans and skies. The research has be quite alarming and it is only going to get worse. My question is whether or not there is a cruise line that is actively implementing ways of lessening that impact. If not my conscience will not allow me to cruise!

Being so environmentally conscience, I assume you cycle everywhere, live off the grid, grow your own fruit/vegetables, etc. Certainly hope you never fly anywhere, or use polluting buses.

 

Really, the marine industry has made massive strides to manage pollution, with energy efficient engines, scrubbers, waste treatment systems, recycling, waste oil disposal

[hallasm]

The push towards emission free sailing has started

Norway challenges the cruise industry to operate emission free

New environmental requirements in the world heritage fjords

 

Hurtigruten is upgrading their ships for LNG as well as batteries for electric propulsion. Many cruis lines are introducing LNG powered ships,

Edited July 17, 2019 by hallasm

[TonyB17]

I don't understand why wanting information on how to limit our damage to the environment is considered an "agenda."

[leaveitallbehind]

29 minutes ago, TonyB17 said:

I don't understand why wanting information on how to limit our damage to the environment is considered an "agenda."

 

I think it's because the OP made a position statement without factual support instead of asking a question based on a real desire to learn the facts.  But why bother to support a position with the facts - that would just make the comments less controversial. That is an agenda. 

 

And if one would bother to look at what is regulated and required of the cruise industry in terms of environmental responsibility, one would see that they are one of the strongest regulated and least impacting segments on the environment within the maritime industry - of which the cruise industry is a small minority segment.  I'm not sure where he gets the information he claims to support his statement.  But to offer that in a balanced discussion on his part would likely weaken his position, and therefore, his agenda.

Edited July 17, 2019 by leaveitallbehind

[TonyB17]

Since more than one person wanted a link, this wasn't too hard to find:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/04/26/cruise-ship-pollution-is-causing-serious-health-and-environmental-problems/#4c9b77d837db

 

Does Forbes have a reputation for being anti-business or anti-capitalism?  It sounded to me like the OP was looking for information on lines that might be doing more than the minimum required by law.  That doesn't sound like a radical agenda to me.

 

BTW, we'll be going on our next cruise in September.  I understand that we're going to have a bigger impact on the environment than if we stayed home or chose a different vacation.  Does it make me pause a little?  Yes.  Are we still going?  Yes.  I don't think it's having an agenda to understand that our choices have an impact on our environment.  What we do with that information is up to the individual.

 

[Kkkkatyo]

Thank you to those who responded in a positive way to my question about environmental impact of cruising. It was the Forbes article that I recently read. I apologize on not providing the link myself as I am not very computer savvy. Thanks to those who sent me other links as to what the cruise lines are doing which is what I asked. I continue to learn🙂

[Essiesmom]

Keep in mind that cruise ships are a very small percentage of traffic on the oceans, and are far more environmentally conscious than those others.  EM

[Kkkkatyo]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Being so environmentally conscience, I assume you cycle everywhere, live off the grid, grow your own fruit/vegetables, etc. Certainly hope you never fly anywhere, or use polluting buses.

 

Really, the marine industry has made massive strides to manage pollution, with energy efficient engines, scrubbers, waste treatment systems, recycling, waste oil disposal

Thank you for your input. I have received some links that talk about what you have mentioned in the latter part of your comment. 

[Mike981]

@Kkkkatyo Glad you are getting the information you wanted.  Just a note to help with some of the reactions to your question,  I believe some of the regulars might be a bit on edge with the trolls. There seems to be a lot of strange posts going on at the moment at CC. 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Kkkkatyo said:

Thank you for your input. I have received some links that talk about what you have mentioned in the latter part of your comment. 

To add to what Andy (Heidi13) said, I will again go against journalists who don't check facts, and rely on groups with an agenda like "Nobu" in Germany who are the basis of much of the article.  While the statement that "Nabu surveyed 77 cruise ships and found that all but one used toxic heavy fuel oil that the group described as “dirtiest of all fuels”, is likely correct, there is some context missing here.  First off, this same heavy fuel oil is used by 98% of world shipping, and 90% of the world's economy goes by ship, so calling out the cruise industry is like protesting DeLorean cars, while ignoring General Motors and Ford.  Also, when any ship is within the various ECA's (emission control areas), they must burn low sulfur fuel, or use an exhaust gas scrubber system that reduces emissions to levels consistent with low sulfur fuels.  These ECA's, as far as Nobu is concerned, are the North Sea and Baltic ECA's, which extend from a north south line through Ushant, France, east to St. Petersburg, Russia, and north of a line through Ushant again, and south of a line going through the Faroe Islands.  So, no ship, whether cruise or cargo, is burning high sulfur heavy fuel oil (or not treating it) hundreds of miles from Germany.  Further the EU requires that within 2 hours of docking in an EU port, that all ships (even ports outside the ECA's) must change over to low sulfur fuel.

 

Finally, these high sulfur fuels are legal, so if conservationists are so concerned, they should work with international agencies like the IMO, to set new emissions standards, that would apply to all shipping, not just the 5% or less that cruising represents.  And, what these environmentalists fail to mention is that the IMO has already taken unilateral action to reduce sulfur in marine fuels, for all ships, starting in January of next year, reducing it by 86% despite warnings from experts on the effects on the world economy of this move.

 

Forbes doesn't even get the facts right.  They claim that nitrogen oxides are the worst culprits, yet these have been limited in marine diesel engine design since 2006, and are far more easily controlled than sulfur oxides, which are caused by the sulfur content of the fuel.

 

Then there is the old standby of "dumping sewage" into the ocean, when cruise ships typically have "advanced waste water treatment plants" that treat all gray and black water to near fresh drinking water quality, while every other ship afloat has basically a residential septic tank system that only treats the black water (toilets) and nothing to the gray water (sinks, showers, laundry, galley), which is the legal minimum requirement, so the cruise lines go millions of dollars over and above.

 

The article also fails in one major fact, when it says the industry operates "without homogenized standards", when in fact the entire maritime industry must meet the IMO standards of MARPOL (Marine Pollution) convention and its various annexes that relate to various types of pollution (oil, air, sewage, garbage, hazardous chemicals).

[leaveitallbehind]

38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

To add to what Andy (Heidi13) said, I will again go against journalists who don't check facts, and rely on groups with an agenda like "Nobu" in Germany who are the basis of much of the article.  While the statement that "Nabu surveyed 77 cruise ships and found that all but one used toxic heavy fuel oil that the group described as “dirtiest of all fuels”, is likely correct, there is some context missing here.  First off, this same heavy fuel oil is used by 98% of world shipping, and 90% of the world's economy goes by ship, so calling out the cruise industry is like protesting DeLorean cars, while ignoring General Motors and Ford.  Also, when any ship is within the various ECA's (emission control areas), they must burn low sulfur fuel, or use an exhaust gas scrubber system that reduces emissions to levels consistent with low sulfur fuels.  These ECA's, as far as Nobu is concerned, are the North Sea and Baltic ECA's, which extend from a north south line through Ushant, France, east to St. Petersburg, Russia, and north of a line through Ushant again, and south of a line going through the Faroe Islands.  So, no ship, whether cruise or cargo, is burning high sulfur heavy fuel oil (or not treating it) hundreds of miles from Germany.  Further the EU requires that within 2 hours of docking in an EU port, that all ships (even ports outside the ECA's) must change over to low sulfur fuel.

 

Finally, these high sulfur fuels are legal, so if conservationists are so concerned, they should work with international agencies like the IMO, to set new emissions standards, that would apply to all shipping, not just the 5% or less that cruising represents.  And, what these environmentalists fail to mention is that the IMO has already taken unilateral action to reduce sulfur in marine fuels, for all ships, starting in January of next year, reducing it by 86% despite warnings from experts on the effects on the world economy of this move.

 

Forbes doesn't even get the facts right.  They claim that nitrogen oxides are the worst culprits, yet these have been limited in marine diesel engine design since 2006, and are far more easily controlled than sulfur oxides, which are caused by the sulfur content of the fuel.

 

Then there is the old standby of "dumping sewage" into the ocean, when cruise ships typically have "advanced waste water treatment plants" that treat all gray and black water to near fresh drinking water quality, while every other ship afloat has basically a residential septic tank system that only treats the black water (toilets) and nothing to the gray water (sinks, showers, laundry, galley), which is the legal minimum requirement, so the cruise lines go millions of dollars over and above.

 

The article also fails in one major fact, when it says the industry operates "without homogenized standards", when in fact the entire maritime industry must meet the IMO standards of MARPOL (Marine Pollution) convention and its various annexes that relate to various types of pollution (oil, air, sewage, garbage, hazardous chemicals).

 

Thank you as always for your informed and accurate response.  I only hope that Kkkkatyo and TonyB17 also read and digest this information as, coming from you, it is expert information that reflects the facts.

[sloopsailor]

Regarding Forbes as a source of accurate information, I have often seen articles that they publish that are dubious at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. I read what they publish with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

Here is what https://mediabiasfactcheck.com has to say:

 

 

 

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

 

• Overall, we rate Forbes Right-Center biased based on story selection that tends to favor the right and the political affiliation of its ownership. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading or false stories related to climate science.

 

 

 

And according to https://www.writeraccess.com/ :

 

1. Forbes.com

Fans of the Forbes magazine may not realize that Forbes.com has very little to do with the official publication. The articles on Forbes.com are not written or even edited by the writers of the magazine. Instead, they are contributed by writers from around the world. Contributors to the website write their own articles and submit them in exchange for royalty payments. None of the facts within the articles are checked and editors do not modify the contributions in any way. 

Edited July 17, 2019 by sloopsailor

[clo]

15 minutes ago, fyree39 said:

This decision may have absolutely no impact on the the targe

On the occasions that I've boycotted a company, I've communicated with local and corporate managers to let me know.

[leaveitallbehind]

40 minutes ago, fyree39 said:

...If you are as worried about the pollution created by cruising, you could consciously decide to vacation in a different, more earth-friendly way....

 

Such as, for example....?  And if you have read the information in the post provided by chengkp75 and that included in the post by sloopsailer just a few before yours you would realize that much of the rhetoric regarding pollution and the cruise industry is inaccurate and misleading at best, and typically misrepresented, IMO, as an agenda to insight controversy.

Edited July 18, 2019 by leaveitallbehind

[taglovestocruise]

9 hours ago, Kkkkatyo said:

I have cruised with a variety of cruise lines, but am now reluctant to cruise at all due to what the ships are emitting into our oceans and skies. The research has be quite alarming and it is only going to get worse. My question is whether or not there is a cruise line that is actively implementing ways of lessening that impact. If not my conscience will not allow me to cruise!

Ships sail full. If you don't go someone else will fill your spot.  Run and hide if you want. 

[clo]

1 hour ago, taglovestocruise said:

Ships sail full. If you don't go someone else will fill your spot.  Run and hide if you want. 

I anyway make daily decisions about things that effect the planet and I hope everyone does.  Could I do more?  Of course.  But we all make choices based on our moral code and other things.

[clo]

8 minutes ago, fyree39 said:

To let you know what? I'm not following...

Oh, I'm sorry.  To let THEM know.  I figure otherwise it really does make no difference.  And I tell ya I've considered giving a donation to an LGBTQ organization to justify eating just once at Chick Fil A.

[navybankerteacher]

11 hours ago, Kkkkatyo said:

I have cruised with a variety of cruise lines, but am now reluctant to cruise at all due to what the ships are emitting into our oceans and skies. The research has be quite alarming and it is only going to get worse. My question is whether or not there is a cruise line that is actively implementing ways of lessening that impact. If not my conscience will not allow me to cruise!

See how your conscience feels about windjammer cruises.  There will of course be some food waste;  but running before the wind consumes very little fossil fuel.

 

Of course, what would you be doing if not on a cruise ship - driving anywhere, heating or air conditioning your house, using public transportation, eating food not grown by you - which needed fertilizer, farm machinery, transportation to your local grocers?  You might actually reduce your carbon footprint by spending a week under sail.