Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
kangforpres

Environmental impact of cruising and tourism

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Cargo ships are much more efficient per ton/mile than freight trains. But, freight trains often run in an almost straight line, rather than circumvent the coast. For example, trains run through the American heartland north to south, while ships must manoeuvre around Florida and along the Atlantic coast.

 

Yes, you can sail a boat up the Mississippi, but you are very much limited by the draft beyond St Louis. And, limited in size south of St Louis.

 

Fun fact. China has embarked on the Belt and Road initiative (aka New Silk Road). Building road and rail infrastructure linking China to Russia, Europe and the Middle East. More efficient to travel in a straight line than to sail around SE Asia and through the Suez.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative

 

Hope that this reduces the growth in shipping. Moreover, trains and automobiles can be electrified relatively easy.

 

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/03/can-trains-drive-clean-energy/519441/

 

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature-top-ten-fastest-trains-in-the-world/

 

How many coastal passenger ships service Europe? Most people travel by bus or rail where there is a land alternative. Why is that?

 

Yes, ships are the most efficient way to ship cargo across oceans and on a direct route. But, this doesn't mean that its okay to burn the dirtiest fuel in open waters. Did the industry think that no one would notice?

 

Yes, there is a backlash against cruise ships when there are accidents like the one in Venice. Yes, there is a backlash against the city-size megaships.

 

Yes, as the Guardian article mentioned...

 

“Southampton, which has Britain’s second largest container port and is Europe’s busiest cruise terminal, is one of nine UK cities cited by the World Health Organisation as breaching air quality guidelines even though it has little manufacturing.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem

 

 

While you are correct that it is better to move in a straight line, a single "E-class" Maersk container ship can transport 156,000 tons of cargo, which is 7000 forty foot shipping containers.  A train carrying this much cargo would be over 60 miles long.  Where rivers don't flow, then yes, road transport makes sense, unless you are going to dig canals.  However, did you miss the part of the "Belt and Road" initiative that is the "Road", which in fact refers to maritime transportation, among southeast asian nations, even those that could be connected by rail.

 

Even if trains and cars are electrified, where does the electricity come from?  Approximately 66% of world electrical generation is from fossil fuels, so for the most part you are merely transferring the GHG generation from many points to one point.

 

Last year saw 175 million tons of cargo moved by barge on the Mississippi river, above the head of navigation (point about Baton Rouge where ocean going ships cannot go.  And the lower Mississippi accounts for 165 million tons of seagoing cargo a year.

 

Both in the US and in the EU, there are plans and studies to improve what is known as "short sea shipping" or coastwise shipping as a means to reduce pollution, traffic, and infrastructure damage to land based transportation systems.  One ship can eliminate several hundred trucks.

 

"But, this doesn't mean that its okay to burn the dirtiest fuel in open waters. Did the industry think that no one would notice?"

The ships were burning the fuel that was allowed under international regulations, and national laws in ports.  Do you really think that buses in the US have changed to LNG because it is a more environmentally friendly fuel?  Hardly, LNG is cheaper, pure and simple.  The industry didn't care if anyone noticed, because it was perfectly legal.  Now that regulations have changed (and many have been in effect for 5-6 years), the maritime industry is changing to meet the new regulations, using cleaner fuels or approved scrubbers.

 

And, yet, the incident in Venice had no fatalities, and no major injuries, but what about passenger trains?  2018 saw over 40 train accidents worldwide with many fatalities and far more injured.  Just so far this year, there have been 83 train fatalities and 907 injuries.

 

And if they did a study of Southampton, my guess would be that since they are the second largest container port in Britain, this means they have the second most number of trucks picking the containers up from the dock, contributing more than a little to the air quality problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While you are correct that it is better to move in a straight line, a single "E-class" Maersk container ship can transport 156,000 tons of cargo, which is 7000 forty foot shipping containers.  A train carrying this much cargo would be over 60 miles long.  Where rivers don't flow, then yes, road transport makes sense, unless you are going to dig canals.  However, did you miss the part of the "Belt and Road" initiative that is the "Road", which in fact refers to maritime transportation, among southeast asian nations, even those that could be connected by rail.

 

Even if trains and cars are electrified, where does the electricity come from?  Approximately 66% of world electrical generation is from fossil fuels, so for the most part you are merely transferring the GHG generation from many points to one point.

 

Right. So sail the "E-class" Maersk up the Mississippi! Anyway, river traffic isn't as energy efficient as ocean shipping. How much less?

 

Yes, lots of solar power plants now. Growing at 30% per annum. Huge chunk in India and China, perfect for the Belt and Road generation. 250 mph trains. Don't be so negative. The world is changing. We're dinosaurs!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

 

 

22 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

And if they did a study of Southampton, my guess would be that since they are the second largest container port in Britain, this means they have the second most number of trucks picking the containers up from the dock, contributing more than a little to the air quality problems.

 

Right! Ships are so good at pollution...

 

“Daniel Rieger, a transport officer at German environment group Nabu, said: “Cruise companies create a picture of being a bright, clean and environmentally friendly tourism sector. But the opposite is true. One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance because these ships use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.”

Nabu has measured pollution in large German ports and found high concentrations of pollutants. “Heavy fuel oil can contain 3,500 times more sulphur than diesel that is used for land traffic vehicles. Ships do not have exhaust abatement technologies like particulate filters that are standard on passenger cars and lorries,” says Rieger.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem

 

Listen to the experts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Right. So sail the "E-class" Maersk up the Mississippi! Anyway, river traffic isn't as energy efficient as ocean shipping. How much less?

 

Yes, lots of solar power plants now. Growing at 30% per annum. Huge chunk in India and China, perfect for the Belt and Road generation. 250 mph trains. Don't be so negative. The world is changing. We're dinosaurs!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

 

 

 

Right! Ships are so good at pollution...

 

“Daniel Rieger, a transport officer at German environment group Nabu, said: “Cruise companies create a picture of being a bright, clean and environmentally friendly tourism sector. But the opposite is true. One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance because these ships use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.”

Nabu has measured pollution in large German ports and found high concentrations of pollutants. “Heavy fuel oil can contain 3,500 times more sulphur than diesel that is used for land traffic vehicles. Ships do not have exhaust abatement technologies like particulate filters that are standard on passenger cars and lorries,” says Rieger.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem

 

Listen to the experts.

 

You have data to show that river traffic is less efficient than ocean shipping?  And why does the Mississippi continue to carry millions of tons of cargo on barges, if the rail system is so much more efficient?  As you say, we have a great rail network, why not use it if it would cost less?

 

Saying that something is growing by 30% can be misleading, since that is 30% of only about 7% of the world's power (solar and wind combined).

 

And why has Mr. Rieger and Nabu not gotten the German government to propose stricter regulations to the IMO, as is their right as a member state, before all of this, especially when they start voicing concern just when the IMO is reducing sulfur content by 86% next year, world wide?  And ships anywhere near Germany are not allowed to burn residual fuel, unless they have the exhaust abatement equipment Mr. Rieger says they don't.  Look up the extent of the North Sea ECA, and the Baltic ECA, and EU port regulations to see that in those areas, ships must meet a 0.01% sulfur requirement, or a 99.3% reduction in sulfur, and have had to for years (2005).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You have data to show that river traffic is less efficient than ocean shipping?  And why does the Mississippi continue to carry millions of tons of cargo on barges, if the rail system is so much more efficient?  As you say, we have a great rail network, why not use it if it would cost less?

 

Saying that something is growing by 30% can be misleading, since that is 30% of only about 7% of the world's power (solar and wind combined).

 

And why has Mr. Rieger and Nabu not gotten the German government to propose stricter regulations to the IMO, as is their right as a member state, before all of this, especially when they start voicing concern just when the IMO is reducing sulfur content by 86% next year, world wide?  And ships anywhere near Germany are not allowed to burn residual fuel, unless they have the exhaust abatement equipment Mr. Rieger says they don't.  Look up the extent of the North Sea ECA, and the Baltic ECA, and EU port regulations to see that in those areas, ships must meet a 0.01% sulfur requirement, or a 99.3% reduction in sulfur, and have had to for years (2005).

 

Your problem is that you make claims without attribution. Anyone trained properly in college knows the importance of attributing the source of your numbers.

 

You say that 175m tons were shipped above Baton Rouge. Source? Should you compare rail with river freight, you need to compare the mileage. How many million tons/km?

 

Are barges long distance travellers?

 

You say that Mr. Regis' organization should have lobbied for a rule change. Then you say that the rules changed in 2005. Source?

 

You know very well that when the rules changed, the old ships are grandfathered. That is, ships without abatement technology continue to sail. Any idea what portion of the fleet has the new technology?

 

When will the old ships be retired?

 

You dismiss the potential for solar power. Yet, the article clearly states that solar provides only 3% of world electrical supply currently. But, growing exponentially at 30%, what is its global share in 10 years time? In 20 years time?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

 

What's needed to reach the climate change goal of zero GHG emission by 2050?

 

You guess that the trucks in Southampton are responsible for the pollution. Yet, residents are quoted as complaining about the ships. Do the residents not know where the pollution is coming from?

 

“We can smell, see and taste it. These ships are like blocks of flats. Sometimes there are five or more in the docks at the same time. The wind blows their pollution directly into the city and as far we can tell, there is no monitoring of their pollution. We are pushing for them to use shore power but they have resisted.”

“The liners pollute, but the road traffic that they and the cargo ships generate is also huge,” he adds.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem

 

Etc etc. It may be that there someone is feeding you info. You should check the info before putting it in print?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Your problem is that you make claims without attribution. Anyone trained properly in college knows the importance of attributing the source of your numbers.

 

You say that 175m tons were shipped above Baton Rouge. Source? Should you compare rail with river freight, you need to compare the mileage. How many million tons/km?

 

Are barges long distance travellers?

 

You say that Mr. Regis' organization should have lobbied for a rule change. Then you say that the rules changed in 2005. Source?

 

You know very well that when the rules changed, the old ships are grandfathered. That is, ships without abatement technology continue to sail. Any idea what portion of the fleet has the new technology?

 

When will the old ships be retired?

 

You dismiss the potential for solar power. Yet, the article clearly states that solar provides only 3% of world electrical supply currently. But, growing exponentially at 30%, what is its global share in 10 years time? In 20 years time?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

 

What's needed to reach the climate change goal of zero GHG emission by 2050?

 

You guess that the trucks in Southampton are responsible for the pollution. Yet, residents are quoted as complaining about the ships. Do the residents not know where the pollution is coming from?

 

“We can smell, see and taste it. These ships are like blocks of flats. Sometimes there are five or more in the docks at the same time. The wind blows their pollution directly into the city and as far we can tell, there is no monitoring of their pollution. We are pushing for them to use shore power but they have resisted.”

“The liners pollute, but the road traffic that they and the cargo ships generate is also huge,” he adds.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem

 

Etc etc. It may be that there someone is feeding you info. You should check the info before putting it in print?

 

You say "listen to the experts"  What are YOUR qualifications?  It seems to me like you're the one not listening to the experts.  What are your solutions or are you just a complainer.

 

Roy
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rafinmd said:

 

You say "listen to the experts"  What are YOUR qualifications?  It seems to me like you're the one not listening to the experts.  What are your solutions or are you just a complainer.

 

Roy
 

 

You misread what I said. I'm not a technical person. That's why I quote the professionals who specialize in the topic. and, clearly attribute the source.

 

I have confidence that the Nabu organization etc know what they talking about, and clearly the NGOs have had an influence on the governmental bodies. The question is whether it is enough. For decades, ships have been allowed to burn dirty fuel over the open seas. Has to stop. How soon will the old clinkers be phased out?

 

The goal is zero GHG emissions. What is the growth rate needed in renewal energy. Technology and problems solving in tandem. 

 

I am careful in the matter of analysis. I can tell when someone is firing blanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

You misread what I said. I'm not a technical person. That's why I quote the professionals who specialize in the topic. and, clearly attribute the source.

 

I have confidence that the Nabu organization etc know what they talking about, and clearly the NGOs have had an influence on the governmental bodies. The question is whether it is enough. For decades, ships have been allowed to burn dirty fuel over the open seas. Has to stop. How soon will the old clinkers be phased out?

 

The goal is zero GHG emissions. What is the growth rate needed in renewal energy. Technology and problems solving in tandem. 

 

I am careful in the matter of analysis. I can tell when someone is firing blanks.

 

 

Your lack of STEM education is very evident from your writing, however if you are as you say, truly careful  in your analysis, then please read with an open mind the information contained in the paper at this link, https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy  The author of the paper is a highly regarded  physicist. be wary of the information you glean from the MSM. 

Edited by old mike
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Your problem is that you make claims without attribution. Anyone trained properly in college knows the importance of attributing the source of your numbers.

 

You say that 175m tons were shipped above Baton Rouge. Source? Should you compare rail with river freight, you need to compare the mileage. How many million tons/km?

 

Are barges long distance travellers?

 

You say that Mr. Regis' organization should have lobbied for a rule change. Then you say that the rules changed in 2005. Source?

 

You know very well that when the rules changed, the old ships are grandfathered. That is, ships without abatement technology continue to sail. Any idea what portion of the fleet has the new technology?

 

When will the old ships be retired?

 

You dismiss the potential for solar power. Yet, the article clearly states that solar provides only 3% of world electrical supply currently. But, growing exponentially at 30%, what is its global share in 10 years time? In 20 years time?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

 

What's needed to reach the climate change goal of zero GHG emission by 2050?

 

You guess that the trucks in Southampton are responsible for the pollution. Yet, residents are quoted as complaining about the ships. Do the residents not know where the pollution is coming from?

 

“We can smell, see and taste it. These ships are like blocks of flats. Sometimes there are five or more in the docks at the same time. The wind blows their pollution directly into the city and as far we can tell, there is no monitoring of their pollution. We are pushing for them to use shore power but they have resisted.”

“The liners pollute, but the road traffic that they and the cargo ships generate is also huge,” he adds.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem

 

Etc etc. It may be that there someone is feeding you info. You should check the info before putting it in print?

 

Okay, 

 

For tonnage on the Mississippi, here are the figures:

 

https://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm

 

Here's a link about the efficiency of barge traffic:

 

https://ihsmarkit.com/country-industry-forecasting.html?ID=106593483

 

You'll note that each Mississippi barge has a capacity of 1530 tons, and a 15 barge "tow" (22,950 tons of cargo) is pushed by a boat that has the exact same engine as 3 locomotives (16-645E9 EMD diesel).

 

According to this:

 

http://www.quorumcorp.net/Downloads/Papers/RailwayCapacityOverview.pdf

a locomotive typically needs 1 hp per ton.  Those EMD engines generate 2000 hp, so each locomotive can move 2000 tons.  3 locomotives can move 6000 tons, compared to the 23,000 tons moved by those same engines in a pushboat.

 

And the barges travel the entire length of the 15,000 miles of navigable river that is the complex of Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and other rivers.  Yes, they go from St. Paul, Minnesota to New Orleans, LA.

 

Here is a link to "Emission Control Areas" showing dates of enforcement:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_Control_Area

 

And, you are absolutely incorrect about grandfathering, when it comes to air emissions.  No ship, of whatever age, is allowed to operate within one of the ECA's (North Sea, Baltic, North American, or US Caribbean) while burning fuel with a sulfur content of more than 0.1%, as well as when in any EU port. You can find all of this in MARPOL Annex VI, which is the international convention on air emissions.  The only exception to burning low sulfur fuel is if the ship has an approved exhaust gas scrubber installed, which reduces emissions to the same level as the 0.1% sulfur fuel.  The worldwide change, for all ships, coming next year, limits sulfur to 0.5% everywhere, but the ECA's will still limit it further.

 

Here's an IMO FAQ about the sulfur limits:

 

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/GHG/Documents/2020 sulphur limit FAQ 2019.pdf

 

I don't dismiss the potential of solar power, but I also know its limitations.  Solar power is a "low density" generation method, meaning it takes a lot of area to generate a small amount of power.  Trains, ships, cities and the like are "high density" power users, so there is going to be limits on how much of the total power demand can be met by solar, and 10 to 20 years down the road is fine, but the IMO is making marked changes now.

 

As for Southampton, they say the pollution is blowing from the docks.  Where do the trucks pick up the containers?  At the docks.  A container terminal is probably the single highest concentration of trucks and diesel exhaust around.  The statement about shore power sounds a bit disingenuous to me, as cruise lines have willingly adapted to shore power in California, Canada, and other places, but the major stumbling block for shore power installations is that the infrastructure must be paid by the local utility company or the port authority, and runs several million dollars, as well as finding the power generating capacity to handle the 8-10Mw of power a cruise ship needs while in port.

 

While I may not pedantically attribute every statement, no one is "feeding me information", and I know my facts having worked with these facts every day of my 45 year career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

You misread what I said. I'm not a technical person. That's why I quote the professionals who specialize in the topic. and, clearly attribute the source.

 

I have confidence that the Nabu organization etc know what they talking about, and clearly the NGOs have had an influence on the governmental bodies. The question is whether it is enough. For decades, ships have been allowed to burn dirty fuel over the open seas. Has to stop. How soon will the old clinkers be phased out?

 

The goal is zero GHG emissions. What is the growth rate needed in renewal energy. Technology and problems solving in tandem. 

 

I am careful in the matter of analysis. I can tell when someone is firing blanks.

From the IHS study I quoted:

 

Should fuel prices surge in the future as they did in the summer of 2008, we just may see more freight diverted to barge through new and innovative handling methods. An average tow can carry one ton, 514 miles on a gallon of diesel fuel, compared with the touted 202 miles by rail, and only 59 by truck. When it comes to commodities transported, barges move nearly 30% of the nation's coal, over 60% of all grain exports, and add an estimated $5 billion to the U.S. economy.

 

Still firing blanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic There's no question that in terms of passengers, the overwhelming portion is carried by road, air and rail. Ferries provide a useful service where road/rail is unavailable or inconvenient.

 

Therefore, sailing on multi-destination multi-day cruises is a leisure activity. That's why cruise ships have gotten bigger with more oomph in entertainment.

 

Cruising is an activity of choice. So, you need to make choices about which destinations, ships and companies you sail with. Choice implies economic, security, social and moral decisions. So, you are what you do.

 

Some may prefer ships to other modes of travel. That's fine. But, it would be a mistake to think that ships are the most efficient form of transportation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_United_States#Efficiency

 

In terms of efficiency, all forms of transportation combine to form a network. Which type of transport is best suited for a leg of the journey from manufacturer to customer?

 

The USA waterways transport bulk commodity well. It's not time sensitive, and bulk commodity is not easy to handle (unlike containers). So, load up the barge and send it slowly from source to destination.

 

The Wikipedia article shows that barge transport is slightly more fuel efficient than rail traffic. However, river traffic (when it is burning clean fuel) can be much better for the environment and our health.

 

On the other hand, road transport is continually improving in terms of efficiency and cleanliness because of government decree. What are the EPA rules for 2025?

 

Is water traffic required to similarly improve fuel efficiency? Why not? Ocean and river traffic consume a great amount of fossil fuel. Will continue to burn fossil fuel for generations. They shouldn't be given a free pass when other are making sacrifices.

 

So, you have to make choices. You are what you do.

 

 

Edited by HappyInVan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

The Wikipedia article shows that barge transport is slightly more fuel efficient than rail traffic. However, river traffic (when it is burning clean fuel) can be much better for the environment and our health.

 

 

 

And, again, you don't follow the facts, as shown by my bolding of your statement.  Every, single, vessel, regardless of flag, type, or age, operating within 200 nautical miles of the North American shoreline, and all inland waters, must burn low sulfur diesel fuel.

 

Even your Wiki article says that in 1997 (when there was no sulfur limit on diesel fuels), the use of water transportation saved 10 million metric tons of GHG over rail transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_United_States#Efficiency

 

In terms of efficiency, all forms of transportation combine to form a network. Which type of transport is best suited for a leg of the journey from manufacturer to customer?

 

The USA waterways transport bulk commodity well. It's not time sensitive, and bulk commodity is not easy to handle (unlike containers). So, load up the barge and send it slowly from source to destination.

 

The Wikipedia article shows that barge transport is slightly more fuel efficient than rail traffic. However, river traffic (when it is burning clean fuel) can be much better for the environment and our health.

 

You do realize the article you linked is notated by Wikipedia itself as having insufficient citations?  

verifcation.png.33b85b8922e935bd171f5943ea46f16a.png

 

As you said:

 

3 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

Your problem is that you make claims without attribution. Anyone trained properly in college knows the importance of attributing the source of your numbers.

 

They also recognize that analysis of data sometimes takes knowledge beyond what the posses and try to converse with those more knowledgeable in a field to understand how to interpret them and figure out what the numbers really mean.  People like @chengkp75 who has pointed out on several occasions where you've missed applicable facts or misinterpreted data. 

 

 

3 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

am careful in the matter of analysis. I can tell when someone is firing blanks.

 

So can I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic Someone asked me about solutions?

 

My personal solution is to not travel with Carnival or the other big listed companies. The profit pressure is too great on management. They're willing to do terrible things, while spending millions on PR whitewash. Knowing full well that their crews are taking shortcuts (wink wink).

 

In the future, I will sail on new ships for short distances. Few sea days. I'm sailing with Ponant for 7 night itineraries to coastal towns NOT visited by the mega-ships. I'll check with the engineers about their state-of the-art technology. I'll let you know.

 

Let there be no doubt about the state of the industry. In 2010-2014, multiple cruise companies were fined for polluting Alaska waters. Caught after complaints by residents.

 

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2013/01/articles/cruise-pollution/princess-cruises-fined-for-dumping-66000-gallons-of-chlorinated-water-into-glacier-bay-in-alaska/

 

After all the fines and hullabaloo, Princess was still breaking the law. In 2013, a whistle-blowing engineer turned his company in...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Corporation_%26_plc#Repeated_violations_of_environmental_laws

 

 

So, the court put Carnival on probation in 2016. Management must have told the crews to stop falsifying the records. Because, the court auditors discover 'self-reported' multiple violations since 2016. Including failures of the EGCS system...

 

https://www.stand.earth/blog/markets-vs-climate/carnivals-cruise-pollution/open-letter-international-maritime-organization

 

 

Here's a John Hopkins study published this January. The ships Carnival Liberty, Carnival Freedom, MS Amsterdam and Princess Emerald in 2017/18 were tested...

 

“The average PM readings in the stern areas of each ship were significantly higher than the average readings measured fore of the smokestacks (towards the bow) (paired t-tests, alpha 0.05). The findings of this study demonstrate that a source of PM—likely, in part from the ship’s exhaust system—is contributing to poorer air quality in the stern areas of these cruise ships. Concentrations of PM on the decks of these ships are comparable to concentrations measured in polluted cities, including Beijing and Santiago. Despite being on the open water and in open air, vacationers and cruise ship staff may be exposed to elevated concentrations of PM.”

 

So, pity the poor residents of Southampton etc. Spokesmen for the status quo (the industry advocates) have a certain naivete about the willingness of the industry to follow the rules.

 

https://www.stand.earth/sites/default/files/2019-an-investigation-of-air-pollution-on-the-decks-of-4-cruise-ship.pdf

 

Of interest is the amount of particles emitted in port. Usually 2x higher than at sea. The Carnival FREEDOM (built 2007) had a maximum one-minute reading of 119,983 Pts/cc. Whilst the Emerald (built 200) had an astonishing concentration of 126,786 Pts/cc.

 

I hope that cheng and company take note.

 

What should the governments do? They need to audit every cruise ship at least once a year. And install data recorders (aircraft-type) to defeat record falsification. No half measures.

 

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2018/09/articles/pollution/alaska-issues-air-water-violations-polluting-cruise-lines/

 

Any recurring violators need to be retrofitted with effective add-on scrubbers, or scrapped. Your health (the customer) is at stake, while the company takes your money.

 

 

Edited by HappyInVan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

f interest is the amount of particles emitted in port. Usually 2x higher than at sea. The Carnival FREEDOM (built 2007) had a maximum one-minute reading of 119,983 Pts/cc. Whilst the Emerald (built 200) had an astonishing concentration of 126,786 Pts/cc.

 

I hope that cheng and company take note.

Again you are demonstrating your ignorance and I'm sorry to say gullability. Without size distribution the numbers you quote are  meaningless.The report you reference was little more than a publicity stunt. 

 

 I am  a professional in the field, one  of the individuals you entreat others to listen to. 

Edited by old mike
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, old mike said:

Again you are demonstrating your ignorance and I'm sorry to say gullability. Without size distribution the numbers you quote are completely meaningless.The report you reference was little more than a publicity stunt. 

 

 I am  a professional in the field, one  of the individuals you entreat others to listen to. 

 

 

Yes, it's a one-man study. Yet, the numbers are interesting. The  researcher used the bow/stern data collection points to identify the source and severity of the pollution.

 

Have you done any studies like this? Are there studies with different results?

 

BTW, you're from Alberta? How are the wildfires? I hear that they started early this year.

 

Correction: I said that it was a John Hopkins study. More correctly, it's a study by a Hopkins researcher for StandEarth.

 

Edited by HappyInVan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, old mike said:

Again you are demonstrating your ignorance and I'm sorry to say gullability. Without size distribution the numbers you quote are  meaningless.The report you reference was little more than a publicity stunt. 

 

 I am  a professional in the field, one  of the individuals you entreat others to listen to. 

 

There is a very interesting article on Stand Earth's activities and associates in the Financial Post.  I bet you would enjoy reading it 🙂 

 

HappyInVan, are you expending as much energy getting Victoria, the capital of BC,  to clean up its dumping of sewage into the ocean as you are expending on this thread? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VennDiagram said:

 

HappyInVan, are you expending as much energy getting Victoria, the capital of BC,  to clean up its dumping of sewage into the ocean as you are expending on this thread? 

 Huh? This sewage project?

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-sewage-treatment-plant-construction-regulations-1.5123974

 

BTW, I was looking at Dr Kennedy's article, and noticed something about the ships.

 

https://www.stand.earth/sites/default/files/2019-an-investigation-of-air-pollution-on-the-decks-of-4-cruise-ship.pdf

 

So why did the MS Amsterdam (build 2000) perform better than later ships. It may not be a coincidence that the HAL, Costa and Aida ships are registered in Europe while the Carnival and Princess ships are registered with flags of convenience. Think about it.

 

 

Edited by HappyInVan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

Back on topic Someone asked me about solutions?

 

My personal solution is to not travel with Carnival or the other big listed companies. The profit pressure is too great on management. They're willing to do terrible things, while spending millions on PR whitewash. Knowing full well that their crews are taking shortcuts (wink wink).

 

So, tell me, how do you know the "profit pressure" is any less at Ponant, than at Carnival, since Ponant is privately held and does not have to produce any financial statements.  But with that, I will leave you to your "facts" and to defending doctoral theses, and I will go back to dealing with these facts every working day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 12:46 PM, RocketMan275 said:

I certainly agree that there are those who try to use science to advance their political objectives.  

But, speaking of science.  The scientific method is the basis of science.  This method advances an hypothesis, A happens because of B.  Predictions are made from the hypothesis.  Data is gathered and it is compared to the predictions.  A central tenet of the scientific method is that the hypothesis must be 'falsifiable', ie proven wrong.  The hypothesis that man is causing global climate change isn't something that can be proven wrong. 

 

When the argument changed from global warming to climate change, the argument lost it's connection to the scientific method.  Any change in the climate, ie, it gets hotter, it gets colder, it gets wetter, it gets drier, all can be taken as evidence of climate change.  But, if you try to argue that because of man/carbon, it's getting hotter, you can disprove that, it is falsifiable.  But, if the argument is that man/carbon is causing it to get both hotter and colder, that argument cannot be falsifiable, therefore it cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method.  It maybe many things but it cannot be 'scientific'.

 

A second thing is money.  Money for 'science' tends to follow what is popular.  In the eighties, it was AIDS.  It was much easier to get grants if you could show a relationship between your research and AIDS. Now, the popular subject is climate change.  A large number of 'scientists' owe their finances to research into global climate change.  Does this affect their 'science'?  We cannot take the position that oil/coal money is suspect without also be suspicious of the other money flowing into this research.  A scientist who doesn't produce the 'right' answers will have difficulty in obtaining future grants.  

 

Should we try to be better custodians?  Of course.  But we should also be aware that most of these efforts are purely symbolic with little lasting effect.   I'm sure we all have seen projections similar to this:  if we spend $X trillions, we can reduce the global temperature by 0.2 degrees cel. in 2080.  Surely, one should question if this is the wisest use of $X Trillions.  

 

I agree 100%, but please don't call me Shirley...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 7:11 AM, Hlitner said:

In what other profession can you be wrong about half the time and still have a job :).

 

America's 'favorite' pastime is even better than that, where failing to hit 7 out of ten times at bat (.300 batting average) is considered excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

So why did the MS Amsterdam (build 2000) perform better than later ships. It may not be a coincidence that the HAL, Costa and Aida ships are registered in Europe while the Carnival and Princess ships are registered with flags of convenience. Think about it.

 

HAL and Costa both, years ago, used flags of convenience, not sure of Aida.  Both returned to their home country flags, along with Aida not because there were stricter standards, but because the financial climate was changed by new laws to draw back national fleets from flags of convenience.  Italy enacted a bareboat charter act, that said the ship charterer could eliminate most of the Italian flag requirements and still fly the Italian flag, in 1989, and has recently created a "second register" (the Italian International Register) that allows the shipowner or charterer to avoid most Italian labor laws while still flying the Italian flag.  Germany also has a second register, but even for ships in the German national register, there are incentives like the fact that the company has to deduct the German wage tax from the crew, but gets to keep it and not give it to the government.  There are other subsidies as well.  Holland has similar subsidies, allowing the company to keep 40% of the wage tax from EU crew, and 10% of wage tax from all other crew.

 

Why did Amsterdam perform better?  Because Dr. Kennedy did not follow scientific method, and used a sample size that was too small.  He was on no ship more than 8 days, and one ship as little as 4 days.  Wind (speed and direction), barometric pressure, humidity, wind relative speed (including the vector of ship's speed), and wind relative direction (including the vector of ship's course) all have effects on how exhaust gas flows, and should have been measured and used to compare results.  Because of all of these mitigating factors, the sample size of one cruise worth of data points becomes significant in its small size.  I realize that Stand Earth did not want to spend the money for Dr. Kennedy to take continual cruises to study the effects over a long time period, but a serious scientist should not have put out a study that was limited simply by fiscal considerations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 1:35 PM, AL3XCruise said:

They also recognize that analysis of data sometimes takes knowledge beyond what the posses and try to converse with those more knowledgeable in a field to understand how to interpret them and figure out what the numbers really mean.  People like @chengkp75 who has pointed out on several occasions where you've missed applicable facts or misinterpreted data. 

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm really dumb.

 

Perhaps, you can help me out. I was told that high sulphur fuel was being scrubbed by Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems within 200 miles of the USA coast.

 

Yet, we have this alarming letter from StandEarth to the IMO. Apparently, the judge was so alarmed by Carnival's transgressions that she unsealed the First Annual Report of the Court Appointed Monitor. This except was published by StandEarth.

 

https://www.stand.earth/blog/markets-vs-climate/carnivals-cruise-pollution/open-letter-international-maritime-organization

 

“The CAM Team identified over thirty reported incidents on Covered [Carnival Corporation & plc] Vessels related to EGCSs during ECP Year One. Many of these incidents relate to unexpected EGCS shutdowns resulting in violations of air emission requirements. For example, the Carnival Ecstasy experienced multiple ECGS shutdowns in May, July, and October 2017 due to equipment malfunctions. See Carnival Corporation & plc HESS Weekly Flash Reports (June 23, 2017, July 27, 2017, and Oct. 18, 2017). As a result, the ship impermissibly burned heavy fuel oil in Emission Control Areas without an EGCS online.”

 

Plus, this comment from the StandEarth letter.

 

“The report documents air pollution violations occurring across Carnival’s brands and locations, with failures noted in multiple vessels of the Holland America Line, Carnival Cruise Line, P&O Cruises, Princess Cruises, and Cunard. They occurred in the North American, U.S. Caribbean, and North Sea Emissions Control Areas.

 

In one particularly egregious incident, a P&O Cruises ship burned heavy fuel oil, without an operating EGCS, inside the Icelandic Environmental Protection Zone, for 16 hours. In another, a Princess Cruises ship burned heavy fuel oil, without an operating EGCS, inside the North American Emissions Control Area off the coast of the U.S. state of Alaska, for nearly seven hours. In addition to the North Sea, Iceland, and Alaska, there were notable incidents of EGCS failures that led to hours-long violations of burning heavy fuel oil without an EGCS inside the ECAs in Norway and Canada – with a raft of other shorter incidents across brands, ships, and oceans.”

 

FYI, the permitted sulphur content was 4.5% in 1997. After 10 years, that concentration was dropped to 3.5%.

 

In 2016, MARPOL revised Annex XI decided to abruptly drop the permitted sulphur content to just 0.5% in 2020. But ...

 

“A Cruise Lines International Association spokesman said this would mean cruise ships entering New Zealand would either use low-sulphur fuel or be fitted with compliant exhaust gas cleaning systems by January 1, 2020.”

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113847998/cruise-industry-makes-sulphur-promise-as-govt-drags-heels-on-marpol

 

Carnival has chosen to retrofit EGCS into the old ships, rather than convert to 0.5% fuel. Apparently, it didn't work so well.

 

That's why StandEarth is asking that the ECGS devices should be banned. Ships must use only 0.5% sulphur fuel.

 

My question to the smart people is this. What is Carnival's Plan B besides fiddling with the opacity monitor?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KroozNut said:

 

I agree 100%, but please don't call me Shirley...

 

I'm sorry Shirley. Rocketman has offered his opinion without a shred of evidence. Meanwhile, science has moved on from proving that the climate is warming, to the task of trying to limit the amount of global warming.

 

"The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15)[note 1] was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018.[1] The report, approved in Incheon, South Korea, includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries.""

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_°C

 

You can be sure that the scientists know how to form a null hypothesis, gather enough data. and apply a confidence test. They are very sure of their conclusions when they have 95% confidence. They publish and are peer reviewed. 

 

The amount of money flowing into climate research means that there is no shortage of research in multiple disciples. That work has formed the scientific consensus.. IPCC has correlated and summarized the work of thousands of scientists. Everything is checked.

 

There's been a couple of duds from the many thousands of scientific publications. But, the evidence is now so overwhelming that there is no serious objection to the consensus. That said, predictive models are still being shaped and improved.

 

Recent climate observations seem to validate the more pessimistic models. Ignore them at your own cost.

 

Climate models are become so detailed that they can predict a trend of drier climate in the Western states and more precipitation in the Eastern. Exactly what has happened. Apparently, Rocketman has not read and comprehended this work. perhaps you should?

 

 

 

 

Edited by HappyInVan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently driving in Manhattan (New York) and the truly amazing unscientific fact was that the wheels of my gas guzzling car were griping the dry streets.  Not many years ago there were numerous scientific predictions that the city would be under water by now.  I seem to recall that claim was led by James Hansen, a very respected climatologist who used to head up NASA's climate arm.  But modern science has become quite interesting (not much different then old science) in that most "scientific" predictions that fail to happen are discarded (and forgotten by the very same folks that made the prediction) as they move on to new predictions....that generate more funding so they can pat each other on the back and make even more predictions that do not come true.  

 

It is similar to the child who cries wolf.  Perhaps one day a "scientific" prediction about climate will actually come true.  But the world trying to chase scientific predictions is similar to a cat chasing its tail.  But in this case the cat is chasing huge grants that are on the edge of that tail.  If I announced $10 Billion in grants for studies that "prove" that sea levels are falling, the ice pack is increasing, and the earth is heading to another ice age (we have heard this one before), there would quickly be lots of papers to support all these claims and some publications claiming it is the new "scientific consensus."  These days science is driven by money and those who are brave enough to use real science to counter the "consensus" are quickly dismissed as idiots.  It is kind of like Pythagoras who was dismissed for having the gall to suggest that the earth was not flat.     

 

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, just stating that an opacity meter is used for detecting SOX emissions shows how much is needed to be learned.  SOX emissions can be present in clear stack gases, and needs a laser flourescent spectrometer.

 

Yes, Carnival Corp has been found guilty of environmental violations, has been punished, has been required to meet stricter standards during the remaining probation period, and is faced with additional fines, up to $10 million/day, for not meeting set benchmarks in creating an environmental compliance program going forward.

 

And, again, with cruising being a very small percentage of world shipping, and those emission limits being applied to all ships, not just cruise ships, I can tell you (and I won't cite a source, as I'm at work on the ship and a bit too busy to research it) that environmental violations are not limited to cruise ships, nor are the fines and jail terms.  So, why pick on the cruise industry?  Because they are the visible part of the industry, they are a discretionary expense, and because picking on the entire maritime industry (over an above what all nations agree as being obtainable as the IMO is doing) will affect how those protesting get their Iphones and Lexus', and how much they pay for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...