Cruise lines urged to shrink their footprints

From an article by Jennifer Conlin in The New York Times:

MOVING gently through pristine blue waters, floating past whales and glaciers, fjords and islands, it is easy to see why travelers might think a vacation on a cruise ship is more eco-friendly than jetting through the earth’s atmosphere on a plane.

Not so, according to Climate Care, a United Kingdom-based carbon-offsetting company, whose statistics show that cruise ships emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as airplanes. “We now know they are far more polluting per passenger kilometer than planes,” said Justin Francis, co-founder of Responsibletravel.com, a directory of environmentally friendly vacations that partners with Climate Care. “Add to that the fact that many passengers fly to the port of departure before boarding,” he said, “and you have a double carbon whammy.”

According to environmentalists, carbon dioxide emissions are just a drop in the ocean when it comes to eco problems on luxury liners. Most ships run on so-called bunker fuel, the cheapest and dirtiest fuel oil, which not only powers the vessel, but also all the amenities on board: restaurants, swimming pools and nightclubs among them. Royal Caribbean will launch its largest ship yet this year, the Oasis of the Seas with a capacity of 5,400 passengers, and its amenities will include a microclimate-controlled Central Park, with irrigation and drainage systems, as well as trees that will tower more than two and a half decks high.

Then there is the issue of waste. A one-week voyage on a large ship is estimated to produce 210,000 gallons of sewage, a million gallons of gray water (runoff from sinks, baths, showers, laundry and galleys), 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water, 11,550 gallons of sewage sludge and more than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes, according to figures supplied by the environmental group Friends of the Earth.

Marcie Keever, director of the Clean Vessels Campaign of Friends of the Earth, said, “These are floating cities that go back and forth through our waters, dumping toxins from their enormous amount of waste.” She added that cruise ships also pollute the coast lines (affecting marine life, beaches and coral reefs), as well as the air (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from their massive engines). Or as Mr. Francis bluntly put it, “The cruise line industry’s record on environmental pollution is generally very poor.”

Still, some positive environmental news is beginning to emerge from these murky waters. Thanks to increased pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as various environmental campaign groups, stricter state and federal regulations are being passed. As of this year, all ships have to burn low-sulfur diesel fuel instead of the cheaper bunker fuel within 24 nautical miles of California’s coast, and there is proposed legislation to prohibit the discharge of raw sewage, gray water and oily bilge water within 12 miles of United States shores. What’s more, a recent E.P.A. report assessing cruise ship discharges in Alaska (where standards are the most stringent), revealed that 60 percent of the ships tested were discharging concentrations of bacteria, chlorine, nutrients, metals and other pollutants — a finding that may move the industry to invest even more heavily in the latest advanced waste-water treatment systems, particularly as the ships that passed the test all had that technology.

“It is definitely possible for them to clean up their act,” said Ms. Keever of Friends of the Earth. “And now that they know about it from the E.P.A. report, they should do something about it. They certainly have the ability to pay for it.”