The surprising thing about this article is what is not mentioned. When you get on an aeroplane, it has lighting and heating, but the engines are not switched on. It is probably connected to ground power, but it will also have a secondary power system for use at smaller airfields. Could not cruise ships do the same, if only by fitting a large battery, to be recharged from the main engines when they are in use?
5
The cruise lines should just raise their prices to pass through the electrical costs. Simple.
1
Put a special high tax on diesel that is burned in port. The electricity must be the cheaper option. Protect the people. Pass laws and enforce them.
5
Talk to your friends about the destructiveness of these monsters of the seas. Of course you could be beating your head against a wall because most people here fail to see why they should give up any pleasure they can afford. Personally I don't see the pleasure of spending ten days on a floating ptomaine palace.
3
Contact your elected officials and insist this be stopped!
5
Have always found cruise ships to be the perfect place for germs and sickness to be rabidly spread amongst large population in tight quarters, not unlike a large city. These things,Super Ships, are already a ticking time bomb for a modern day equivalent of The Black Plague.........
This is astounding to me. I sat on the local Community Board's Waterfront Committee when the cruise ship terminal began, and we insisted on two major things - jobs and no pollution. We were told there would be over 800 full time jobs created and the electrical system would eliminate cruise ship idling. We now know only about 30 full time jobs have been created but we were "sure" the pollution was eliminated. So, it comes as a shock that this has happened, and an even greater disappointment that under deBlasio, hypocrisy is about the only thing communities can rely upon. It is not only up to Menchaca but ALL the council people to stand up. It is easy: No docking unless shore electricity is use. Period. Simple. Over.
9
Just like other destination ports like NYC, we should legally demand, pass laws, to ensure that these ships do not pollute our neighbors. Yes the people who cruise may have to pay more, but these are the costs. If the ships choose to dock elsewhere, their loss.
6
Cruise ships are ruining tourism in Venice. Dumping pollution and thousands of passengers a day has ruined the experience but it it’s dollars over health and safety and the tourist experience for those of us that travel via the airlines and spend more than 8 hours in Venice.
6
Big business uses a fancy euphemism for a slimy practice to maximize profits by sticking customers, employees, strangers, local, state, and federal governments with their costs. The term is "externalizing" which is another way of saying "stealing." If a corporation can save a hundred thousand dollars by dumping toxins instead of paying for legitimate removal, the profits are increased by a hundred thousand dollars. If the removal costs (paid by tax payers) plus health related issues to residents, employees, customers runs into the millions, so be it. If/when they occasionally get caught the legal fees and fines add up to a fraction of what they "saved."
4
The concern is stated that New Jersey would profit monetarily if NY had mandatory plug in. Is it time for a federal mandate? Our NYS senators seem to be environmentally aware and concerned with citizens' health issues. Please realize that I am aware of our happy go lucky "pollute for profit "excuse for a president and our ironically environmentally unfriendly EPA. However perhaps it's worth a try. Perhaps if one put it in terms of health care dollars...since it seems dollars are always the main concern. Hopefully the future will bring the main concern to be the effects that environmental pollution has for our children and humans. One can dream.......
6
I come from a Navy family, back four generations. My grandfather used to say that we had sea water in our blood. My father was an admiralty lawyer. We all sail. I can’t imagine wanting to take a vacation on a floating hotel, which bears no relation to a ship.
But until this article I never realized that cruise ship behemoths were such a source of pollution. At least when they dock they should be forced to plug in. The people in Red Hook shouldn’t have to suffer from this threat to their health while Carnival makes millions. We have to focus on the effect of all shipping on air pollution.
6
I will absolutely agree that the diesel burned in a cruise ship is not as refined as that today burned by an over the road diesel truck. Particulates of carbon and some metals are present.
BUT,
By plugging in, all you have done is export the pollution somewhere else,,, and multiplied it.
The 'grid' in the US is still largely a natural gas and coal fired electrical system, operating on a net efficiency of around 10% So, instead of local generation by diesel on board,, those are large efficient diesel generators often approaching 50% thermal efficiency, 1.300 tons of CO2,, you export the generation and produce 4,000 tons of CO2. Ravenswood in Queens burns #6. one step above roof tar.
I fail to see a total benefit for the planet.
Rather than plug ins,, how about a dockside scrubber system. It might cost less, and be less resisted to its use.
5
Obviously the cruise line does not like to use shore power. It is more expensive and cumbersome. The government is not forcing them to do so. Unless the use of shore power is mandated. You will never get them to do the right thing.
9
Having read this article right after the one on why the skyline is lit up all night long shows that while there is a concern for the amount of carbon load from these ships, it is absolutely minuscule in comparison with what it takes to keep the skyline bright all night long.
Focus on the big generators of carbon not just these little ones. While important, the ships' carbon load is tiny, and both the big and small should be pursued.
3
Not minuscule if you and your children are breathing the fumes.
1
It takes about 80 man-hours to connect and disconnect the cables, which is hard to muster onboard a commercial ship (the hotel staff do not participate in this evolution). Speaking from experience, the crew would rather be ashore instead of handling 450V cable. Being on shore power also adds extra time to get a ship underway in event of fire, local insurrection or other security incident; an important consideration in heavily-populated New York Harbor.
3
As a resident of Midtown Manhattan, I want working air monitors and mandatory plug ins. I see cruise ships and Waterway ferries spewing smoke into the air every day. The Hudson River Park is supposed to be a place for healthy living. We can’t continue to have 179 cruise ships and countless ferries spewing metals into the air.
“By the end of 2019, 35 cruise ships will have docked at the Brooklyn terminal; 179 in Manhattan.”
11
While I share everyone concern with plugging in to shore power when in port to lessen pollution.
Also I never had any interest going on a cruise ship. Not my cup of tea.
When I first commented on this article I was trying to make the point that Red Hook was still an active port facility, much of the waterfront in Brooklyn and Manhattan has turn into one big park.
Also the people making the biggest noise were the mostly upper class folks who recently moved into the neighborhood yet the residents of the Red Hooks Houses have been dealing with this forever- but now we are hearing about it.
I been reading the comments and folks you are coming off as a bit boorish.
Basically what I am reading is only certain people be allow to travel, to see other parts of the world i e. There was a writer horrified as cruise ship pass by her ‘rented flat’ in Venice.
How many of can afford a rented flat overlooking a canal in Venice?
Sorry I know most dislike cruise ships but the article was about the pollution they cause and not the culture that they encompass
5
The reference to 34,000 trucks is simply ridiculous. If you click the link will see that it does not refer to exhaust emissions rather to sulfur dioxide specifically. It seems that diesel fuel used in trucks has absolutely no sulfur, whereas that used ships has a lot of it. you might as well compare a cruise ship to a chocolate eclair in that regard.
also missing is accounting how much emissions come from electricity generated by land-based power plants. Much of that comes from oil-fired power plants. so the net increase may not be that much.
8
Nowhere are you going to find such a dollars meets health issue as this one. The citizens of any port have the right to not have a big money monstrosity ruin their air and water for someone else's profit.
Aboard many of the ships I sailed on there were two main generators powered by what were essentially truck diesel engines, small fry compared to the mega monsters you see docking today.
And, we all don't, and won't, fully understand these monsters that carry multiple thousands of people until the worst happens. When I was sailing, rescuing people, these super size cruise ships were first proposed. Subsequent marine sinkings of cruise ships have been dominated by older vessels, not super spectacle cruise ships with thousands of ocean view cabins.
I shudder to think at the lack of rescue capability inherent in a large cruise ship that packs in 3,000 people a cruise. There's simply no way to get that many people out of danger and to shore. My 450 rescues say so.
And, after a career of helping electrical utilities meet emissions standards, to find out these monsters are now being bad neighbors pierside, well, that seals the deal for me. It fits.
I'm never setting foot aboard one of these and neither should you, because lightning does strike twice, and one of these is going to go down with massive loss of life despite everyone's best efforts.
Murphy lives, and pays visits to enforce his law even at sea.
Don't sail on one of these monsters.
Ever.
141
@angry veteran
The only people who would die are people who go on cruises. No big loss. I couldn't imagine a more environmentally destructive way to spend my free time. How are these ships not massive polluters even with so called green tech?
21
@willemv
Would it also be fair to say that the only people who would die in an Santa Monica earthquake were those who foolishly decided to live there and ignored the risks?
15
@angry veteran - time for some type of massive law suit against the cruise ships.
11
I used to live in Brooklyn, across the street from a shipping container port and about a mile from where the cruise ship terminal is.
My neighborhood organization was worried about this issue **15 years ago** and when we brought our concerns to city agencies and elected officials, where told basically "don't worry, ships idling is just a temporary problem and will be addressed in a year or two at the most when shoreline power supplies can be installed".
Typical.
66
I worked as a cruise ship crew member for seven years, but shame from being a part of such a polluting industry made me quit. Please don't cruise; the companies' claims of environmental concern hold no water (Carnival, for example, has been repeatedly fined recently for willfully breaking the law with their plastic and fuel oil waste dumping). Cruise ships can never become "green": they will always be destructive abominations, and until it is abolished, the industry will continue to wreck our world in its pursuit of profits.
254
@Kim Considering cruises are taken purely for pleasure and that you also have to fly to get to them, they are a great way to blow a lot of carbon and create a lot of waste just for the heck of it.
48
I worked in the cruise industry. Cruise lines are in it because...well, minimal taxes & low-cost onboard foreign labor.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miamis-cruise-industry-gave-23500-to-senator-who-stopped-new-cruise-tax-9888119
17
Thank you for bringing up this important issue. I am a pediatrician living in Brooklyn. It is terrible, but not surprising, to see that the health of hundreds of thousands or people means nothing the cruise ship companies, nor to local politicians (NYC mayor!), which would have the power to improve this horrible state of affairs. Note that the effects of exhaust fumes go far beyond the pulmonary ones cited. Cardiovascular effects are just as deleterious, as is the neurotoxicity associated with breathing in fossil fuels, particularly on the developing brains of children (ADHD, learning issues, lowering of IQ, aggressive behavior, etc.), but also on adults (dementia). But nobody seems to care. What apparently counts, is to keep the cruise ship industry happy, and to keep the tourist dollars coming in. After all, health related consequences will to a large degree emerge only after the next election cycle. Citizens, will then be paying dearly with both their health and their dollars for the disastrous incompetence of today’s politicians.
114
@fahrrad
Unbelievable, we left Brooklyn/RH for this reason out of concerns for our infant.
2
I was in the Navy; so I know all about shore power. Every ship in the Navy can connect to shore power, and they do so whenever possible. Part of our routine when coming into port was connecting to shore power and shutting down our on-board power generation systems, whether they were diesel generators for most ships or nuclear reactors for the subs and aircraft carriers.
Shore power is a very simple concept; it just needs to be mandated and it will happen. Pass a state law and NYC will figure out how to get shore power everywhere it is needed.
219
@Ben - Exactly right.
18
@Ben
Sounds reasonable, but another comment suggests that California (or at least LA) has such a law and cruise lines scoff at it.
8
@Ben I seriously doubt the nukes were 'shut down' but were in a reduced state of operation that could be quickly recovered if the emergency need arose.
I like the idea of anything, from a ship to a train or aircraft draw from land based power whenever possible.
12
These enormous ships are a plague in every area that they sail...and most areas where thy dock, it seems They should be junked. These cruise lines exist to make money...only. They destroy waterways, and ancient buildings. They provide no other maritime function as do other ships...(which should also be regulated for emissions, etc.) When I first partially saw one inching up the Giudecca Canal in Venice, from a window in my rented flat, it looked to me like an anime cartoon of a slowly moving enormous white apartment house, 13 floors high. I counted them...there were 13 decks, dwarfing all other vessels, buildings and of course people. Hundreds were waving from all the decks, simultaneously, expecting a joyous welcome???Venetians characteristically turn their backs on such a sight, and walk away from the canal. It looked like a sea monster very slowly invading Venice.
11
If I can get a ticket for passing a red light on my Citibike, you can pass a law making it mandatory to plug in.
16
NYC should shut down completely, ban all deliveries except for those by foot and go green.
4
I forget exactly but remember being horrified to read somewhere that shipping creates something like 6 times as much pollution as ALL OTHER forms of transport combined (like cars, trucks, trains, planes)
something about using dirty crude oil which has not been refined to anything like the same degree of cleanliness
found this now - https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182
and ‘one giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars’ - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution
5
Why begin the headline with "How"?
Why not just "Cruise Ships Bring" et cetera?
We are not schoolchildren.
6
Search engine optimization (SEO) rules.
Toxic engine exhaust is just a drop in the bucket compared to millions of tons of wet garbage, fats, plastics, packaging and sewage these gross behemeths slyly shovel overboard everynight while their guest sleep. It's a fantastic site to stand at the transom of a cruise ship after dinner and watch to trail of trash trailing off to the horizon in the ship wake.
13
NYC idling laws should apply to these cruise ships.
10
This has to be fixed. Perhaps Bloomberg will use some of the cash spent on his Presidential ambitions to get this working?
7
Thank you NYT for shining a bright light on this. Cruise ship operators have absolutely no right to be spewing their toxins straight into the faces of people who can’t do anything about it. Especially when their is an alternative. This is an outrage that seems easily fixable if politicians did the job they were elected to do.
14
It used to be that bunker fuels were subject to no restrictions, such as sulphur content, which can make atmospheric emissions more or less toxic. It would be interesting to learn what ports—where bunkering normally takes place—today impose such restrictions, and which ports do not. High sulphur fuel is cheaper.
It is one thing for a ship to consume most of its fuel out at sea, beyond the jurisdiction of the bunkering port, and another to sit in port for hours with its electricity generators running, spewing toxic emissions.
In an ideal world, all bunker fuels would be required to be low sulphur, and all ships would be required to turn off their generators and plug in while at dockside.
4
In an ideal world, these useless behemoths simply wouldn’t exist.
2
This may be "news" but this is not new, and dates to the dawn of powered shipping-- first coal then diesel. The clean air act does not extend to maritime operations beyond the bulkhead line.
4
What is a bulkhead line? Please explain. I sail on merchant vessels professionally and have never heard this term. Also, it’s incorrect.
3
If these ships generate this much pollution when docked imagine how much they pollute while at sea. Diesel locomotives are now required to treat their exhausts to eliminate pollutants. Why shouldn't these ships be required to do the same.
9
They are. There are different emissions standards in place according to IMO mandate, which this article doesn’t even hint at.
2
A singular reason to support Mr. Bloomberg for President. He cares every much about the environment. If he was still in office as Mayor, I am certain these ships would be plugged in. It is imperative that we do everything possible to reduce toxic fumes from going into the air. This includes much greater enforcement of individual motorists idling their cars. The latter is a serious problem.
12
This speaks to the power of money and the influence it buys over a common sense environmentally friendly approach. Shore power was built with a lot of limitations and combine that with the fact that it is really optional and not mandated shows the power of the cruise companies to set the agenda. Environmental and health concerns be damned.
9
This article is about cruise ships. There are a lot more freight ships: container ships, car carriers, oil tankers, bulk carriers, etc. They all burn bunker fuel, the lowest grade diesel available. They all produce horrific pollution. Write an article about that.
24
@ELS I guess it's good for people to understand the consequences of the the vacation choices they make. An individual can't really bring about change in the freight industry unless they just stop buying. People CAN choose to not go on these ships if they understand how dirty they are. This article has value in that regard even if these ships don't have the same volume that freight has.
16
@willemv
Guess I will walk to Sweden for my tea with Greta...
2
@ELS
I cannot understand why Chinese products are so cheap, monetarily. The fuel used to transport the contents of all our Walmarts and Targets and department stores and Amazon warehouses must surely be subsidized for wares to be so cheap.
1
Not wanting to state the obvious, but if Red Hook's occupants were white and wealthy, this problem would be all but solved.
70
@N. Smith That's an absurd statement. Not everything is about race. Stop simplifying and pandering.
8
Red Hook needs its Gowanus moment.
2
How does this pollution compare with cruise ships berthing at the Manhattan Cruise terminal, on the Hudson? That has five berths. Red Hook has one.
8
Similar issue in Sydney except our government does not
a) provide shore power
b) even mandate the use of high quality fuel so the pollution is even worse than it needs to be.
The link https://www.jamieparker.org/_white_bay is to the representative of the area, but he is not in either of the large parties...
3
I worked at Royal Caribbean for three years and the general sense is that cruise lines will only make changes if forced by the government. The company did a typical cost benefit analysis when deciding to upgrade the Celebrity Century to allow it to plug into the port at Los Angeles. The decision to upgrade was based off of looking at the costs to reroute the ship to other destinations, the cost to upgrade the ship to accommodate shore power, and the cost of the paying for shore power when plugging in.
Cruise lines are designed to maximize shareholder value with little concern of government regulations. Royal Caribbean, as an example, is a Bahamian company with the ships registered in Malta or Liberia and pays little to no taxes. Most shipboard employees are Indian or Filipinos, where wages are far far lower than their American counterparts. When Adam Goldstein the CEO testified before Congress back in 2011 or 2012, he had absolute disdain for the senators that were talking to him largely because he felt his company only needed to abide by the minimum to comply with government regulations. The company made a big push to install scrubber systems onboard the vessels in order to continue burning marine grade oil (MGO) which is the filthiest fuel in the world. Air emissions are reduced, but the byproduct is then dumped into the ocean.
30
Mr. Fain’s dream has now come true. One of their biggies (Oasis of the Seas) is finally departing from NY!
2
Just to keep things in perspective, the atmosphere weighs 5,750,000,000,000,000 tons. 1,200 tons of pollution is not even a rounding error.
5
@Alison . Just to put your comment in perspective. The 5,750,000,000,000,000 tons presumably is the weight of the atmosphere over the entire surface of the earth. Whereas the 1,200 tons of pollutants are being released at a tiny corner of Red Hook, Brooklyn, polluting the air for that unfortunate corner. Not exactly a fair comparison is it?
32
@Alison
"When not using shore power, a SINGLE cruise ship docked for ONE DAY can emit as much diesel exhaust as 34,400 idling tractor-trailers"
Really, Alison? Are you excited by that?
11
@Aniruddha Das The New York area gets enough ships to bring in about 5.6 million containers of imported goods. Container ships use bunker oil, which has more sulphur than diesel. The sky over the New Jersey suburbs where I used to live is always a little hazy. If you travel to the Blue Ridge mountains the sky is a spectacular blue - the color it is supposed to be. What is the solution? The problem is much bigger than the air quality in one neighborhood from one cruise ship, not that the inhabitants don't have my sympathy.
3
Many comments talk about how wasteful cruise ships are. Truth be told any vacation is. If you fly or drive you are producing carbon emissions for no reason. Any resort produces lots of waste for no reason. Just imagine how much power Disney uses and how much waste it makes and how much fuel people use to get there. If we just stayed home and just enjoyed our home and family the world would be a better place
21
@Thomas Renner
You are correct, sir. I've worked on cruise ships and vacationed on them. When I worked on them in the late 70's, employees would throw multiple garbage bags overboard when no one was around to witness, late at night. Airplane travel too is awful for the environment. Does anyone seriously believe that vacationing is going to be sacrificed for the greater good of "saving our planet". I don't.
6
If I could snap my fingers and deconstruct all cruise ships, I would.
14
How more can citizens fight against? Carnival Cruise ships should be boycotted and it should be all over social media how awful they are and the harm they cause.
9
Cruise ships are flating garbage factories with nothing to do except eat and drink. No wonder curisers put on so much weight.
Cruise ships should not be allowed to dock anywhere where they burn fossil fuel for powr. They are in the sun almot every day. Why don't they have solar ollectors or wind generators?
I think people should travel a lot less.
21
We should outlaw these floating polluters.
8
The horrific environmental disaster issues aside, can anyone explain the appeal of getting trapped on a boat for a week with a bunch of people you would avoid at all costs in other circumstances? Is the thrill of rolling the dice you’ll be swept up in some outbreak of disease? The whole notion is just appalling to me.
36
People say "luxury cruise ship for the riches".
Are they really? Like air travel was once for the riches, nowadays, most cruise travel is rather affordable and not that expensive considering room, meals, entertainment, and transportation are included.
Like Jumbo jet changed the status of air travel, mega-ships changed the status of cruise ship travel.
I've cruised on several ships, not the highest end, but I never felt "luxury" but rather an ostensible luxury.
5
One can see the docked Cruise Ships from the Brooklyn IKEA Cafeteria. IDK that idling Ships were that big a problem. Luckily they are opening an (abbreviated) IKEA in Rego Park . (My neighborhood). Now if only "DeFonte's" (Deli) will also bring a branch to Rego Park.
2
Great Article, but the enforcement in Los Angeles is non-existent. Most ships and yachts do not plug in even when the power is available. Requests to enforce the laws are ignored. Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn is the leading politician which covers all of the ports in Los Angeles, yet she cares less about the pollution and its health effects. On multiple occasions, I and others requested help from her office to get our laws enforced, but we were told to take the long walk off the short plank.
I'll guess her campaign committee took significant contributions from the various cruise and shipping companies.
19
Apparently American citizens’ health quality and right to breathe goes out the window when cash is offered to politicians.
7
Thank you for demonstrating the horribly polluting endeavor millions of people undertake just to haul themselves out to sea for a short while just for a supposed temporary breath of fresh air for themselves and to pig out at the buffets. It's obvious how much we love the planet.
25
I believe the massive cruise ships are a plague on our planet, and the never ending pollution violations are simply an indicator of management’s corporate greed.
35
I think it is time for the State of New York (NYSDEC) to require shore power use for all ships while in port. This could be done expeditiously by enacting a state-wide air pollution regulation under the Clean Air Act (Sections 101, 113, 304, etc) and adopting it into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This would then make the regulation state and federally enforceable. Citizens can also compel enforcement via filing suit.
California did this in 2007 via the At-Berth Regulation (“Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth in a California Port”). See http://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/shorepower.htm.
14
While "bunker oil" is not such a specific term, it is often #6 oil. This sludgy waste oil was outlawed in NYC as heating oil and #4, a mixture of #6 and #2 (diesel) is going to be banned soon. As is the case with electric cars, the reduction in air pollution depends on how the electricity is generated.
4
@David The Con Ed grid is 54% hydro and nuclear, 1% oil and 3% coal. The rest is low pollution emission natural gas.
4
@Winston Smith So if cruise ships run gas turbines while in port, then there is little pollution savings in having them plug in to shore power
1
Anyone who takes a cruise is equally guilty. It's that simple.
13
Ships do not use their main engines when alongside a pier and do not use bunker C to fuel the gen sets. These engines typically run on ultra low sulfur diesel. There are areas in the world where ships are subject to emission controls and outright ban certain kinds of fuels.
How come the NYT did not quote any maritime professionals for this article? Two of the top maritime academies in the world are located in this city with well-regarded experts that would readily provide their expertise on any maritime topic. However, the NYT continues to publish anecdotal opinions from people outside the industry.
17
@Mariner ..."Bill Hemmings, marine expert at Brussels-based Transport and Environment group said: “These ships burn as much fuel as whole towns. They use a lot more power than container ships and even when they burn low sulphur fuel, it’s 100 times worse than road diesel.”
- from the UK Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem
17
@Mariner
There You go bringing knowledge and facts into the conversation. The NYT gave up on facts long ago. It Trumps fault and that is all that matters
4
And Bloomberg thinks he has such a great record to campaign. Just another clueless out of touch billionaire. Killing families’ health for political goals and profit.
3
this is so well written. the cruise ships are getting away with poisoning the air of New Yorkers, it appears with the total indifference of those in charge of protecting its citizens.
8
Not even a smidge of focus on the fact that it’s cheaper to generate power using Diesel engines on a cruise ship than it is from the Con Edison grid.
@RobtLaip It's in the article "Plugging in is also expensive: By one estimate, using shore power in Brooklyn exclusively would cost Carnival $1 million more a year than burning fuel at port."
6
Profit vs being able to breathe, and you choose profit ? Omg.
3
@Alex
Yes but Bloomberg is offering money from the taxpayers to help with the costs. It's not like tax dollars could be used for road or or infrastructure repairs when the Execs at Caarnival might have to take a pay cut. That Mike Bloomberg guy is going to make a great president by the way he looks out for his less fortunate friends that are only millionares
1
The asthma and COPD effects are real. But the cruise ship industry is filthy on so many levels. I get that people like to be on the water and that they like vacations and maybe these can go together, but everywhere I see these ships there is pollution and destruction - and ofter the locals see no direct financial benefits - in Croatia we sailed as a family on a small monohull and saw first hand (and were told by the shopkeepers) that the cruise ship passengers came ashore, walked around and then went back to the ship to shop and eat. Leaving garbage, pollution and crowding behind. They dump their raw sewage into the ocean (no mention of pump out in the ports either). Why do cities want them at all except for where they provision?. Plug in should be mandatory. It's a joke when they talk about their "environmental" policies. Ugh.
16
Raw sewage is not dumped into the ocean. There is an entire treatment plant onboard every merchant vessel sailing. These types of things (including garbage and oil pollution) are closely regulated and monitored by every IMO member country in the world.
6
The NY Times reported in 2016 that ships can dump raw sewage once they are three nautical miles from shore, and they do. Over one billion gallons that year. Look it up.
14
I’ll believe that when donkeys fly.
All news is local, but Times readers care about Mauritius, too! Do cruise ships pollute even more per hour at sea, while moving and serving passengers? For that matter, when docked in Mauritius, they’re polluting that OTHER globe, right?
The smog of 34 thousand trucks for…what?...four thousand passengers? Should this industry even exist? Is it greener for us to simply drive our SUVs to Bermuda or Curacao? Expanding the topic, do cargo ships have magic engines, or is this issue part of the discussion of trade?
Devil’s advocacy:
If green energy (which Bloomberg/Cuomo plugs would surely provide) is competitive with fossil, why is burning fuel in port $1M cheaper than plugging in? What % of idling power is actually used for in-port activity?
One can oppose smog and - at the same time - ask how accurately its healthcare bill can be calculated. Is the $99 million just for Red Hook, or does it include $99 thousand for thinner fumes that reach Yonkers? Do poor neighborhoods in Rochester have elevated rates of asthma too?
Diabolical dilemma: $99M healthcare cost over 15 years? That is $7M in one year. But it gets you $228M each year in tourist spending? Senator Warren, I think I have something for you.
Apologies to this capable writer for my frustrated tone, but I wish the editors would strive to embed anecdotal data in a broad, systematic and ongoing overview of healthcare and environment. Yes, it's incredibly hard. But its the only game in town.
2
1200 tons of toxic fumes? Then the author identifies 1200 tons of CO2! So now that’s toxic? An adult human exhales about 1/4 ton of carbon dioxide a year, so that awful toxic cruise ship emission equals 4800 of us breathing! How can we allow this to continue? Seriously, there is such a thing as air pollution, but innumeracy and loss of education in science will definitely do us in.
8
It seems that the Powers-that-be - those who should be responsible for upgrades and regulation - are simply more beholden to the corporate/maritime lobbyists, than the local residents.
And the current EPA?! Shamelessly gutted by Trump, Pruitt and other spineless minions.
8
I wonder if the cruise ships pay standard electric rates when they use shore power or if large taxes are added on to raise money for local governments.
1
Let's do some middle school math. It costs Carnival $1million extra per year to plug-in in Brooklyn. She carries 2,650 passengers. She comes to Brooklyn 10 times a year. so she has 26,500 different passengers come through every year. Divide the cost by that and we have $37.73 extra per passenger, a Brooklyn surcharge so to speak. For what they are paying to cruise on that particular ship (between $800 and $3,000 per person), they can well afford it and if not, they don't need to be cruising on her.
35
Thank you!!!
8
@Jonathan Charles
Or let the ships dock in Jersey (not really since we would still get the pollution, but that's their threat); it will cost each passenger far more to come into the CITY, which is where they want to be in the first place; and lots of lost time and travel and aggravation. Travelers want convenience - ie, Brooklyn.
3
@Jonathan Charles Brooklyn-convenient? For whom? If you live in NYC or Long Island it's convenient enough, but not as convenient as the old Manhattan terminals (now Chelsea Piers) were. You can't get there by Amtrak for one thing. You can't get there by public transport.
I use the QM2. I like it. It doesn't cost much more than a roomy airline seat, and it allows dogs to travel if you book early enough. Having had a deep vein thrombosis I'm not risking my life again in a current economy seat.
There's also no jet lag!
If they sailed from NJ it would be easier- Newark airport is as close as possible to the port.
I can sympathize. My article would read "how parents from Brooklyn bring SUV and idling school bus fumes to Montclair."
11
"...even in China ..."? According to the article, NYT would show less of its prejudice by saying "...especially in China..."
2
@Plennie Wingo China is known for the polution in its cities. "even in China" is justified.
3
First of all Southampton UK is Queen Mary 2 's home port not Brooklyn. Second, its diesel power system shuts down outside the government shore limits and is replaced by two jet engine turbine units using light oil not bunker oil which the diesel engines require. Thirdly, when the Diesel engines are operating at sea their emissions are scrubbed by thosands of gallons of sea water. Fourthly, the QM2 is technically not a cruise ship it's an ocean liner carrying up to 2500 persons to and from the UK far more efficiently than dozens of jet planes could ever do. And finally, it does plug in to shore power at Port but that power is generated by a combination of energy sources, some clean like hydro, some not like coal.
21
@Andrew
"Scrubbing" at sea is simply another form of pollution since the oxidized sulfur and carbon elements contribute to acidification of the ocean.
21
@Andrew, of course, the article implies that there are no auxiliary power plants on ships, that they run the main engines all the time, or as you mentioned before, no IMO mandate coming along, nor does it compare ships to home heating furnaces or auto traffic, and only very badly to idling trucks. Could have been lots better, even with a proper headline.
8
My observations from a number of cruises is that there are thousands of virtually invisible crew members on board performing menial tasks at slave labor wages.
Hardly anyone ever acknowledges the work of these souls.
13
@Ron B - If the work is horrible, and the wages even worse, why do they do it?
1
People from mostly third-world countries take these jobs because they are desperate.
8
@Jennifer Smith Have you talked to any cruise ship employees? I have, for an article I did, and many of them are well educated (engineers, for example) but can make more money working on the QE2 than in their own countries at their chosen professions. There are third generation employees, husband and wife employees, father and son combos. Not all of them are from poverty stricken countries, either. There are lots of college age kids from places like Sweden and Scotland who take the jobs to travel the world since at every port different groups of employees are given the time off to go exploring or to lead the tourists on tours. IN addition to wages, the housekeeping and dining servers make a considerable amount from tips. One housekeeper told me he makes about $1600 in tips during the seven day trip from England to the U.S. Also, the upper level staff I interviewed (not the Captains or other staff who need a maritime background) had usually started as housekeepers or cooks and ended up working their way up. There are reasons to dislike cruises but your information about the jobs and wages and who takes those jobs is erroneous. (Interestingly, the management said their worst employees are the Americans, who are lazy and on their off hours drink to excess and end up in fights.)
8
Oh, now that Brooklyn is gentrified, we suddenly care about pollution.
Don't get me wrong, better too little than too late, but how about the pollution in the Bronx? Staten Island? The slurry of garbage sent down the Hudson into New Jersey and then New Yorkers have the gall to pick on the state that handles their garbage and their goods, and all the things they'd rather not deal with themselves?
Pardon if I don't cry me a river over Brooklyn anymore. It's about time, but I'd be more interested in a greater article about boroughs that are far worse off. And where there happens to be less money.
15
Just scratching the surface here, an idling semi truck burns about 24 gallons per day, all the merchant ships going dockside spew out their fair share, the ferries burn each 60 to 200 gallons per hour on average. A 2.2 Megawatt generator burns at full load about 160 GPH. Generator sets here I'm estimating about 16 MW so consumption is a good bit higher. Shore power does have a cost affiliated with shore based workers that do the hookup. What is is dockside power cost relative to shoreside? And what is the fortune made for going dockside. I spent many an evening stringing hose to take on water because docks were full or the owner wouldn't pay wharf fees.
4
@sly creek
Please comment on the articles reference to heavy metal pollutants.
1
@Sly Creek, your numbers make more sense. If the aux. generators on a ship run around 1000 gallons/hour, for those 16MW, and a truck idling the same amount of time, say around 10 hours, uses around 10, each parked cruise ship equals the fuel usage of perhaps 1000 trucks. And, of course, the ship is running light fuel, which is pretty similar to what the trucks are using, not bunker crude. Once in a while numbers matter.
2
Typing: pm2.5
In the search of EBay or Amazon brings up quite a few particle detectors, costing as little as $40 with shipping.
Unless the wind is blowing in the other direction, it should show the difference.
1
Great article, and thanks for bringing it to the public's attention. Hopefully now some big people in government - or Mr. DeBlasio - will take an interest and force these guys to plug in, which is the way the world is going anyway.
One thing - you might have pointed out that Mr. Armstrong is from Australia and has lived in the USA since 2000.
8
As much pollution as 34000 idling 18 wheelers. Our species is simply too stupid to survive.
55
Cruising is just ridiculous. Anyone who pays the money to be in a grand prison is quiet lame. Worse, they contribute to much waste and pollution. Embarrassing
29
Wow. I understand that 25 cars put out about as much annually. Perspective anyone?
5
Where is AOC when we need her? Ranting her green nonsense without taking any concrete action?
6
@No Green nonsense?
5
I lived on First Place near Smith Street in Carroll Gardens for four years, from 2005 to 2009, and when one of those oversized horizontal floating skyscrapers was in town, my apartment stank from the diesel fumes they pumped out all weekend. How nice to know it's still going on eleven years later. I have COPD today. I wonder how much of that I can blame on the filthy cruise ships that exist only for the pleasure of the rich?
68
@Ernest cruises are not only for the rich.
7
@Ronald - Depends on what you call rich. You probably call taking the Staten Island Ferry a cruise.
4
This is but a nit which needs extensive picking.
The real issue is the pollution which these behemoths emit. Little good to control it on their few days in port while they are free to belch their pollutants out of sight.The controls must come from the fuel used. Why are ships allowed to burn the dirtiest, cheapest bunker fuel they can find? Of course, the owners will answer in platitudes, but they are free to hide behind the fact that there is no enforceable law on the high seas.
20
After seeing all of the cruise ship disasters over the past couple years, I gotta say, they wouldn’t be able to pay ME to get on one of those floating rhinovirus incubators.
How could anyone on one of those boats relax? Even if you’re lucky enough to get on a ship that doesn’t have power or engine problems, and you manage to avoid getting sick with one of the dozens of super-germs that likes to take residence in the buffet food, you STILL have to worry about the fact that you’re trusting a crew based outside of the United States in international waters with your personal safety.
Just thinking about it gives me anxiety.
8
@Austin Ouellette
Washy-washy!
4
Poisoning the air or corporate profits. The choice is always clear in our inspired time.
13
Classic situation of a corporation pitting government neglecting environmental concerns against naive consumers mired in a globalized propulsion to enjoy, exploit and consume. Many (if not most) adroit environmental measures have been sparked by a group of motivated and concerned local citizens. Often been harmed by the environmental toxins themselves, they come together to protest, to organize against hegemonic global corporations. The opponents are often local, monolithic, industries which employ thousands of local citizens, or transnational corporations, faceless, unflinching in their aim for profit.
To believe Carnival plugs-in for altruism is part their repugnant guise. I am not going to believe that they are in it for the good of society. Tax dollars will be the bargaining chip. Why a local community has to offset the cost of a nefarious industry is perplexing.
Let's be real here, Carnival is not going bankrupt due to plug-in fees. The industry itself needs to re-think themselves. Retrofit, change the business when docking to minimize fuel usage, go green. We are not just protecting the environment here, we are protecting public health. Kids, the frail elderly, they live just off-shore.
I am pleasantly surprised that China is up-staking the dialogue requiring plug-in. Great plug, to remind us that we can do better.
17
Our elected officials are failing to meet their responsibilities. Again and again and again.
11
@Joseph
My representative, Carlos Menchaca, IS doing his part. What about yours? Write, phone, text, show up at their office & remand that they act.
14
Hard to believe 35 eleven hour visits a year are causing any health problems. The piece fails to state the ships must burn a much cleaner fuel than they use at sea while in Port. I suggest working on truck and bus exhaust instead.
4
@Thomas Renner
Bunker C fuel, the common ship fuel , with it's excessive sulfur content is hardly a clean fuel, however it's cheap.
7
@Ron It is against the law for ships to use bunker C fuel in US ports or along the US coast line under the North America clean air act. They must burn the equivalent of jp5, that is unless Trump took us out of the agreement cause he seems to love dirty air.
13
I worked the docks at the Hovensa refinery in S t Croix. Besides product ships would require fuel; it’s called bunkers and is almost the consistently of asphalt. Bunkers is the bottom of the barrel, least refined product of a refinery. It is also cheap, otherwise it would be a problem for the refinery.
16
Cruise ships are amazing when you see how large and beautiful they are until you start to think about how much waste is involved. If they are causing so much pollution while idling, then they must be causing even more at sea. Now when I see a cruise ship, I see gluttony at its worst! I see thousands of people cruising around not caring at all about our environment! These beautiful ships are the ugliest thing on the ocean!
61
I work at Miami Seaport where a huge expansion and modernization is underway with no commitment to shore power. With up to 12 cruise ships in port at one time, the pollution is tremendous. Shore power should be required.
59
Are you surprised republicans ruled Florida doesn’t care about pollution? They are just now very quietly acknowledging climate change.
20
@Jay Shore power in FL would also be clean power. FPL uses nuclear as primary, solar as supplemental, and gas as a last resort. Peronally I'd prefer to depart from Florida as the tolls, fees, and tips to get to Brooklyn really add up.
1
Tie the costs of pollution and cleanup to the fuel(s) emitting them. The true cost of resources must be calculated from inception to conclusion, whether that conclusion be clean-up, scrubbers, or fuels of greater initial cost but with lower impact costs.
The same can be said of our daily goods - glass, metal, plastics, mylar juice boxes, etc. The cost of the product should include the cost of delivery system's life cycle impact.
34
Fine them. Better yet, get 'em outta here.
19
“Protecting the environment and environmental compliance are top priorities,” Carnival’s spokesman, Roger Frizzell, said in an email. He should have added, "But we just don't feel like doing it. What are you going to do about it?"
73
I'm trying to find the information needed to calculate how much more each passenger would need to pay to cover the costs ($1 million extra per year for plugging in and $3.2 million for four - yes, that quantity is a guess - new flexible-cabling units). The QM2 does about 23 Atlantic crossings a year. At 2,620 passengers per cruise, that's about $70 extra per passenger. That figure is on the high side but does seem to be in the right ballpark to justify looking further into the math of passing the cost on to the passengers. Am I missing something?
13
And in year 2 the only costs would be the $1 mil electricity bill, half of which NY has offered to pay as long as all the ships were retrofitted with the “plugs”
5
The applicable city and state agencies could easily solve this problem by adopting laws and regulations (with significant fines for non-compliance) REQUIRING ships to turn off their diesel-powered electrical generators and plug in to shore power. Until it is MANDATORY, we'll continue to hear a never-ending stream of excuses and justifications for why they can't. I know a little bit about this issue as a former US Navy junior officer supervising electrical infrastructure (including ship/shore electrical power) on my Navy ship. That was long ago (1980) and the technology is much better today than it was 40 years ago. No excuses!
50
We are at a time when environmental choices must be made. Cruise ships are too large, filthy, and wasteful, as are airplanes and all the SUVs America can't stop buying. Travel needs to be reinvented around environmental impact and serving everyone well. We want another moon shot or trip to Mars. Why? Here's a moon shot that's worth our money and effort: Build an energy-efficient high-speed rail system for America to help us reduce carbon-based transit and create more housing possibilities in less expensive cities near urban centers. Systems thinking is critical now. Aberrations and throwbacks like cruise ships either must go or must be reinvented to work in harmony with environmental transit goals and more egalitarian thinking.
95
@Miller
Fuel is money, so water transport must have its virtues. I'm not sure how transport modes compare environmentally. I wish some paper that cares would maintain a dashboard of environmental data, regularly printing and improving it. I'd excuse all sorts of errors in such a difficult project, if they would only start it.
But this reply is to recommend highly your comment about the wisdom of re-populating cities already built for 2 or 3 times the populations to which they have shrunk.
If the jobs market can adjust (or disappears) then how is it liberal for the geniuses at Davos to espouse putting 110% of the human race in the caring hands of the real estate community in a few global mega-cities by 2070?
I love trains, but bus routes are more flexible for populations that are low-density and shifting. Stations are wherever the driver opens the doors. If only the seat designers would measure a couple of American butts.
3
@Ben Busses should be converted to electric power.
1
To all the young 12 year olds - “Hey sorry about that, but it is up to you and your generation to sort out the mess we’ve left for you. But hey, do you remember all those fancy and fun travel adventures we took when you were younger?”
Very few people in the western world truly care about climate change. It’s all just hypocritical noise. Reality is all about short-term gain. satisfaction and of course money. Personal “look at me” overrules care for future generations’ survival. It just seems a race to the bottom...
The mantra should be “Buy Local, Live Local and Stay Local”. Until people stop racing to the airport in their gas-gussler vehicles, in order to jump onto huge jetliners to go stomp around at one’s favorite foreign warm locale or to catch that relaxing monster cruise ship, nothing will change. Just imagine how much waste and pollution just one cruise ship produces, just to have yet another personal “travel adventure” and a few pool-side photos. Large stadium events - are they really necessary or just another one of life’s well-marketed but unnecessary wasteful distractions to the zombie society.
Buy Local, Live Local, and Stay Local.
35
@Scooter - I agree. I live in the western world and do not care about climate change.
3
@Scooter
Nonsense! We are all together on this planet.
Buy Local, Think Global.
5
SUVs and school buses: the young are the instruments that adults are using to destroy the planet and use up all the fuel transporting the kids. When there's no school, there is very little traffic here.
1
Thank you Adam Armstrong for compelling NYC to initiate a plugin program for ships and keeping them honest, and NYT's Lisa Collins for this article. As noted in article, 70% of ships are using plugin at California ports for over a decade; a very practical solution to a nasty port pollution problem. A carrots and stick approach should be used to achieved higher plugin participation.
First, electric rates should be set such that its lower cost to plugin than idling the ship engine. Typically utility power is a small fraction of diesel power electricity...if pricing is currently burdened with plugin infrastructure that is little used, that cost should be reduced or predicated on larger adoption. Secondly, plugin should be mandated or steep port fees assessed.
Ultimately, powering ships with natural gas or electricity will occur...in the meantime all major ports should require plugin...increasing powered by renewable energy.
13
34000 idling trucks! That was enough to get me to read the “EPA verified” article. Pretty clear something slipped in the arithmetic, then made obscure as fitted into a model for SO2 which is what the article is about. Without going too far into it, a casual reader might make a more defensible estimate by just looking at the kW output of the ship aux. engines vs. idling truck engines. True, ships do run on high sulfur fuels (unreported analysis), but just really off-base no matter how you figure it!
Of course, I’m all for shore power, and generally no fan of these ever-more grotesque floating cities, either for their amusement function or their structures, so don’t get me wrong. And, of course, any city should have a (fairly cheap) pollutant monitoring system, not just at the shore. But, maybe some high schoolers might want to check the math behind really amazing claims!
8
The concept of "shorepower" is pretty basic. Simply say get it or keep steaming , maybe Newport.
6
Interesting that the Whole east coast feels so comfortable with no shore power provision, or for that matter neither do the blithe ship travelers seem to be concerned.
11
Very few cruise ships sail out of California thanks to tough environmental regulations.
6
Work with Jersey and make both harbors plug in required and the problem is solved. Its called leadership, thank you Menchaca for stepping in and trying to move the forever pokey DeBlasio do-little administration forward. Always with our mayor, lots of talk and only a little action,.
27
I'd bet one of the biggest sources of air pollution in NYC is private automobiles. The NYT has a huge blindspot when it comes to cars and their negative impact on life in NYC.
9
@JR
You may not have noticed that this article was about cruise ships, not motor vehicles. Living near the Gowns Expressway, I can assure you that we are more than a little aware of air pollution.
PS It's not "private automobiles."
6
The cruise industry pollutes and destroys cities and countries. Example: the island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis.
I went to both islands many times, and stayed in family run inns. The islands were peaceful and drop-dead gorgeous. There was little crime, because people had jobs, and anyone could get one in the sugar cane industry.
The government decided to court the cruise ship industry, and allowed huge docks to be built on St. Kitts. They stopped supporting sugar cane production.
The result? Humongous ships pull up to the docks. Shopping along the docks consists of chain stores you can find anywhere. Charming local businesses in the towns are shuttered - cruise ship people either take an excursion, lie on a beach, go to a generic bar, shop at the dock, or stay on board. The beaches, once pristine and and undeveloped, are lined with chain hotels, condos, rental lounge chairs, trash, and drunk cruise ship tourists.
Now there are gangs and violent crime, because there are not enough jobs, and the locals can’t even enjoy public beaches - they are overrun or gated off. There are military checkpoints on the roads.
The family on St. Kitts has since closed their inn, and fled the island. You cannot argue that this is better for the people - they've lost their peaceful way of life, and their islands are under corporate run invasion. There are examples of this in cities and islands all over the world. Cruise ships ruin everything.
84
@Just Live Well
Cruise ship passengers don’t cause chain hotels and condos to be built.
13
They most certainly do, people that visit a island for a day often decide on a longer stay.
15
@Just Live Well
The Four Seasons has a resort on Nevis and there are multiple hotels on St Kitts, a Hyatt and Marriott to name two. These hotels offer more than day passes to cruise passengers in port. If the cruise ships are banned, the corporate hotels will still exist. Anyway, aren't these islands dependent on tourism revenue?
5
Somebody give DeBlasio a nudge.
2
"Thousands of ships, from Long Beach to Oakland, use shore power every year. Problems with providing electricity are rare, and the state enforces the law vigorously."
Sadly, this is yet another tale of the woeful condition that New York State and City often finds itself in, generally due to its historic, inbuilt inefficiency, corruption and ineptitude, Just like the MTA, problems with bridges and tunnels, etc., the state/city which proclaims itself the capital of the world seems to fall on its face time and again, despite the bluster and bravado from our notoriously poor politicians. Everyone else seems to be able to do it, yet with all of our resources, NY can't get its act together. Pitiful.
52
While I agree that these cruise ships are polluting monsters, the thing that came to mind that the people living in Red Hook now chose to the live there because of the vibe none of them force to live there. Red Hook has been port for a very long time ( it was considered at one point to be the location for the film “ On the Waterfront” but Hoboken was chose instead) at one time the people who worked the piers live in Red Hook nowadays they couldn’t afford it.
The one woman who yelled that they can pay our hospital bills, she probably has health insurance those living in Red Hook houses not so much.
The people I feel for are those in the Red Hook Houses they have live there those with means in Red Hook proper can always move.
2
@Martin Lennon Soooo the residents, because they chose to live there, should not demand that things improve?
That's silly.
26
@Martin Lennon
You claim you are from Brooklyn, but your comments suggest otherwise. And suggesting that you "feel" for the residents of the Red Hook Houses but suggest that the others (?!?) could move away, indicates that in your view residents of city housing are not deserving of clear air. Nice thoughts for the Christmas season!
9
Lets also bring attention to the NYC & Company the tourism agency for NYC who does NOTHING to promote sustainability in the tourism business in NYC. The local tourism agency does nothing to address their members carbon foot print.
21
I took an east coast cruise from Canada to Florida. The only port that had shore power to use was Halifax and we did plug in. We stopped in Manhattan port 88 or 90/92 area. Shore power did not exist.
All new ships have the ability to use shore power. The old ships will be gone in a few years. The local port authority must build it, and the port authority must require they use it. I have been at hundreds of ports around the world. Most do not have the shore power as an option.
23
The cruise ship companies should build their own shore power plant and pay for it from their profits, just as teams, not taxpayers, should build and pay for sports stadiums.
9
This is an interesting proposal. I guess that electric buses, electric cars, and electric trucks should likewise provide their own power sources. If not, why not? Cruise companies can also probably make a contract with providers of non polluting, but more costly, electric power to deliver what they need. Are you willing to pay a higher electric rate to charge up your electric vehicle?
1
@Stephanie Wood
The owner of the port must build it, but it can be easily paid for by the ships that dock. In fact, I would charge the ships that can't plug in at least triple the usual fee!
3
The irony is that Time Magazine environmentalist of the year has to be careful when selecting her trans-oceanic transport. A full plane and compact passenger car each emit about a half pound of carbon per passenger mile. This could be a baseline. A large diesel cruise ship can emit seven times more. A sail powered ship, hybrid car or train use emit substantially less per passenger mile.
7
On the other hand, Peter, a large ship offers a great deal more possibility of supporting abatement equipment than do cars and planes. That they essentially can run on any fuels they find cheapest with no regulation, and emit whatever they please is what enables the dirtiest design. And of course, it’s not allowable in the US to even mention nuclear power for civilian anything.
And, another of course, if we try to control what ships might dump into the water, we also eliminate any creative possibilities for carbon sequestration. Just don’t worry about it. We’re creating an unpleasant global end times, with or without vacation travel.
7
From my little knowledge, power supply from harbor is more expensive than keeping the ship engines running - which is a key motivation for ships to rely on their internal power generators than using a plug.
While making using power from the shore plugs should become mandatory, rethinking the pricing of plug-delivered power is probably part of the solution.
10
@LL The problem lies in the price of diesel. If that price includes the amount necessary to clean up the harms caused, the electric power would be far cheaper.
23
I wonder how much of the available electric power is produced by burning coal and oil. Are there any wind turbines, any solar power farms, any new hydro electric power dams?
4
@LL Still true. In my dad’s time, large factories in NYC had their own diesel generators because it was so much cheaper than street power that it paid for the engines, the huge tanks, and the occupied space. Large institutions, like hospitals have run even just a few decades ago, on their own power, oil fired steam or diesel. Even my house sprouted a diesel generator heat pump invention that also used nearly all the waste heat, that was much cheaper to run than, say, an oil furnace or electric-resistance heat. Much of New England outside of the cities, has no natural gas lines and crazy-high electrical prices, so houses have oil burners. Millions of oil burners. Imagine that, fellow environmentalists.
And by the way, when you do make your own electricity, you have the option to use the other 2/3 of the energy that is ‘waste’ heat for things like heat and hot water. Makes sense on, for example, a ship!
3
Interesting article! I was puzzled by the statement that cruise ships may just dock in New Jersey instead of New York City if the City insists on cruise ships using port power. Last I looked, the ports in New York and New Jersey are under the authority of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, run by people who answer to the two Governors (keyword: Bridgegate). So, wouldn't Governor Cuomo have a say on whether cruise ships can just evade a shore power mandate in New York by going to New Jersey instead? Also, how does Governor Murphy feel about New Jersey being potentially used as a dumping ground for "dirty" cruise ships? NYTimes, please ask them - Thanks!
129
@Pete in Downtown The NYC EDC runs the NYC cruise terminals. The Port Authority pulled out of that years ago.
18
It would be interesting and informative to know how much pollution per day is generated by vehicular traffic in NYC, or by the power plants that provide NYC with electricity.
The absence of information on NYC-related air pollution sources makes putting the cruise ship pollution in perspective pretty much impossible for the average reader.
7
While the article gives examples of how much emissions a cruise ship produces at the dock using the analogy of tractor trailers and how much power it consumer using the analogy of Boston airport, it doesn’t really address how much environmental benefit does it have by consuming electricity from the grid instead of self-generating the same. That is the true yard stick to measure the impact to the global climate. I assume there is but it should have been the key part of the discussion. I understand the secondary benefit for the local residents for sure not to have fumes in their neighborhood but ultimately the global climate doesn’t distinguish whether the emissions are in NY City or in New Jersey.
11
@Matt - While it is omitted from the article, at the end of the day, it will almost certainly be more efficient to use grid-based power over generators on the ship; they're just more efficient, even if they are also emitting greenhouse gases and pollution. Plus, grid-based power also has zero-emission sources, which further reduces total pollution.
14
@JR
In the meantime, the grid is closing nuclear plants, and opening natural gas plants, reducing low emission sources.
"one of the two nuclear reactors at Indian Point will permanently cease operations by April 2020, while the other must be closed a year later."
"Indian Point, which is perched at the edge of the Hudson River in Buchanan, N.Y., the plant is an important supplier of inexpensive power to the metropolitan area. It can generate more than 2,000 megawatts, or about one-fourth of the power consumed in New York City and Westchester County. "
"Cricket Valley Energy Center (Zone G, 1,020 MW), is under construction and has a 2020 target in-service date. "
See opposition in https://stopcricketvalley.org/
6
@JR. Not really, if fossil fuel is involved. Any electrical generating plant ‘wastes’ more than half the fuel energy as exhaust. When you utilize the waste heat, you effectively double the efficiency. Case in point: NYC, whose big coal fired plants a century ago were designed to supply steam under the streets for Manhattan buildings. The dense part of the city was, and is, I think, still heated by the power plant waste heat. When the generator is somewhere acceptably remote, out in the woods, there is nothing at all you can do with all of that energy except toss it into the air, or sometimes, into the water. Your argument holds for hydro and wind, though, with the usual problems of transmission and storage. Niagara Falls has been supplying clean cheap energy since Edison’s day.
5
So many things wrong here. Carnival gets to decide whether or not they plug in? How about mandate it. And a cruise company that makes millions of dollars a year in profits gets subsidies to retrofit its ships to plug - funded by taxpayers. A democracy is supposed to work for who?
150
Why is there no discussion of the upcoming “revolutionary “ change in bunker fuels to significantly reduce pollution generated by ships: the IMO 2020 requirements? It comes into effect on January 1, 2020.
35
Probably why they are running the article now, while the current facts support a greater “outrage factor.” After all, outrage generation and virtue signaling are the bread and butter of the “woke.”
2