Toxic fumes from idling cruise ships are still a problem in New York(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Toxic fumes from idling cruise ships are still a problem in New York
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/26/nyregion/cruise-ship-exhaust-shore-power-nyc.html
7 comments
Pleasure boats spewing heavy particulate matter into tenement complexes where asthma occurs at 2x elevated rates, while shore power plugs twist in the wind, unused, and the mayor spends $200mm on political advertising. This reads like scene-setting for a Warhammer 40k battle.
While Bloomberg oversaw the shore power project while mayor, he hasn’t been mayor for years. It’s deBlasio’s admin now that is overseeing this. So I don’t see how you get to connect those dots like that.
Fair point. My mind classifies all NYC mayors past and present as being the same entity, except for Giuliani, who gets a special category as "the 911 guy".
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
"This place breeds recidivists like a pond breeds scum.
"This place breeds recidivists like a pond breeds scum.
I've never understand why the problem of "the X largest ships contribute a shocking amount of pollution" hasn't been solved. It can't be that hard given the limited number of ships, right?
People who own or travel on boats are rich and the people most affected by the pollution they spew are not
That’s not quite true. Cruises can be downright cheap compared to a comparable period of time at a hotel. Some of the cheapest cruises of all leave NYC, spend two nights at sea, and return.
....this article is about NYC, one of the richest places in NYC. Air pollution doesn't spare the rich.
NYC is not uniformly rich at all. It is only the astounding wealth of the richest New Yorkers that makes it appear so. Who exactly is affected in NYC depends on the dock and wind direction. I have read (somewhere I forget) that air quality is in the mean worse in the Bronx; by no means is the outcome of this affecting all classes uniformly.
When you are a billionaire and buy a massive apartment in Manhattan just above a street that has thousands of polluting cars passing by every hour.
Pollution gets solved by regulation, this had been shown again and again.
[deleted]
Boats at this scale should be nuclear. It's a shame there isn't a better path for non-military nuclear ocean vessels.
- "Permission to harbor, Sir"
- "You said this is a nuclear ship sir?"
- "Correct"
- "Aaand you're not speaking figuratively of the geriatric waste you're carrying?"
- "Correct. We need you to dispose of our very literal nuclear waste."
- "Roger. Please stand by."
- "You said this is a nuclear ship sir?"
- "Correct"
- "Aaand you're not speaking figuratively of the geriatric waste you're carrying?"
- "Correct. We need you to dispose of our very literal nuclear waste."
- "Roger. Please stand by."
This sounds so familiar but I'm not placing it.
Snow Crash?
Snow Crash?
Uh oh. Never thought I'd reach the day I channeled Neal Stephenson.
Snow Crash has been mentioned a lot here, is it an anniversary?
Maybe because HBO picked up the rights a week or two ago?
It's the birthday present I've been waiting years for.
No problem. Heat and electricity from shore based nuclear power plants can be used to manufacture synthetic carbon neutral fuels. Run the ships on that. The technology has existed for decades, it's just more expensive than burning fossil fuels.
But installing nuclear reactors in modern commercial vessels is a total non starter for cost and security reasons.
But installing nuclear reactors in modern commercial vessels is a total non starter for cost and security reasons.
International waters have very little regulation.
Many places have rules and the ships switch to a cleaner fuel in these waters, but when they're on the open sea they have no incentive to not use bunker fuel.
Many places have rules and the ships switch to a cleaner fuel in these waters, but when they're on the open sea they have no incentive to not use bunker fuel.
Cruise ships ought to be the first candidate for a luxury tax to pay for marine vehicle electrification. There are many candidate battery technologies which seem well-suited for this application.
> Cruise ships ought to be the first candidate for a luxury tax to pay for marine vehicle electrification
Tax burdens are tough to pin down. For something like cruise ship docking, the fear is losing the docking business to a neighboring port. That can change ground economics for voting families, a problem for policy makers.
State or national-level regulation is probably needed.
Tax burdens are tough to pin down. For something like cruise ship docking, the fear is losing the docking business to a neighboring port. That can change ground economics for voting families, a problem for policy makers.
State or national-level regulation is probably needed.
Add federal regulation requiring ships to simply not spew out pollution in population centers. They’ll need electric drives to navigate into major cities or they can dock in less populated areas (both of which are economic disasters for cruise companies - so obviously can’t be implemented on state level as they’d just switch destinations).
In general, yes, but New York is uniquely privileged as the most glamorous east cost destination and should just act decisively. This isn't the freight business moving to NJ and Oakland. This is bougie tourists who want to disembark straight into their destination.
> tourists who want to disembark straight into their destination
Hoboken, New Jersey and Red Hook, Brooklyn are roughly the same distance from the city.
Hoboken, New Jersey and Red Hook, Brooklyn are roughly the same distance from the city.
Fair that's true, but note how the article mentioned many docking in Manhattan too. And at least in Red Hook you can truthfully say it's NYC.
Every single tax has this problem. The better alternative is that the cruise ships be held responsible for the increased rate of asthma development there. It would be interesting to see how a business that is supposed to make people feel better is going to react when there is both a public outcry and a lawsuit against them for the very thing.
Would you as a person go on a cruise when you knew it contributed directly to the asthma of others? At that point, I think going on a cruise from a different port would be the preference of others, regardless of taxes.
Would you as a person go on a cruise when you knew it contributed directly to the asthma of others? At that point, I think going on a cruise from a different port would be the preference of others, regardless of taxes.
[deleted]
I'm not up to date on the subject, but I didn't know there were good battery options
There are no battery technologies which can power a cruise ship at the dock for several days at a reasonable cost and weight. The power density just isn't there, and won't be for many years.
Shore power works fine. It would be a lot simpler to just mandate it actually be used, and bar ships which don't use it from docking.
Shore power works fine. It would be a lot simpler to just mandate it actually be used, and bar ships which don't use it from docking.
I think the best way to implement this is to use the tax money to at first pay for electric tug boats, ferries, and other smaller marine vasseles that service the city.
Later liquid battery tech could be a good way for a cruise ship to quickly refuel in port. Other grid-level battery tech might work too, but I'm actually not sure if a boat can cross the Atlantic on battery.
Later liquid battery tech could be a good way for a cruise ship to quickly refuel in port. Other grid-level battery tech might work too, but I'm actually not sure if a boat can cross the Atlantic on battery.
Another issue that no one has touched on yet is that big diesel engines don't like being stopped and started. The maintenance costs of stopping the engine each time it docks are likely worth more than the fuel it burns doing so.
It seems that the externalities of this decision need to be accounted for in law.
It seems that the externalities of this decision need to be accounted for in law.
As soon as someone puts a price tag on the human cost, diesel engines will go extinct in no time at all. The alternatives are nearly there technically (for practically most use cases) and once that excuse is removed from the table, operating diesel engines will become very expensive and legally risky very quickly. As soon as people wake up to the notion that smog kills a rather large amount of people (affecting the smallest and weakest first), the notion of going after people that produce, operate, own, or otherwise are associated with them might gain popularity. Think very expensive class action suits followed by expensive inspections, heavy fines, area restrictions, damages payed, etc.
Right now the status quo seems to be that we pretend everything is fine even though we already know that it is not. All it takes to change this is to stop pretending it is fine and just say no. It will make diesel engines extremely expensive and will cause people to get rid of them as soon as they can.
If you think about it, parking a continuously running ginormous diesel engine anywhere near where people (or anything for that matter) lives seems to border on criminally insane. Then if you consider that the sole purpose of these things is to sustain and transport a population of tourists the notion becomes ludicrous.
Right now the status quo seems to be that we pretend everything is fine even though we already know that it is not. All it takes to change this is to stop pretending it is fine and just say no. It will make diesel engines extremely expensive and will cause people to get rid of them as soon as they can.
If you think about it, parking a continuously running ginormous diesel engine anywhere near where people (or anything for that matter) lives seems to border on criminally insane. Then if you consider that the sole purpose of these things is to sustain and transport a population of tourists the notion becomes ludicrous.
> If ships were required to plug in, Mr. DeMeo said, then they would just go across the harbor, he said, and dock in New Jersey.
When the race to the bottom augment involves not nations half way across the globe, but two sides of a river, sigh.
Also, that's just ridiculous. No bougie cruise ship passenger wants to be dumped in NJ any more than mayor LaGuardia wanted to land in Newerk.[1]
[1]: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-laguardia-crown-j...
When the race to the bottom augment involves not nations half way across the globe, but two sides of a river, sigh.
Also, that's just ridiculous. No bougie cruise ship passenger wants to be dumped in NJ any more than mayor LaGuardia wanted to land in Newerk.[1]
[1]: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-laguardia-crown-j...
The reporting on this is very weak. I'm not a genius, but my guess is that cruise ships contribute a tiny proportion to the pollutants people are exposed to on a day to day basis in NYC. Most of the pollution is from automobiles.
The article mentions (and can be entirely summarized by):
> Idling ships release potent diesel air pollution — similar to diesel exhaust from automobiles but in much larger quantities, and laced with harmful metals — that is linked to cancer, asthma, heart disease and other serious health problems.
The author states "in much bigger quantities", which is probably true when you compare a ship to an automobile. However there are no details on the relative quantities involved when you compare all polluters combined. I'm guessing the article would be much less dramatic if you did.
The article mentions (and can be entirely summarized by):
> Idling ships release potent diesel air pollution — similar to diesel exhaust from automobiles but in much larger quantities, and laced with harmful metals — that is linked to cancer, asthma, heart disease and other serious health problems.
The author states "in much bigger quantities", which is probably true when you compare a ship to an automobile. However there are no details on the relative quantities involved when you compare all polluters combined. I'm guessing the article would be much less dramatic if you did.
Cruise ships totally outclass cars as a source of pollutants.
An example from across the pond:
"The results show that the luxury cruise brands owned by Carnival Corporation & PLC emitted in 2017 in European seas alone 10 times more disease-causing sulphur dioxide than all of Europe’s 260+ million passenger vehicles."
https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/one-corpor...
An example from across the pond:
"The results show that the luxury cruise brands owned by Carnival Corporation & PLC emitted in 2017 in European seas alone 10 times more disease-causing sulphur dioxide than all of Europe’s 260+ million passenger vehicles."
https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/one-corpor...
> 10 times more disease-causing sulphur dioxide
That is one specific pollutant. Cars produce more pollution when you look at all forms of pollution.
Ships are a problem, but cars should not be let off the hook for the massive amounts of pollution they produce.
That is one specific pollutant. Cars produce more pollution when you look at all forms of pollution.
Ships are a problem, but cars should not be let off the hook for the massive amounts of pollution they produce.
They're not, it's just a reminder that vast amounts of the world's pollution is also being caused by large sea vessels, of which cruise ships are a variety.
It's an oft neglected point in the global climate discussions because it's hard to associate their scale with a direct human impact like with cars. Tying it to a cruise ship around a populous city helps people bridge that mental gap.
It's an oft neglected point in the global climate discussions because it's hard to associate their scale with a direct human impact like with cars. Tying it to a cruise ship around a populous city helps people bridge that mental gap.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Still, my point was that automobiles exist alongside people within cities, in near proximity. A diesel truck driving down my street is probably going to expose me to more harmful pollution than a cruise ship passing by 10 miles from me.
So I guess to make my point another way: if you could trace the damage done to individuals in cities, I think the bigger fish to fry would be automobiles.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to discount any claims that cruise ships are causing unnecessary outsized pollution. Airplanes also cause a significant amount of pollution, but for some reason society generally accepts air travel because it's fashionable.
So I guess to make my point another way: if you could trace the damage done to individuals in cities, I think the bigger fish to fry would be automobiles.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to discount any claims that cruise ships are causing unnecessary outsized pollution. Airplanes also cause a significant amount of pollution, but for some reason society generally accepts air travel because it's fashionable.
Can you do better than guessing? Hint: Automobiles and trucks have had steadily tightened regulations for a long time. Ships burn much worse fuel than cars and trucks, and have only recently been regulated. And they aren't regulated in NYC.
> “The oil that ships use has a lot more heavy metals in it that have a negative impact on human health,” said Adam Freed, who was the deputy director of the Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability in the Bloomberg administration. “We understood how important of an impact it could have.”
> “The oil that ships use has a lot more heavy metals in it that have a negative impact on human health,” said Adam Freed, who was the deputy director of the Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability in the Bloomberg administration. “We understood how important of an impact it could have.”
Older diesel trucks are largely exempt from these regulations. There are a few loopholes that allow people to purchase older truck parts, refurbish them, and continue to operate them without needing to adhere to modern emissions requirements.
That's true in general, but not true near many large ports, for obvious reasons.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191029005379/en/100...
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191029005379/en/100...
[deleted]
even if it's not the biggest improvement, it's a big and an easy one that can be done in parallel with others.
'Bunker fuel' is the big difference here.
I'm not an expert on the topic, but I'm pretty sure ships cannot burn bunker fuel unless in international waters. They have to switch to diesel when this close to the shore.
According to the article one cruise ship idling emits as much pollution as several myriad semi trucks idling. That seems significant to me and moreover easy to abate.
Also note that semi trucks aren't allowed to idle in NYC.
Absolutely, they keyword here is ECA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_Control_Area
That being said, the calculation that a cruise ship generating its own power emits as much SO2 as 34400 idling trucks seems to hold up.
That being said, the calculation that a cruise ship generating its own power emits as much SO2 as 34400 idling trucks seems to hold up.
Cars have been regulated to the point where they have an incredible array of pollution control mechanisms since the smog crisis of the 80s. No, most of the pollution isn't from cars.
Cruise ships, in contrast, have very little regulation, burn the worst of the worst types of fuel, and have effectively no pollution control. A single cruise ship is estimated to produce more pollution than one million cars. In Europe, cruise ships emit 10x more pollution on the coastlines than the EU's entire 260 million cars. Etc.
Cruise ships, in contrast, have very little regulation, burn the worst of the worst types of fuel, and have effectively no pollution control. A single cruise ship is estimated to produce more pollution than one million cars. In Europe, cruise ships emit 10x more pollution on the coastlines than the EU's entire 260 million cars. Etc.
> A single cruise ship is estimated to produce more pollution than one million cars. In Europe, cruise ships emit 10x more pollution on the coastlines than the EU's entire 260 million cars.
That statement, unqualified, is simply untrue. They produce more of specific types of pollution, NOx and SOx. They do not produce more pollution in general. Cars still produce a huge amount of carbon, particulate matter and VOCs.
Ship pollution does need to be addressed, but this sentiment comes dangerously close to letting cars off the hook for the massive amounts of pollution they produce.
That statement, unqualified, is simply untrue. They produce more of specific types of pollution, NOx and SOx. They do not produce more pollution in general. Cars still produce a huge amount of carbon, particulate matter and VOCs.
Ship pollution does need to be addressed, but this sentiment comes dangerously close to letting cars off the hook for the massive amounts of pollution they produce.
Cars produce little VOCs and are not a significant source. When it comes to particulate matter cars are absolutely eclipsed by sea vessels, with a single cruise ship creating more than a million cars.
VOCs -- irrelevant to this conversation.
SOx, NOs, Particulate Matter -- A single cruise ship is worse than a million cars. The cruise ship industry absolutely eclipses cars by a magnitude+.
Carbon -- cars produce a lot of greenhouse gases. That isn't an air quality issue, though, which is the topic that we're talking about.
Cruise ships are an absolute disaster ecologically. Cars are bad, but again because cars are bad we have made incredible progress.
VOCs -- irrelevant to this conversation.
SOx, NOs, Particulate Matter -- A single cruise ship is worse than a million cars. The cruise ship industry absolutely eclipses cars by a magnitude+.
Carbon -- cars produce a lot of greenhouse gases. That isn't an air quality issue, though, which is the topic that we're talking about.
Cruise ships are an absolute disaster ecologically. Cars are bad, but again because cars are bad we have made incredible progress.
Looks like someone elsewhere in the comments did the math, it is absolutely true. Cars literally use precious metals to catlyze pollutants form a highly refined fuel source, controled for a perfect stociometric burn in real time while ships... well they just belch it out. If you think the two are even nearly equal you are uninformed about how cars work, how ships work, or likely both.
No, they made the same error I just called out. Ships produce more of certain specific pollutants. They don't produce more pollution in general.
How is that an error? Other people might not interpret "in general" the same way you intend. CO2 is much less hazardous (per ton) than nitrogen and sulfur oxides.
"Pollution" is not a synonym for NOx and SOx. Unless you are taking a holistic view of pollution, you shouldn't be making such broad claims about "pollution".
Cars are a bigger contributor to climate change than ships and in most geographical areas where people live, they are a bigger contributor to poor air quality than ships.
Cars are a bigger contributor to climate change than ships and in most geographical areas where people live, they are a bigger contributor to poor air quality than ships.
This conversation is about air quality. The use of the word pollution is clear. Further we are talking specifically about areas where ships frequent, so if now you want to claim victory by citing someone living mid-continent...
No one gave a pass to cars. But the cold, hard truth is that for air quality pollution of all sorts, cars have improved dramatically[1]. Cruise ships have not.
[1] - Even in Europe where diesel is far more prevalent, and the problems it brings. A relatively tiny cruise ship industry still eclipses the car industry for every variety of air quality pollution, by a magnitude plus.
No one gave a pass to cars. But the cold, hard truth is that for air quality pollution of all sorts, cars have improved dramatically[1]. Cruise ships have not.
[1] - Even in Europe where diesel is far more prevalent, and the problems it brings. A relatively tiny cruise ship industry still eclipses the car industry for every variety of air quality pollution, by a magnitude plus.
I didn't even mention the word "pollution", are you sure you responded to what I said?
> A single cruise ship is estimated to produce more pollution than one million cars. In Europe, cruise ships emit 10x more pollution on the coastlines than the EU's entire 260 million cars.
The statement I'm refuting is this, which says "pollution" twice with no further qualification.
The statement I'm refuting is this, which says "pollution" twice with no further qualification.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Add in the ships carrying containers (of goods) and the amount of pollution is massive. It's ironic that we we're able to cooperate to make the global market work, but we can't address the unintended consequences of all that transporting.
Yeah very suspicious, isn't it.
I.e. if you can't enforce some environmental tax elsewhere, you can still tariff the difference. Other countries will then be incentivized to make the same tax so they get the revenue instead of you. Race to the top! What's the problem?!
The EU is about to roll some out and the new fuel standards might help for anyone docking in the EU...
But ya, we need to do more.
But ya, we need to do more.
Yet it won't have any effect on international waters. Indeed more needs to be done.
There was a time when a dominant navy might enforce their will in international waters. A more climate enlightened USA (or China) might one day do the same.
Cost seems to be the thing, and the reporting doesn't drill deeply enough into this. The cost of the electricity is mentioned, as well as some sensitive ports where shore power is used. Does the Regal Princess fit the apparently-fixed arrangement that the QM2 uses? How much time would the ship be hooked to shore power compared to how long it is berthed? Does it take costly shore personnel hours to hook up the power?
if they cannot afford the price of operating cleanly, then they shouldn't operate at all imo
I'm not passing judgement. But I know from observation, and TFA confirms, that in most other ports they use shore power, so I suspect that it is unusually inconvenient or the laws are weaker than CA or AK. Cruise lines do watch costs and some were avoiding Antarctica just because Ushuaia was charging more (compared to today) for the special fuel required for Antarctica.
They probably can, but they won't until they have to.