Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice

Emerald Book Chapter: Chapter 6 The cruise sector and its environmental impact Ross A. Klein

Article information:
To cite this document: Ross A. Klein, (2010),"Chapter 6 The cruise sector and its environmental impact", Christian Schott, in (ed.) Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions (Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, Volume 3), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 113 - 130 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2042-1443(2010)0000003009 Downloaded on: 25-10-2012 References: This document contains references to 17 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Users who downloaded this Chapter also downloaded: *

Steffen Raub, Eva Maria Streit, (2006),"Realistic recruitment: An empirical study of the cruise industry", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 4 pp. 278 - 289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110610665294 < Citation unavailable for this publication > Justin Beneke, Anne Greene, Inge Lok, Kate Mallett, (2012),"The influence of perceived risk on purchase intent - the case of premium grocery private label brands in South Africa", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 14 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211203060

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by City University of Hong Kong For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Chapter 6

THE CRUISE SECTOR AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Ross A. Klein
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

Abridgement: The cruise sector promotes itself as a responsible steward of the ocean environment and claims its policies and practices protect the marine ecology. As such, it would argue that its activities do not signicantly contribute to global warming and climate change. However, there is disconnect between what the cruise sector says it does and what cruiseships actually do in relation to the environment. This chapter looks at the sectors environmental practices and how it contributes to climate change. This is both directly through greenhouse gases and indirectly through degradation of the marine environment, as well as the prospects for the sector to voluntarily take responsibility for its part of the problem. Despite a poor record on voluntary efforts, the chapter calls on the cruise sector to embrace initiatives that bring its behavior in line with its public pronouncements about environmental responsibility. Keywords: cruise sector; environmental impacts; ship-based pollution; environmental violations

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, Volume 3, 113130 Copyright r 2010 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2042-1443/doi:10.1108/S2042-1443(2010)0000003009

114

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

INTRODUCTION The cruise sector says it is a responsible steward of the ocean environment and claims its policies and practices protect the marine ecology. As such, it would argue its activities do not signicantly contribute to climate change. However, there is contradiction between what the cruise sector says it does and what cruiseships actually do in relation to the environment. Cruiseships impacts on the marine environment have implications for those who depend on the oceans for their livelihood, and have serious wide-ranging implications as many of the practices contribute to the problem of climate change. Some of these impacts are direct, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while others are less direct insofar as they are related to degradation of the environment below the ocean surface. Some argue the cruise sector may benet from climate change as sea levels rise and new areas (such as the Northwest Passage of Canada between the Atlantic and Pacic Oceans) become accessible (Dawson, Maher and Slocombe 2007). Others suggest melting ice may have a negative impact on cruise tourism in these areas as distribution of sea ice presents challenges to navigation (Stewart, Howell, Draper, Yackel and Tivy 2007). In either scenario, the marine environment is under siege. Increasingly common are news stories of dying coral reefs, of dead zones in coastal oceans (more than 95,000 square miles), and of forms of sea life becoming extinct or seriously threatened (Diaz and Rosenberg 2008). It has been acknowledged that the health of the marine environment is directly related to climate change, in that a changing climate negatively impacts the marine environment, but likewise degradation of ocean and coastal environments exacerbate climate change as oceans become less able to serve as a carbon sink (Nellemann, Corcoran, Duarte et al 2009). It is in this context that the cruise sector continues to expand with little sign of slowing. At the end of 2008, members of the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA), a trade organization and lobbyist representing 98% of cruiseline capacity serving North America, collectively had 189 ships with accommodations for close to 300,000 passengers plus a further 125,000 crew members. Over 13 million people took a cruise on CLIA-member cruiselines in 2008. Worldwide the number is closer to 18 million and the number of ships exceeds 260 (CLIA 2008). The cruise sector regularly claims to be a responsible steward of the ocean around the Americas, but its behavior has brought more than US$50 million in nes since 1998 (CruiseJunkie 2009), undermining such claims. While boasting prots of billions of dollars and paying virtually no corporate income taxes in the United States or in other host countries, cruiselines

The Cruise Sector and Its Environmental Impact

115

appear to place increased prot above environmental protection. They have been adept at avoiding legislation and regulations that would force them to clean up their act through signicant spending on lobbyists in Washington, DC ($22 million since 2000; $5.8 million in 2008 alone) and on strategic contributions to US federal and state election campaigns (Klein 2005). Contributions to political campaigns elsewhere are more difcult to track. This chapter looks at the pollution of air and water, generated by cruiseships. The rst section looks at the cruise sectors record with regard to environmental practice. This is followed by a discussion that identies and explicates cruiseships waste streams and their impact on the environment. The nal section returns to the issue of climate change and discusses the sectors lack of focus or concern about the problem. A Brief History of the Sector The cruise sector has grown phenomenally since the emergence of leisure cruising some 40 years ago. Passenger numbers in North America more than doubled between 1970 and 1980: from 600,000 to 1.4 million. They increased vefold in the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000: from 1.4 million to close to 7 million. Between 2000 and 2008, passenger numbers grew another 89% to 13.2 million (CLIA 2008). This pattern of growth in the cruise sector is expected to continue. More than 26,000 berths were added by 10 new ships built in 2008, which on an annual basis adds more than one million passengers. Another nine new ships were delivered in 2009, contributing more than 23,000 berths. A further 12 ships with 33,000 berths will be delivered in 2010, and in 2011 at least seven new ships with 16,000 berths are planned. Taken together, new construction over four years (2008 through 2011) will add 38 new ships with more than 100,000 berths. On an annual basis this results in approximately ve million additional passengers. The size of ships has also increased dramatically. In their early days, ships could accommodate 7501,000 passengers, but new purpose-built cruiseships are increasingly taking on larger proportions. By the late 1990s, new ships launched by Carnival and Royal Caribbean were accommodating more than 3,300 passengers. These were soon eclipsed in 2006 by Royal Caribbeans 160,000-ton Freedom of the Seas with the capacity for 4,370 passengers and over 5,700 people in total including crew. More recently this was overtaken by Royal Caribbeans Oasis of the Seas introduced in December 2009, weighing 220,000 tons and accommodating more than 7,000 passengers (at capacity) and carrying a complement of close to 2,000 crew members. It is staggering to compare this to the ships Royal Caribbean and

116

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

Carnival started withSong of Norway at 18,000 tons and 724 passengers, and Mardi Gras at 27,300 tons and 1,024 passengers. Environmental Violations The cruise sector has had a very rocky record in terms of environmental pollution. The takeaway message from this record is that voluntary improvements and trust-based verication measures are insufcient to protect air and water quality from this ever-expanding sector. As will be noted below, the majority of environmental violations occur in Alaska. This is because Alaska is the only jurisdiction in the world that regularly and effectively monitors cruiseship emissions and enforces its pollution regulations. Environmental concern about cruiseships rst emerged in the 80s. By the early 90s this concern led to surveillance by the US Coast Guard. Initially the US government reported violations to the country where offending ships were registered, but it saw no change. In October 1992, the US government y told the International Maritime Organizations Marine Environmental Committee meeting that it had reported Marine Pollution (MARPOL) violations to the appropriate ag states 111 times, but received responses in only about 10% of the cases (Lloyds List 1993:3). Consequently, the United States began stricter enforcement for pollution violations in 1993. Between 1993 and 1998, it charged 104 ships with violations involving illegal discharges of oil, garbage, and/or hazardous wastes (United States Government Accountability Ofce 2000). The largest ne, $9 million, was levied against Royal Caribbean International in 1998. The following text (www.cruisejunkie.com/environes.html for a more comprehensive list) provides an overview of the environmental conduct of cruise companies. The issue of pollution from cruiseships became widely known when Royal Caribbean pled guilty in July 1999 to 21 counts of dumping oil and hazardous chemicals and lying to the US Coast Guard (Frantz 1999). With plea agreements in Miami, New York City, Los Angeles, Anchorage, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands, the company agreed to pay $18 million in nes (Department of Justice 1999; Rosenberg and Doscher 1999); it was also ned $3.5 million by the state of Alaska (New York Times 2000). Just one year earlier Royal Caribbean Cruise Limited paid $9 million in nes to settle cases initiated four years before in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Miami. Despite the nes, there were subsequent violations. Royal Caribbean Cruise Limiteds Celebrity Cruises were charged by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for air pollution violations in the waters of Juneau, Seward, and Glacier Bay in the summer of 1999 (Bellisle 2000), and

The Cruise Sector and Its Environmental Impact

117

was ned for violating Alaskas state smoke opacity standards in Juneau between mid-July and mid-August 2000 (InforMARE 2001). In 2007, Royal Caribbean International was cited by Alaska for violation of visible air emissions standards by two ships (Golden 2008b), and both Royal Caribbean and Celebrity Cruises were cited twice for air quality violations in 2008 (Golden 2009). However, Royal Caribbean Cruise Limited violations do not only relate to air emissions. In June 2001, Celebrity Cruises Mercury illegally discharged treated wastewater at Juneau without required permits. In December 2003, two Royal Caribbean ships were cited for 12 violations of Hawaiis Memorandum of Understanding (CruiseJunkie 2009). In 2006, Celebrity Cruises Mercury was ned $100,000 by the Washington State for dumping 500,000 gallons of untreated wastewater into Puget Sound 10 times over nine days in 2005 (McClure 2006, 2007). In addition, Alaska cited Royal Caribbean for two wastewater violations in 2008 and one in 2009 (CruiseJunkie 2009), including discharge of 20,000 gallons of wastewater into Chatham Strait in Southeast Alaska by Rhapsody of the Seas (Klein 2008). These discharges are contrary to a public assurance made by the companys CEO on September 24, 2003, responding to environmental action campaign Oceana, in which he stated that the company discharges its sewage and gray water only when we are 12 or more miles from the shore and moving at least six knots (Fain 2003). Royal Caribbean is not the only cruise sector violator. Carnival Corporations Holland America Line was ned $2 million in 1998 for a 1995 incident in which it pumped oily bilge water overboard in Alaskas Inside Passage 13 times in 10 days (U.S. GAO 2000). The corporations ships were also cited for violating Alaskas state smoke opacity standards: both Carnival Cruise Lines and Holland America Line were charged for violations in 1999 (Bellisle 2000), and again in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004 (www.cruisejunkie.com/environes.html). In July 2006, Holland America Lines Zuiderdam had a generator malfunction that caused the ship to spew black smoke and soot over three blocks in Skagway, Alaska (CruiseJunkie 2009). In 2009, Holland America Line was cited twice for violating Alaskas smoke opacity standards; its sister line, Princes Cruises, was cited once. Both cruiselines were also cited for violations in 2008 (CruiseJunkie 2009; Golden 2009). On other violations, Carnival Cruise Lines Holiday discharged 768,000 gallons of gray water (nearly 40,000 gallons per week for 20 weeks) into the port of San Pedro, CA. In May 2001 Holland America Lines Westerdam discharged gray water while docked in Juneau. In February 2002, Carnival

118

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

Corporations Cunard Lines Carnonia was detained and ned $410,000 by Brazilian authorities after nearly 8,000 gallons of heavy fuel oil spilled into Guanabara Bay near Rio de Janeiro. In August 2002, Holland America Lines Ryndam discharged approximately 40,000 gallons of sewage sludge into Juneau Harbor and subsequently was ned $2 million (CruiseJunkie 2009). In April 2002, Carnival Corporation pled guilty to numerous occasions, from 1996 through 2001, of discharging oily waste into the sea from their bilges by improperly using pollution prevention equipment and for falsifying the Oil Record Book on six ships to conceal its practices. The plea agreement imposed a $18 million ne and required the company to have environmental ofcers on all its ships. It was also required to le compliance reports with the court (Klein 2005). Within a year the company was back in federal court after a probation ofcer reported the company failed to develop, implement, and enforce the terms of the environmental compliance program (Dupont 2003; Perez 2003). Then in July 2004, the former vice president for environmental compliance of Holland America Line, pled guilty to certifying environmental compliance audits that were never performed (Klein 2007). Several months before, in March 2004, Holland America Line notied the United States and Netherlands governmental authorities that one of its chief engineers had admitted to improperly processing oily bilge water on Noordam for at least the past three months (Klein 2005). However, there were other violations as well, including in November 2006, when Carnival Corporations P&O Australias Pacic Sky illegally dumped 500,000 liters of oil in Vanuatu waters. The Sunshine Coast Daily reported on November 13 that deep holes were dug, lined with thin plastic, and then lled with oil and raw sewage. The site was within 1 km of a village and school, and was just above a river used for drinking, washing, and swimming. The motivation for the illegal dump was that it would cost $30,000 to properly dispose of the waste at approved facilities in the region, whereas dumping it illegally cost them less than $200. The corporation also has a poor record in Alaska. In 2008, Carnival Corporations Princess Cruises received 30 notices of violation and its Holland America Line received eight notices of violation for violating its wastewater permit. In 2009, Princess Cruises received 54 notices of violation and Holland America Line received eight. In addition, both Holland America Line and Princess Cruises were cited for multiple air quality violations in 2008 (Golden 2009) and 2009 (CruiseJunkie 2009). Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) has also had its share of environmental violations. In 2000 and 2001 it was cited for violating Alaskas smoke opacity standards (CruiseJunkie 2009). Also in 2001, NCLs Norwegian Sky

The Cruise Sector and Its Environmental Impact

119

discharged sewage for 2030 minutes, leaving a waste stream of up to threequarters of a mile, while the vessel was en route from Juneau to Ketchikan and within three miles of the Alexander Archipelago (Lloyds List 2001). In 2000, the Justice Department subpoenaed records from NCL after its parent company, Star Cruises, reported it had uncovered questionable practices prior to its ownership of the company (Doscher 2000). The Coast Guard was already pursuing its own investigation (Joshi 2002) after a former ofcer on NCLs Norway had gone to the US EPA in 1999 with piping diagrams and videotaped evidence of oil dumping by the ship. EPA began an investigation, but months into it, senior Norwegian ofcials were faxed an anonymous letter warning that the former ofcer had tipped off the EPA. Its agents already had come across other disturbing information. The Norway had few of the legally required records for its wastes and had apparently routinely dumped sewage and hazardous waste into the ocean for years (Adams 2002). In July 2002, NCL pled guilty to discharging oily bilge water between May 1997 and May 2000, and for falsifying discharge logs (Department of Justice 2002). The company was ned $1 million and ordered to pay $500,000 toward environmental service projects in South Florida (Adams 2002). Like Royal Caribbean, NCL did not appear to learn from these experiences. In February 2003, passengers aboard the Norwegian Wind photographed crewmembers throwing garbage and plastic overboard while the ship was en route from Hawaii to the Fanning Islands (Kubota 2003). The case, which received wide media attention, was investigated but not prosecuted. Then in May 2003, the Norwegian Sun was cited by the state of Washington for an illegal discharge of 16,000 gallons (40 tons) of raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a documented Orca whale habitat. NCL did not deny the discharges, but argued the state lacked jurisdiction over the discharge. The state dropped its case (Associated Press 2003). NCL also had several violations of its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Hawaii (CruiseJunkie 2009) in 2005 and 2007, and in 2008 and 2009 was cited by the state of Alaska for violating its wastewater discharge permit (Golden 2008c; CruiseJunkie 2009). Also in 2008, the cruiseline was cited for a violation of Alaskas air quality standards (Golden 2009).

BELIEVE WHAT WE SAY, NOT WHAT WE DO Despite its environmental record, the cruise sector presents itself as environmentally concerned, responsible, and reformed after all the pollution

120

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

incidents in the 90s and early 2000s. They attempt to disarm critics with statements such as, We visit some of the most pristine areas of the world and our income depends on them staying that way, so why would we pollute? This exact statement has been made several times in radio interviews and in public forums where this author has appeared with representatives of the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL). On the surface, it is a compelling argument, but as can be seen, is contradictory to the cruise sectors actual behavior. There are two additional examples that effectively illustrate the inherent contradiction. In April 2002, representatives from environmental organizations, the city of Monterey, the state of California, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary met in Monterey Bay with cruiselines planning to visit Monterey and told them that if they could not refrain from dumping pollution into the bay, they were not welcome. Crystal Cruises was among the four cruiselines that sent a letter to the city signed by its Vice President Joseph Valenti that read Crystal Harmony will observe a no-discharge policy in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary y This policy will apply to all wastewater, ballast water, water discharged through the oily water separator, and all forms of solid waste (Madigan 2003). In late February 2003, it was learned, through the California State Water Resources Control Boards review of ships logs, that Crystal Harmony had in fact discharged 34,078 gallons of gray water, 264 gallons of treated sewage, and 2,118 gallons of processed bilge water into Monterey Bay. When asked why they had not reported the discharge when it occurred, Valenti defended the silence by saying the company had only broken its promise. It hadnt violated any laws (Laidman 2003). The ICCL President Michael Crye also dismissed the violation, telling a news reporter the ships discharge occurred 14 miles from the coast so it was not illegal (Fletcher 2003). The people of Monterey expressed their extreme displeasure with these discharges. On March 18, 2003, the Monterey City Council voted to bar all Crystal cruiseships from entering the port of Monterey for 15 years and barred the Crystal Harmony forever (Madigan 2003). Several weeks after the July 1999 plea agreement between the Department of Justice and Royal Caribbean, the CLIA, formerly known as the ICCL, made a commitment on July 27 to standards for waste management. CLIA assured all those concerned that y member lines have strengthened their own environmental policies and procedures, and closely monitor onboard activities to ensure these standards are maintained. The internal procedures are designed to meet existing and comprehensive federal, state, and international standards designed to prevent discharges from all commercial

The Cruise Sector and Its Environmental Impact

121

vessels (ICCL 1999:1). CLIA restated its environmental commitment two years later in June 2001 with New Mandatory Environmental Standards for Cruiseships. The standards were announced while the Alaska State Senate was in a special session considering legislation that would authorize monitoring of cruiseships emissions and the enforcement of environmental standards. It also followed two new cruiseships violations in Alaska waters in May 2001; Norwegians Norwegian Sky discharged sewage for 2030 minutes while the Alexander Archipelago and Holland Americas Westerdam discharged 100 gallons or more of gray water while docked in Juneau (Klein 2003a:108). As demonstrated, the commitment did not end environmental violations. In 2009, CLIA CEO Terry Dale was quoted in the New York Times stating that all our members must have environmental policies and practices in place (Conlin 2009). Yet, CLIAs member lines, including Royal Caribbean, Carnival, and Norwegian, continue to violate environmental laws as evidenced by violations in Alaska during the 2008 and 2009 cruise season. While the CLIA commitments and supposed mandatory standards set protocols for performance, there are no criteria for verication and enforcement, nor are there any regulatory targets or pollution levels. Furthermore, no member cruiseline has ever been publicly sanctioned, nor had its membership in CLIA withdrawn for environmental violations. Cruiseship Pollution Cruiseships are not the most environmentally friendly form of transportation. On average cruiseships emit three times more carbon emissions than aircrafts, trains, and passenger ferries: Carnival, which comprises 11 cruiselines, said in its annual environmental report that its ships, on average, release 712 kg of CO2 per km y This means that 401 g of CO2 is emitted per passenger per kilometer, even when the boat is entirely full. This is 36 times greater than the carbon footprint of a Eurostar passenger and more than three times that of someone traveling on a standard Boeing 747 or a passenger ferry (Starmer-Smith 2008:4). However, the problem is greater than just CO2. A moderate-sized cruiseship on a one-week voyage with 2,200 passengers and 800 crewmembers is estimated to generate up to 210,000 gallons of human sewage (this

122

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

would ll approximately six large swimming pools), one million gallons (the equivalent of 30 swimming pools) of gray water (water from sinks, baths, showers, laundry, and galleys), and 8 tons of garbage (the weight of a school bus) (Copeland 2008). Waste from cruiseships may increase algal blooms, potentially increasing the oceans ability to absorb CO2. However, the larger impact on the environment and climate are unknown, for example, the extent to which plankton depends on other elements in the ocean ecosystem. This is of particular concern, given that coral reefs support over one million plant and animal species, and they are susceptible to, among other sources, persistent organic pollutants (including sewage) from cruiseships (Nellemann et al 2009). The cruise sector frequently claims its pollution is only a small part of the problem, given the proportionately larger number of other ocean-going vessels and that these vessels too produce waste. While this may be true for waste streams, such as oily bilge water and emissions from burning fuel, it is not the case with other pollutions. With its large number of passengers and crew, wastes such as sewage, gray water, solid waste, and air emissions from incinerators are substantially greater on cruiseships than on other ships. A Congressional Research Service report estimates that 24% of the solid waste generated by vessels worldwide (by weight) comes from cruiseships (Copeland 2008:5). In addition, because cruiseship operations tend to concentrate in the same geographic locations and along the same sea routes, their cumulative impact on local areas can be signicant. Add to this the potential for, and reality of, accidental discharges. The environmental impacts of cruiseships are a serious concern. Water Pollution Black water, otherwise known as human sewage, is the waste from cruiseships toilets and medical facilities. A cruiseship produces more than eight gallons of sewage per day per person (EPA 2008a:2-1), cumulatively as much as 45,000 gallons per day, and over 300,000 gallons on a one-week cruise. The black water contains harmful bacteria, pathogens, disease, viruses, intestinal parasites, and harmful nutrients. If not adequately treated, they can cause bacterial and viral contamination of sheries and shellsh beds. In addition, nutrients in sewage, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, promote algal growth. Algae consume oxygen in the water which can be detrimental or lethal to sh, coral, and other aquatic life (EPA 2008a: 2-8:11). The consequent reduction of biodiversity in the oceans can have negative implications for the capacity of the marine environment to serve as

The Cruise Sector and Its Environmental Impact

123

a carbon sink, and directly impact climate change (Nellemann and Corcoran 2006). Treated sewage can be discharged within three miles of the US shoreline. It is not regulated beyond three miles. In other jurisdictions, discharge of untreated sewage is prohibited within four miles of the coastline, although the regulations are not consistently enforced. Sewage from cruiseships has traditionally been treated by a type II marine sanitation device (MSD). Type II MSDs are the most common type of wastewater treatment systems on cruiseships and consist of ow-through devices that break up and chemically or biologically disinfect waste before discharge. Type II MSDs are supposed to produce efuent containing no more than 200 fecal coliform for 100 milliliters and no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids. Whether MSDs achieve that standard was called into question in 2000 when the state of Alaska found that 79 of 80 samples from cruiseships were out of compliance. According to the Juneau port commander for the Coast Guard, the results were so extreme that it might be necessary to consider possible design aws and capacity issues with the Coast Guard-approved treatment systems (McAllister 2000). The problems identied in 2000 with MSDs continue today (EPA 2008a). The cruise sector in recent years has adopted the use of advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS, an advanced form of type II MSD) on many ships, most often ships visiting Alaskas Inside Passage, where such systems are required for continuous discharge in state waters. A ship with an AWTS avoids the need to travel outside Alaska State waters to discharge treated sewage. Installation of AWTS for ships visiting other waters with less stringent or no regulation has been at a much slower pace. AWTS are a vast improvement over MSDs, yielding what the sector refers to as drinking-water-quality efuent. However, this terminology must be treated with skepticism. Such water cannot be recycled for onboard human consumption, nor can it be used in the laundry because sheets and towels apparently turn gray. Both the EPA and Alaska have found that even the best systems still had difculty with a number of constituents. The AWTS does not adequately address nutrient loading, which means they pose similar problems as MSDs with regard to nitrogen and phosphorous. They are not consistently effective with copper, nickel, zinc, and ammonia as well (Alaska DEC 2004:29) and have exceeded Alaska Water Quality Standards for concentrations of chlorine and tetrachlorethylene; 60% of ships permitted to discharge in Alaska waters violated discharge limits in 2008, logged 45 violations involving seven pollutants (Golden 2008a). In 2009, 72% of ships permitted to discharge in Alaskan waters violated Alaska discharge limits during the season, racking up 66 violations involving nine pollutants.

124

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

Most type II MSDs and AWTS lter solids from sewage as part of treatment. This yields on average 4,000 gallons of sewage sludge per day (National Marine Sanctuaries 2008:43). Cumulatively it adds up quickly. In some cases (about 1 in 16 ships with an AWTS), sewage sludge is dewatered and then incinerated. In other cases sludge is dumped at sea. Discharge of sludge is normally permitted beyond three or four miles of shore. The sludge has a high oxygen demand and is detrimental to sea life. It poses the same problem as sewage, but in a more concentrated form. One option is to require sewage sludge to be dewatered and incinerated onboard. However, incineration creates an air quality problem (not related to greenhouse gases [GHG]) and the ash must be disposed of somewhere. Dumping the ash overboard raises new problems. Another option is to require sewage sludge to be held onboard and ofoaded for treatment in port. The problem with dumping ashes or sludge at sea is that it negatively impacts the health of the marine environment and the ability for the oceans to serve as a carbon sink. Gray water is wastewater from sinks, showers, galleys, laundry, and cleaning activities aboard a ship. It is the largest source of liquid waste from a cruiseship: as much as 90 gallons per day per person, over half a million gallons per day for a ship such as Freedom of the Seas. Like sewage, gray water can contain a variety of pollutants. These include fecal coliform bacteria, detergents, oil and grease, metals, organics petroleum hydrocarbons, nutrients, and food waste, as well as medical and dental waste (Copeland 2008). The greatest threat posed by gray water is from nutrients and other oxygen-demanding materials (Copeland 2008:4). Gray water was until recently largely unregulated in the United States. However, effective from February 6, 2009, cruiseships must meet treatment standards for gray water as well as 25 other types of incidental vessel discharges from ballast water to deck runoff when operating within three miles of the US shoreline. Gray water is unregulated in jurisdictions outside the United States. A study by VTT Technical Research Center in Finland found that wastewater from cruiseships contributes annually into the Baltic Sea 356 tons of nitrogen and 119 tons of phosphorus (Seatrade Insider 2009a), both of which have a negative impact on the health of the marine environment. A cruiseship produces a large volume of nonhazardous solid waste. This includes huge volumes of plastic, paper, wood, cardboard, food waste, cans, glass, and the variety of other wastes disposed of by passengers. It was estimated in the 90s that each passenger accounted for 3.5 kg of solid waste per day (Herz and Davis 2002). With better attention to waste reduction, this volume has been cut nearly in half in recent years. But the amount is still

The Cruise Sector and Its Environmental Impact

125

signicant, more than 8 tons in a week from a moderate-sized cruiseship (Copeland 2008). Glass and aluminum are increasingly held onboard and landed ashore for recycling when the itinerary includes a port with reception facilities. Food and other waste that is not easily incinerated is ground or macerated and discharged into the sea. These y food wastes can contribute to increases in biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and total organic carbon; diminish water and sediment quality; adversely effect marine biota; increase turbidity; and elevate nutrient levels (EPA 2008a:511). They may be detrimental to sh digestion and health and cause nutrient pollution (Polglaze 2003). Under MARPOL, no garbage can be discharged within three miles of shore. Between 3 and 12 miles garbage can be discharged if it is ground-up and capable of passing through a one-inch screen. Beyond 12 miles, most food waste and other garbage can be discharged at sea. A typically large cruiseship will generate an average of 8 metric tons of oily bilge water for each 24 hours of operation (National Research Council 1995). According to Royal Caribbeans 1998 Environmental Report, an average of 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water on a one-week voyage was generated. This water collects in the bottom of a vessels hull from condensation, water-lubricated shaft seals, propulsion system cooling, and other engine room sources. It contains fuel, oil, wastewater from engines and other machinery, and may also include solid wastes such as rags, metal shavings, paint, glass, and cleaning agents. The risks posed to sh and marine organisms by oil and other elements in bilge water are great. In even minute concentrations oil can kill sh or have numerous sublethal effects such as changes in heart and respiratory rates, enlarged livers, reduced growth, n erosion, and various biochemical and cellular changes (Copeland 2008). Research also found that by-products from the biological breakdown of petroleum products can harm sh and wildlife and pose threats to human health if these sh and wildlife are ingested. Within 12 nautical miles of the US coastline, ships are prohibited from discharging bilge water unless it has been passed through a 15 parts per million (ppm) oily water separator and does not cause a visible sheen, the same standard as contained in MARPOL. Beyond 12 nautical miles, oil or oily mixtures can be discharged in the US Exclusive Economic Zone if the undiluted oil content is less than 100 ppm (a gure higher than the 15 ppm permitted by MARPOL). A ship also produces a wide range of hazardous waste. These include photoprocessing chemicals, dry cleaning waste, used paint, solvents, heavy

126

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

metals, expired chemicals and pharmaceuticals, waste from the print shop, hydrocarbons and chlorinated hydrocarbons, and used uorescent and mercury vapor light bulbs and batteries (EPA 2008a:6-2:3). Although the volume produced by a ship may be relatively small (less than 1,000 liters in a typical week), the toxicity of these wastes makes them a serious concern. Hazardous wastes must be carefully managed in order to avoid their contamination of other waste streams (gray water, solid waste, bilge water, etc.). The cruise sector appears to comply with regulations applying to hazardous waste, but it is impossible to know with certainty given limited oversight by almost all jurisdictions around the world. Air Pollution There are two sources of GHG air emissions from cruiseships: incinerators and engines. Each presents its own set of issues. While the focus here is on pollution from the cruiseships themselves, others point out that cruise tourists contribute to GHGs in their transportation to and from the ship, as well as in their activities ashore. These additional sources can be signicant (Amelung and Lamers 2007). Cruiseships incinerate and burn a variety of wastes, including hazardous wastes, oil, oily sludge, sewage sludge, medical and biohazardous waste, outdated pharmaceuticals, and other solid wastes such as plastics, paper, metal, glass, and food. A cruiseship may burn 12.5 tons per day of oily sludge in these incinerators and boilers (California Cruise Ship Environmental Task Force 2003). The emissions from onboard incineration and its ash can include furans and dioxins, both found to be carcinogenic, as well as nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, toxic and heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, and hydrocarbons (Bluewater Network 2000). In contrast to incinerator use on land, which is likely to be strictly monitored and regulated, incinerators at sea operate with few regulations. MARPOL Annex VI bans incineration of certain particularly harmful substances, including contaminated packaging materials and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). There are no national or international standards limiting emissions from ship incineration. Air emissions from ship engines are an obvious source of pollution, because many ships burn bottom-of-the-barrel bunker fuel. Typically what remains of the crude oil after gasoline and the distillate fuel oils are extracted through distillation. An estimated 60,000 people died worldwide in 2002 as a result of underregulated shipping air emissions, and that number is estimated to grow by 40% by 2012 due to increases in global shipping

The Cruise Sector and Its Environmental Impact

127

trafc (Corbett, Winebrake, Green et al 2007). According to the US EPA, ocean-going ships each year emit 870,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, a key contributor to smog and GHG. Conventionally a cruiseships environmental impact is likened to the impact of 12,000 automobiles (Oceana 2003). A study published in 2007 raises an even greater alarm. It found that bunker fuel on average has almost 2,000 times the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel used by buses, trucks, and cars and that one ship can make as much smog-producing pollution as 350,000 cars (Waymer 2007). While sulfur is not directly related to GHGs, it is of concern given its impact on human life and the marine environment. A number of ships began using gas turbine engines in the late 90s and early 2000s, well before the spike in fuel costs in 2007. These gas turbines are considerably better than conventional cruiseship engines in terms of sulfur and nitrous oxide emissions, but produce signicantly higher volumes of CO2. Most bunker fuels today average 3% sulfur content. New international standards will require a reduction of ship fuel sulfur content to 0.5% in 2020 or 2025. In contrast, California requires use of marine gas oil, or marine diesel oil with a sulfur content of no more than 0.5% by weight in all diesel engines within 24 nautical miles of the coast (sulfur content of marine gas oil drops to 0.1% sulfur in 2012). Use of lower sulfur fuel reduces particulate matter by 58%, sulfur by 99.6%, and oxides of nitrogen by 11% (Klein 2003b). Cruiselines resist low-sulfur fuels because of the cost. The North American Emission Control Area, announced by the United States and Canada and approved by the International Maritime Organization in 2009, would reduce sulfur content to 0.1% in 2015, but is opposed by the cruise sector because it would add $1520 to the cost of a cruise per passenger per day (Seatrade Insider 2009b). Another way in which air emissions can be curtailed is by imposing reduced speed limits as cruiseships approach ports. In February 2009, the Port of San Diego moved forward with a vessel speed reduction program (Port of San Diego 2009). Cruise and cargo ships are asked to voluntarily reduce their speed when entering and leaving San Diego Bay to 15 knots for cruiseships when traveling in an area that extends 20 nautical miles out to sea from Point Loma to 12 knots for cargo ships. According to port ofcials, studies have shown a signicant reduction in emissions of oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, diesel particulate matter, and CO2 when speed is reduced (California EPA 2009). Similar programs in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have reportedly saved more than 100 tons of nitrogen oxide from going into the air in the rst three months of implementation (Port of Los Angeles 2005). Cold ironing provides another option to grapple with the

128

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

problem of air emissions from engines. It allows for ships to turn off all engines while in port and to plug into shore side power. Cold ironing was rst introduced in 2001 in a partnership between the port of Juneau and Princess Cruises and is slowly propagating to other locations, including the ports of Vancouver, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Seattle. Cold ironing should be encouraged, if not required, worldwide. An initiative, which appeared at rst to have potential, was introduced in June 2007 by Holland America Line. It announced a pilot project that used a saltwater air emission scrubber on its Zaandam. The scrubber was supposed to reduce emissions, chiey sulfur. However, at the end of the summer cruise season in the Pacic Northwest, it was learned that the scrubber system was actually contributing to an increase in GHGs. This system, which uses seawater pumped through the stacks to chemically scrub sulfur and other contaminants from ship emissions and then dumps the water back overboard, was actually contributing to an increase in GHGs. Research out of Sweden and the United Kingdom indicates that when sulfuric acid is added to seawater by scrubbers, carbon dioxide is freed from the ocean surface. Each molecule of sulfuric acid results in release of two molecules of carbon dioxide as the ocean attempts to retain its alkaline balance (Montgomery 2007).

CONCLUSION The rst part of this chapter looked at the cruise sectors environmental record. While the sector claims to be a good steward of the ocean environment, its behavior reects a different image. The problem is that the sectors public announcements cannot be trusted. Sadly, to date the sector has not directly addressed their contribution to climate change. Instead, it has increased incinerator use to reduce solid waste and has resisted efforts to burn cleaner fuel and to reduce its production of GHGs with claims that the initiatives cost too much. This is not to say that the sector has not taken steps to conserve fuel, but these initiatives have been motivated more by economic realities (fuel conservation saves money) than concern about climate change. For example, Costa Cruises, like other cruiselines such as the Royal Caribbean, uses silicone-based coatings on its ships hull to enhance hydrodynamic performance and reduce the growth of microorganisms on the hull surface (Costa Cruises 2009; Royal Caribbean Cruises Limited 2009). The goal is saving fuel. If the goal were reduction of GHGs,

The Cruise Sector and Its Environmental Impact

129

then cruiselines would respond positively, in fact embrace calls for use of low-sulfur fuel. The second part of this chapter discussed the environmental impacts of cruiseships. Some, such as air emissions from engines and incinerators, directly contribute to GHGs and impact climate change. Others, such as black water, gray water, oily bilge, and nonhazardous waste, are also a concern given their deleterious effect on the marine environment. As discussed by Nellemann et al (2009), maintaining or improving the ability of oceans to absorb and bury CO2 is a crucial aspect of climate change mitigation (p.6), especially given that some 93% of the earths CO2 is stored and cycled through the oceans. There is need for greater focus on the ways that cruiseships contribute to marine pollution and how they can adopt measures to reduce the release of pollutants into the seas. It is not only a concern about protecting coral reefs, but reducing the ow from cruiseships of everything from sewage and wastewater to oily bilge water and food waste. Climate change poses a mixed bag for the cruise sector as some ports may be negatively impacted by rising ocean levels while other ports and areas may become more easily accessible. The exact nature of these changes is difcult to predict, given the lack of scientic consensus. Regardless, there is little doubt that cruise tourism and the cruise sector contribute to climate change. One set of concerns is the GHGs that are produced by burning fuels and incinerator use, as well as through other modes of transportation used by cruise passengers to get to and from the point of embarkation/ disembarkation and for tours taken while ashore. The effects associated with the ship itself can be mitigated by shifting to cleaner fuels (something resisted by cruiseships because of associated costs) and by use of effective scrubbers on smokestacks for both engines and incinerators. Though there are costs associated with such measures, the cruise sector earns signicant prots. Carnival Corporation alone has earned between $1.8 and 2.4 billion in each of the past ve years. The costs are surmountable given the economic health of the major cruise corporations. A second set of concerns relates to pollutants owing from cruiseships into the marine environment. The largest volume and most notable are treated sewage and wastewater. However, there are also signicant volumes of food waste, oil contained in oily bilge water, and solid waste. Technology exists for further reducing the deleterious impact of each of these waste streams. However, they cost money and therefore affect the cruiselines protability. For example, more effective sewage treatment systems would require additional space and would displace a number of revenue-generating

130

Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions

passenger cabins. It is time the cruise sector took the question why would we pollute the pristine environment of the oceans when our livelihood depends on it remaining pristine more seriously and signicantly increased its efforts to reduce air and water pollutants generated by cruiseships. Protecting the marine environment has an immediate value of bringing cruise sector behavior in line with its claims. In addition, reducing the release of pollutants from its ships into the environment, both air and water, reects a positive step by the sector to address the problem of climate change. While it is tempting to recommend that individual governments and international governing bodies legislate and regulate ocean-going vessels more effectively, the urgency for change suggests it is more expedient for the cruise sector to voluntarily adopt measures that signicantly reduce pollution from its ships. Despite the fact that voluntary approaches for greater environmental responsibility have in the past been found to be ineffective (OECD 2003), the sector could be motivated by greater pressure from nongovernmental organizations, higher expectations from consumers, and an inherent threat by governments that legislation will be forthcoming if voluntary actions are not taken.