In the wake of the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster in the Mediterranian, many are now searching for answers on how such a catastrophe could have happened. But while this singular event highlights how human mistakes can lead to the sinking of a ship the size of three football fields, we shouldn't forget that there are also unseen damages every cruise ship in the world regularly makes on the environement.
On a luxury cruise ship, your environmental impact is neatly hidden: The waste you generate is whisked below-deck by an industrious team of migrant workers; there are no garbage dumps brimming with detritus; and the thousands of tons of fuel that power the ship are stored deep in its bowels. But a cruise's cleanliness is illusory: Cruise ships are floating environmental disasters, and any tourists who values the ocean, the atmosphere, and their own lungs would do well to vacation elsewhere.
Most visible among cruise ships' environmental problems is the issue of waste: A recent EPA report found that cruise ships discharged an average of 21,000 gallons of sewage per day, and thousands more of graywater and bilge water. Although many ships are equipped with sewage treatment plants, their systems still pump illegal levels of fecal matter, heavy metals, and other effluents into the ocean. Oftentimes ships don't even bother treating their sewage, dumping it raw into the water.
These outputs are extremely harmful to marine life, yet they're mostly unregulated in the open ocean — ships can still release their untreated effluvia more than three miles from shore without repercussions. In areas that do possess more stringent disposal laws, compliance is often unfeasible. In the Caribbean Sea, for instance, dumping of solid garbage is prohibited; yet many Caribbean islands don't have the capacity to treat ship waste and ships are forced to dump their trash anyway.
Even scarier than the waste ships generate, though, is the type of fuel they use: bunker fuel.
Bunker fuel is some of the foulest stuff mankind has ever used to power its machinery. It is the viscous, bottom-of-the-barrel residue of petroleum distillation, tar too thick to be burned by any vehicle other than an enormous ship. Because it is a waste product, it's dirt cheap, and thus perfect for use in cruise ships, which burn thousands of tons of oil per voyage.
But the ongoing use of bunker fuel is also one of the most appalling public health scandals in the world. Bunker fuel, when burned, produces an olio of airborne chemicals, including sulfur oxide, that have been linked with acid rain, asthma, and lung infections. In 2009 James Corbett, a University of Delaware expert on ship emissions, calculated that 64,000 residents of port cities die every year of bunker fuel-related ailments; in 2012, Corbett predicted, that number will rise to 87,000.
It is true that the shipping industry is a more significant burner of bunker fuel than cruise lines — a single supertanker can spew as much sulfur as 50 million cars. But with tens of thousands of ships plying global waters every year, cruise lines are burning more than enough bunker fuel to contribute to the death toll. And, even if you're unmoved by public health nightmares, the image of smokestacks belching black, sulfur-laden clouds into a blue sky might give you pause next time you consider sunbathing on the Lido Deck.
Cruise lines have made some perfunctory gestures at cleaning themselves up — for example, cold ironing, whereby ships can turn off their engines and plug into port power sources, is a promising technology — but, by and large, the industry is still dirty as a bucket of bilge. True reform will have to be imposed upon the cruise lines, but change isn't forthcoming: The International Maritime Organization, under pressure from shipping lobbies, has refused to regulate bunker fuel usage for decades. A reversal of IMO policy would save thousands of lives, and dramatically benefit oceanic and atmospheric health.
But, assuming that stringent dumping and fuel burning laws aren't coming anytime soon, passengers must hold cruise lines responsible for their sins. Clean, aesthetically lovely oceans are what will draw 16 million passengers to cruises in 2011 (well, that and legal gambling in international waters); but don't be one of them. Cruise ships undermine the foundation of their own businesses by making it impossible to snorkel, eat seafood, or even breathe without fear of ingesting raw sewage or sulfur. When you plan your winter vacation this year, resist the allure of endless shuffleboard and R-rated magic shows, and stick to the beach.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
Very enlightening. The things we don't know....
Nice article! A friend once computed - during a long ago deployment - an educated guesstimate of waste dumped at sea (specifically in the Med) by all Navy ships since WW II; the numbers he arrived at were astonishing! The dilemma you've identified is very real, it will be increasing, & it needs to be solved. On a more optimistic note, USN now dumps (aside from its waste tanks) only biodegradables at sea; all else is now carried to port and disposed of there.
I'm also reminded of a book ("Supertanker") I saw as a teenager: it discussed the minimal clearances between keels & seabed in many straits & other frequented maritime locations (not to mention uncharted wrecks, etc.) - IOW, those floating behemoths are accidents waiting to happen.
I'm glad no environmentalists will be traveling with me this year and that when a new third party comes you'll still be solid radical democratic as usual. Please don't stop. We need you to show others to vote sensible to defeat you.
Has it crossed anyone's mind that a real fuel efficient design would have been a major seller in ship building? Please invent one the worlds waiting
Of course we could go green and go back to sails. They didn't pollute. I believe the gas for your car would be here next year so you could fill up and run a week before waiting till next months allotment.
To identify a problem and not a solution is to deny any intelligence or effort in solving it. I know I wont get anything but eggs but solve it before condemning
12 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
6 Replies
5 Replies
Just like everything else in capitalism, its all about the "benjamins". Bunker fuel is used because its cheap and that improves the bottom line. Trash and sewage are thrown overboard at sea because that uses less bunker fuel. Flags of convenience are used because its cheaper than obeying regulations. A business coach once told me this truth; "increase sales and you get to keep as much as your costs let you. Decrease your overhead and you keep every dime."
If profit is the only motivation, this will happen every time. Damages that might effect you tomorrow are not something that is taken into account unless it decreases today's profits. In the case of cruise lines, all that needs to happen to keep the passengers coming is to clean up the stack emissions so they can't be seen and keep the garbage being dumped out of sight.
Tell your friends!
4 Replies
3 Replies
1 Replies
Very enlightening. My wife and I are planning our first cruise next year but are seriously considering one of the windjammer ships. Since these are sailing vessels and only carry around 200 passengers, I'm assuming they do not add to the problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong. That said, I agree with the comment below the issue is flagging.
Huh, that's a very eye opening piece. I've recently become enamored with the concept of cruising but this gives me something to consider. And after watching Wal-E with my daughter, I cant help but draw that parallel; not just with the waste, but the vision of humanity overall.
There is talk of more government regulation to "fix" this problem. In time I hope we as evolving consumers may learn to regulate things more accordingly. Capitalism wins
1 Replies
An amazing and enlightening article, though I do have a slight bone to pick with the overall tone. I know you're referring to longer, multi-day/week cruises but my hometown does earn quite a bit of money from day cruisers who want to jump over from Florida for a day or two. Very situational I'll admit, but I'd hardly say it's only the cruise companies that solely profit.
You're right on the environmental impact though.
I've been on two ocean trips. They were very expensive, the food was barely mediocre and the thought of being in the middle of the ocean without a lifeline was frightening to me. But the worst things were the cartoon characters who were endlessly parading around the ship whipping the little children into a frenzy. The fact that these floating garbage cans are polluting our seas makes me detest them even more.
2 Replies
Part of the issue is flagging. Many ships get "flagged" in Panama or other countries that don't require much in the way of environmental regulations. U.S. flagged ships must comply with better regs, but they are rare.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4709434
2 Replies
Great, eye-opening article. I wonder why these ships are not regulated. If this happened with a factory on the mainland, the thing would be shut down immediately. Is it because they travel in international waters? But they have to dock somewhere. Couldn't there be some kind of punitive action then?
3 Replies
1 Replies
Wow, thanks for educating me on this topic! I had no idea how harmful cruises are to the environment. I had never really thought about it, never been on a cruise myself. I just want to add the huge amounts of food cruises waste. You hear about the mountains of food offered and that tourists just eat 24/7 when on these ships. Imagine how much food is produced then thrown away. Sounds like cruises are wasteful in every sense of the word!
I see no appeal in cruises or visiting far flung destinations on a cruise liner. To me, they negate the very essence of travel, the spirit of adventure and benefiting the *local* economy with your foreign currency. Cruise liners, sadly, benefit only large multinational corporations, lead tourists into purpose built tourist traps, destroy the environment they came for in the first place...whilst locals look on sadly.
1 Replies