Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Ship Industry (18 page)

There was no way to know which account was correct, but in any event, both explanations were inconsistent with what was recorded in the official record. If I had complained to the Federal Maritime Commission or the US Coast Guard, the matter would likely have to be referred to the country under whose flag the ship sailed. Upon returning home, I relayed my concerns to a representative of Seabourn's chief executive officer. He demonstrated no real interest or concern.

determining which category a ship falls into, is each ship taken as an independent entity or is the cruise line taken as a whole?

Clarification on these sorts of issues is one of the agenda items of the Bluewater Network’s Cruise Ship Campaign. Unsurprisingly, the cruise industry has actively opposed their efforts, arguing that ICCL guidelines are enough. Environmentalists argue that there is no basis for confidence that the guidelines are sufficient.

Solid Waste

A cruise ship also produces a large volume of nonhazardous solid waste. This includes huge amounts of plastic, paper, wood, cardboard, food waste, cans, and glass. In a typical week a Holland America ship with 1,200 passengers generates an estimated eight tons of garbage — much of which is incinerated at sea with the

ash discharged into the water.
³⁰
Some of the garbage is held onboard and landed ashore for either recycling or disposal.

American law prohibits the discharge of all garbage within 3 miles of shore. It also prohibits certain types of garbage from being dumped between 3 and 25 miles, and the discharge of plastics anywhere at sea. While the dumping of plastic — particularly garbage-filled plastic bags — was a problem in the early and mid-1990s, enforcement appears to have effectively stopped the practice.

Oily Bilge Water

According to Royal Caribbean’s 1998 environmental report, a typical cruise ship on a one-week voyage generates an estimated

25,000 gallons of oily bilge water. This water collects in the bottom of a vessel’s hull from condensation, water-lubricated shaft seals, propulsion system cooling, and other engine room sources. It contains fuel, oil, and wastewater from engines and other machinery, and may also include solid wastes such as rags, metal shavings, paint, glass, and cleaning agents.

The Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act, regulates disposal of oily bilge water in American waters. The act prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances “in such quantities as may be harmful” within 200 miles of the coast. The quantity needed to be “harmful” is not defined, which leaves open the question of whether current regulations are enough. The Clean Water Act allows discharge of oil within 12 miles of shore as long as it has passed through a 15-parts-per-million oily water separator and does not cause a visible sheen.
³¹

WHY WOULD THEY

dump oil at sea?

One possible reason why cruise ships circumvent the oily water separator and dump oil overboard is that doing so saves money. The membranes for the oily water separator can cost as much as $80,000 per year. In addition, disposing of the waste from the oily water separator ashore can cost another $300,000 per year. By eliminating these costs, a ship's officers could receive larger end-of-the-year bonuses for staying under budget.
³²
That end-of-the-year bonus is the incentive for officers; however, the successful prosecution of Royal Caribbean and Holland America, and the hefty fines, may be an effective incentive for cruise lines to stop such practices.

Beyond 12 miles, oil or oily mixtures may be discharged while proceeding en route and if the oil content of the effluent without dilution is less than 100 parts per million.

Oil and other elements in bilge water pose great risks to fish and other marine organisms. Even in minute concentrations, oil can kill fish or have numerous sublethal (not deadly, but close) effects such as changes in heart and respiratory rates, enlarged livers, reduced growth, fin erosion, and various biochemical and cellular changes. Oil causes skin and eye lesions in marine mammals and interferes with swimming ability. If ingested, oil can cause gastrointestinal tract hemorrhaging, renal failure, liver toxicity, and blood disorders. Research indicates that by-products from the biological breakdown of petroleum products can harm fish and wildlife, as well as threaten human health if these fish or other creatures are eaten.

The Case of Orcas in the Inside Passage

The problem of pollution from ships has reached crisis proportions. It isn’t only cruise ships, but they are part of the problem.

In July 2001 the
Anchorage Daily News
printed a story focusing on the poisoning of orcas (killer whales) from contaminants, suggesting that the problem of industrial pollutants is worldwide and that the contaminants have infiltrated Alaska’s food chain.
³³
High levels of pollutants have been documented in a wide range of animals, including sea otters, seals, walruses, peregrine falcons, northern fur seals, and bald eagles. As the chemicals move up the food chain, they concentrate and build up in fatty tissues.
³⁴

The highest concentration of contaminants appears among orcas known as “transients” (those which roam over a large area, as opposed to “resident” orcas which remain within a smaller home range) and which feed primarily on marine mammals. Among ten orcas sampled in 1999 and 2000, several transients appeared to be among the most contaminated marine mammals ever measured. One whale had PCBs at 370 parts per million and DDT at about 470 parts per million. Another had PCBs at 651 parts per million and DDT at 1,003 parts per million. To put this into context, the US Food and Drug Administration’s standard for human consumption of fish is 2 parts per million of PCBs and 5 parts per million of DDT.
³⁶

While the cruise industry is not a source of DDT and PCBs, this illustration demonstrates the fragility of the marine environment, and underlines the importance of control over disposal of chemicals and other pollutants at sea.

Environmental Challenges

The potential for environmental damage through pollution by the cruise industry is great. There have been some moves to attempt to improve control and regulation of the industry, and these have had moderately positive effects, but overall the laws and regulations remain lax. With the cruise industry’s exponential growth, the environment is losing out to a far greater extent than any gains made through modest improvements.

History has demonstrated that environmental responsibility has not been voluntarily assumed. Most industry innovations and initiatives have followed a pattern: deny that their behavior is a problem, lobby government to not impose regulations, resist enforcement, and, after being caught, announce new regulations or commitments. Alaska provides a good case in point.

DESTINATION: ALASKA

In many ways, Alaska is unique in its relationship with the cruise industry. The state attracts a large number of cruise ships during the season from May through September. During these five months in 2001, more than 680,000 passengers visited Alaska — a 170-percent increase from 1990.

In total, more tourists arrive to Alaska by cruise ship from May through September than there are year-round residents in the entire state. One journalist observed that cruise ships, with roughly 45,000 passengers aboard on a typical Alaska day, constitute the third largest city in the state. No doubt, the cruise industry is a major source of income to the Alaskan economy.

The natural beauty and resources that attract visitors to Alaska are an incentive to the state government to protect the environment, as is reflected in the strong steps that have been taken to monitor and regulate the cruise industry. In July 2001 Alaska became the first state to regulate water and air pollution from cruise ships. Although generally resisted by the industry, these steps have not resulted in fewer cruise visits to the area. To the contrary, steady increases continue.

En Route to Regulation

Broad-based concerns about pollution from cruise ships arose after Holland America Line in 1998 and Royal Caribbean International pled guilty in 1999 to criminal charges of dumping oily wastes and other hazardous chemicals in the Inside Passage. In addition to the federal fines paid by both companies, Royal Caribbean had a $3.5-million fine levied in January 2000 in state court.
³⁷

Although there had been previous oil spills in and around Glacier Bay, some resulting from accidents at sea, the public outcry was relatively limited. The cases involving Holland America and Royal Caribbean, however, had not just one but three separate effects.

You Are Not Entirely Welcome Here

The first effect was that some Alaskan communities decided to limit cruise ship visits. Residents of Sitka, for example, overwhelmingly voted down a proposal to construct a wharf that would enable cruise ships to offload passengers directly into the downtown area. The town of 8,800 people believed that the need to transport passengers from the ship to the port using lifeboats (known as “tenders”) would keep a lid on its more than 225,000 cruise passenger visits per year.

The town of Tenakee Springs was more aggressive with its proclamation that cruise ship tourism is incompatible with the community’s lifestyle, facilities, and services. Tenakee Springs vowed to take whatever steps necessary to prevent that type of tourism. When the first cruise ship arrived in August 1998 — a small ship with only 120 passengers — the town tried to persuade the ship to cancel the visit. After that effort failed, citizens handed leaflets to cruise passengers as they disembarked, telling them that although they were unwelcome as part of a large organized tour, they would be welcome to return on their own.

Most businesses closed during the visit.
³⁸

Public Support for Increased Taxes