An estimated 24 million passengers are expected to cruise the world’s oceans in more than 220 cruise ships this year, up from 19.1 million in 2010. But these giant floating playgrounds leave an enormous environmental impact.
Many large ocean liners run on giant diesel engines, which can stand at more than three stories tall and span the length of two school buses. This equipment, along with smaller auxiliary engines, can emit dangerous levels of sulfur dioxide. Curbing these emissions could prevent 14,000 premature, air pollution-related deaths and save the US $110bn by 2020.
According to a newly released Friends of the Earth’s (Foe) report card, cruise line companies are mostly doing a poor job at reducing air and water pollution.
Foe’s report card, the sixth from the US nonprofit, assigned 17 cruise lines and their 171 ships a grade between A and F in four categories: sewage treatment, water quality, air pollution reduction and transparency. Some companies, like Disney Cruise Line and Norwegian Cruise Line, earned an A in at least two categories. But most of them, such as Carnival Cruise Lines and Silversea Cruises, scored on the low end. Crystal Cruises and Costa Cruises received mostly Fs.
“The industry represents itself as a benefactor for the ocean, but we think that’s not the case with all of these lines,” said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels program director at Foe. “We want passengers to know they can make a change with their dollars.”
Foe isn’t alone in criticizing the environmental impact of cruise ships. While international rules are in place to regulate pollution, advocacy groups say these efforts aren’t nearly enough. Residents in port cities, including London, have protested plans to accommodate more cruise ships.
The 2016 report card is the first since a dispute emerged between Foe and the Cruise Line International Association (Clia), which represents cruise companies in North America, over how Foe analyzed data. In 2014, Clia announced that it would no longer work with Foe to produce the scorecard, and its members followed suit. That prompted Foe to add “transparency” to the 2014 scorecard and give every company an F.
Since then, one company has had a change of heart. By supplying data to Foe, Disney Cruise Line is the only company that got an A for transparency in the 2016 scorecard. Disney didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Clia hasn’t changed its stance since 2014. In a statement to the Guardian, Clia called the report card “unscientific” and contended that Foe used “outdated sources”.
“Once again, it is regrettable that Foe has issued a report on the cruise industry that is misleading and inaccurate,” the industry organization said.
Foe found much of its information for the report online, Keever said. The sources included contractors who have installed waste treatment technologies and air purifiers on the ships. Keever said many of the ships from its 2014 scorecard remain in the fleets, so the information Foe had collected in the past should still be valid. But she admits this method of information gathering has its drawbacks.
“I’m sure this has mistakes,” she said. “Which is why we were hopeful [the cruise lines] would get back to us.”
The new scorecard shows that companies have made the biggest improvement in reducing their air pollution by using newer technology. They made that switch in response to a recent international regulation, which requires all ships sailing within 200 nautical miles of the US and Canada coastline to use cleaner fuel or install technology that reduces the sulfur content in emissions.
Clia said its members have invested $1bn in new technologies and cleaner fuels, as well as $8bn to build ships fueled by natural gas, which are more energy efficient and produce lower emissions.
While Foe gave companies higher grades of Bs and Cs instead of Ds and Fs from previous years for pollution control, it maintains that more can be done. For example, a scrubber that is commonly used to remove sulfur dioxide from a ship’s smokestacks does not remove other particulates from the diesel engines, Keever said, adding that she would like to see cruise companies use filters that can do a better job of cleaning the exhaust.
“We wanted to give them credit for installing technology that gets them part of the way, but they can be doing better,” she said.
The companies demonstrated the least improvement in their sewage treatment systems, said Keever. An average cruise ship carrying 3,000 passengers and crew generates 21,000 gallons of sewage a day, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many cruise lines are using outdated systems to filter their sewage, resulting in minimally treated sewage being dumped into the water, according to Keever. However, Keever praised Royal Caribbean for installing advanced technologies in 24 of its 25 ships that essentially use more filters.
But installing new technologies doesn’t mean cruise companies are using them, especially when they are further out in the sea and difficult to monitor, Keever noted.
Foe hopes that pressure from advocacy groups and consumers will prompt cruise lines to provide more data and demonstrate improvements.
“We’re hopeful that Disney’s willingness to respond to our information requests points to the beginnings of a sea change [by cruise companies to be] transparent about environmental responsibility,” Keever said.
