Princesss fined $40 million for pollution

[joepeka]

I sincerely doubt that any bartender, waiter or cabin attendant would have a change of attitude towards passengers due to this news.

 

Agree entirely with your comment.

 

I guess we will never know for sure if this action against Princess has had an affect on the on-board crew, will we? Everything else is simply conjecture unless we are a currently a member of a Princess crew.

Edited December 4, 2016 by joepeka

[triptolemus]

I guess we will never know for sure if this action against Princess has had an affect on the on-board crew, will we? Everything else is simply conjecture unless we are a currently a member of a Princess crew.

 

The bartenders might have a noticeable change in disposition when management asks them to start making their cocktails with bilge water.

 

:cool:

[joepeka]

The bartenders might have a noticeable change in disposition when management asks them to start making their cocktails with bilge water.

 

:cool:

 

I was referencing current crew demeanor as reported by posters to this thread.... not what might happen in the future. And yes, I get the sarcastic nature of your post.

Edited December 4, 2016 by joepeka

[Mackenzie1]

The 'selective outrage' is coming from passengers who fly to the ports on aircraft spewing pollution into the atmosphere to board a cruise ship that burns thousands of tons of fuel oil. The one who truly wants to make a statement about pollution should vacation in a tent in their backyard while brewing tea made from twigs and leaves on their zero emission solar stove.

 

Guilty conscience? Just wondering.

[JimmyVWine]

My outrage is at a specific event of malfeasance. Not hypothetical malfeasance.

?? There's nothing hypothetical about anything I posted. The malfeasance is all a matter of public record. Just for starters, you can read these. And there is plenty more regarding this and every other industry that I mentioned.

http://www.okinternational.org/mining

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/environmental-disaster-gold-industry-180949762/

Edited December 4, 2016 by JimmyVWine

[JimmyVWine]

I agree. People seem to be infected with a strange malaise these days. This idea that one is being hypocritical if one doesn't actively react to every single example of corporate/environmental evil..... If that is the case, then no one can ever object to anything -- is that what we are reduced to?

Well, that is sort of the definition of "hypocritical". If one is outraged by and boycotts a company that discharges several thousands of gallons of toxic material into the environment but continues to support a different company that discharges thousands of tons of toxic materials, what else would you call it? Selective outrage and hypocrisy are kissing cousins if not identical twins.

[BruceMuzz]

Cruisers will continue to vocally excoriate HAL/Princes for doing such terrible things to our environment - until they find a great deal on a cruise on those very same lines. Then they will quietly book a cruise on the very same lines that are poisoning our planet - because it was a " Good deal". Shame on you.

Edited December 4, 2016 by BruceMuzz

[Shogun]

Hi All

 

So know one was harmed, dumping oil does a lot of harm

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/01/thousands-seabirds-harmed-oil-uk-coast

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26313284

 

 

 

 

 

 

just an example,

 

 

yours Shogun

[chengkp75]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

Hi All

 

So know one was harmed, dumping oil does a lot of harm

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/01/thousands-seabirds-harmed-oil-uk-coast

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26313284

 

just an example,

 

 

yours Shogun

 

Again, not downplaying that Princess should not have done this, but to put this in perspective, the case you've cited was of raw oil (100%) being dumped. The legal limit for discharging bilge water is 15ppm, which equates to 1 drop of straight oil in a gallon of water. Even at 10 times the legal limit, that is not a huge concentration of oil, and it is the concentration of the oil that has the most impact on the environment. So, was it wrong? Yes. Was it illegal? Yes. Will it have an environmental impact? Yes. Will it have a significant environmental impact? Probably not.

 

Does anyone know what the worst maritime oil pollution incident in history was? World War II. One only needs to look at the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor, quietly leaking fuel oil a few drops at a time to think of all the ships sunk with oil in their fuel tanks, and how vast that quantity of oil was.

[thinfool]

Does anyone know what the worst maritime oil pollution incident in history was? World War II. One only needs to look at the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor, quietly leaking fuel oil a few drops at a time to think of all the ships sunk with oil in their fuel tanks, and how vast that quantity of oil was.

 

Spot on...and that seeping, leaking of oil continues to this day....and the quantity, if totaled up across all sunken vessels, would be astounding.

[Grego]

Spot on...and that seeping, leaking of oil continues to this day....and the quantity, if totaled up across all sunken vessels, would be astounding.

 

I agree as well. The grounding fact is that there were those on the ship that decided or, were told, to dump bilge water rather than waiting to have it properly disposed of, as cost, in port. It was wrong. It was discovered. Hopefully the guilty were fired. The cruise line was fined......and the cruise line fixed the problem so it would not happen again.

 

If the truth were known, Princess was not the only cruise line that may have dumped bilge at sea. I don't know, nor do I care. It is still wrong and maybe the others that may still be dumping will take heed and promote the remedy practice that Princess has endorsed.

 

I am embarrassed for "my cruise line". I will also continue to support Princess because they have stepped up and fixed the process.

[cruisemom42]

Well, that is sort of the definition of "hypocritical". If one is outraged by and boycotts a company that discharges several thousands of gallons of toxic material into the environment but continues to support a different company that discharges thousands of tons of toxic materials, what else would you call it? Selective outrage and hypocrisy are kissing cousins if not identical twins.

 

That's not at all what I am saying, and if you can't see that it seems pointless to continue the discussion.

 

I am a reasonable person but some on this thread seem a bit unhinged....

[A&L_Ont]

That's not at all what I am saying, and if you can't see that it seems pointless to continue the discussion.

 

I am a reasonable person but some on this thread seem a bit unhinged....

 

Something like Grand Princess.:eek::);)

[chengkp75]

Something like Grand Princess.:eek::);)

 

Yeah, just when I was getting thoroughly confused about what I had posted to which thread on this subject, the Grand incident pops up and I think I posted more on there in one night than on the multiple pollution threads.

[elliair]

My wife and I are on the Grand Princess anchored off Lahaina (Maui). Just woke up to the captain telling us that port security would not allow passengers to embark using tenders as is on our itinerary. Came to Cruise Critic and found this thread.

 

Interestingly enough, last night after we left Kauai, the captain said that we might not be able to land tenders in Lahaina because of high winds. It was indeed quite windy as we sailed towards Maui, but it is totally calm right now, so that cover story wasn't going to fly.

 

Can't help but wonder if there's a connection.

 

Well for once they didn't blame it on customs! :rolleyes:

Edited December 4, 2016 by elliair

[Redwing55]

Hi All

 

So know one was harmed, dumping oil does a lot of harm

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/01/thousands-seabirds-harmed-oil-uk-coast

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26313284

 

just an example,

 

 

yours Shogun

 

Sorry, this is sensationalism.

Feel free to disagree... as I suspect you will. I still say that on a global, and yes, somewhat local scale, Princess's violations did indeed violate rules, but the impact to the environment is smaller when compared to other numerous legal discharges to the waters.

[Colo Cruiser]

Hi All

 

So know one was harmed, dumping oil does a lot of harm

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/01/thousands-seabirds-harmed-oil-uk-coast

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26313284

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just an example,

 

 

Not an example.

Why post this?

Nothing to do with Princess.

[DirtyDawg]

I guess Princess' management didn't read the U.S. Government's 'Cruise Contract'. ;)

[jpj39]

I have feeling this is the SOP of companies until caught & fined

My company was caught putting oil in the sewers 10 Yrs ago. they were caught & fined

Now they have an environmental program to get rid of the oil

Princess will now develop an environmental program to take care of this issue

[Colo Cruiser]

I have feeling this is the SOP of companies until caught & fined

My company was caught putting oil in the sewers 10 Yrs ago. they were caught & fined

Now they have an environmental program to get rid of the oil

Princess will now develop an environmental program to take care of this issue

 

 

They already have one.

[Ex techie]

They already have one.

 

Yes. One before, and one after.

It's a shame the crew didn't follow the first one.

 

ex techie

[calliopecruiser]

Well, that is sort of the definition of "hypocritical". If one is outraged by and boycotts a company that discharges several thousands of gallons of toxic material into the environment but continues to support a different company that discharges thousands of tons of toxic materials, what else would you call it? Selective outrage and hypocrisy are kissing cousins if not identical twins.

 

One can be outraged at a company for lying about their waste and breaking the law about polluting, and still not be hypocritical about patronizing a company that creates waste but doesn't lie or break the law about it.

 

It's the planned law-breaking and deceit that is most outrageous -- corporate machinations to circumvent the laws.

[JimmyVWine]

One can be outraged at a company for lying about their waste and breaking the law about polluting, and still not be hypocritical about patronizing a company that creates waste but doesn't lie or break the law about it.

 

It's the planned law-breaking and deceit that is most outrageous -- corporate machinations to circumvent the laws.

 

True. But all one has to do is a small amount of research to find that these other companies that you don't think lied or broke the law actually did. I admit that I have an advantage here because that is what I do for a living and I am immersed in the multi-billion dollar world of hazardous waste clean-ups and the funding for same. But I can assure you that what Princess was fined for is by no means unique or rare. But for whatever reason, (I guess because this is a Princess Board), people have chosen to hold this company to a higher standard than other companies whose goods and services we all use on a daily basis. While confidentiality agreements prohibit me from going into detail, here is just one example pulled off of the EPA's public website. Anyone who is cancelling cruises and boycotting Princess should think about this before stepping foot in another WalMart.

 

Wal-Mart Pays Over $81 Million After Pleading Guilty to Criminal and Civil Violations Affecting Water Quality, Ensuring Proper Handling of Hazardous Wastes and Pesticides

 

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. pleaded guilty in cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous materials at its retail stores across the United States. It also pleaded guilty in Kansas City, Mo., to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that had been returned by customers at its stores across the country. As part of a plea agreement filed in California, Wal-Mart was sentenced to pay a $40 million criminal fine and an additional $20 million that will fund various community service projects, including opening a $6 million Retail Compliance Assistance Center that will help retail stores across the nation learn how to properly handle hazardous waste.

 

Pursuant to the plea agreement filed in Missouri Wal-Mart agreed to pay a criminal fine of $11 million and to pay another $3 million to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which will go to that agency’s Hazardous Waste Program and will be used to fund further inspections and education on pesticide regulations for regulators, the regulated community and the public. For more information read the complete case summaries - California or Missouri.

[calliopecruiser]

Yup -- there's a ton of stuff going on in the world that I don't know about. I'm human, not a god. But when I do know about it, it's not hypocritical to a) have an emotional response and b) have that response change my actions.

[RocketMan275]

One can be outraged at a company for lying about their waste and breaking the law about polluting, and still not be hypocritical about patronizing a company that creates waste but doesn't lie or break the law about it.

 

It's the planned law-breaking and deceit that is most outrageous -- corporate machinations to circumvent the laws.

 

I don't know that this is a "corporate machinations". It appears that personnel on one ship decided to save some money by discharging waste rather than pay for it's proper disposal. It would be necessary to demonstrate that these lower level personnel were responding to corporate directions to prove "corporate machinations".

 

I suspect that each ship is treated as an accounting center where revenues and expenses are consolidated into a profit and loss statement. I also suspect that bonus are paid based upon these profits/losses. IMHO, ships personnel saw an opportunity to reduce expenses and increase their bonus. I wouldn't consider that "corporate machinations".

 

I wouldn't consider this right or proper but I've seen too many similar instances to single out a corporation for the actions of their subordinates. I would suggest that the corporation should monitor revenues and expenses and follow-up when something seems out of the ordinary, ie, one ships expenses for pollution abatement are well below average.