Friends of the Earth issue their 2016 cruise ship report card

[OlsSalt]

Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, certainly has their own agenda but they also rate and publicize a Cruise Ship Report Card. http://www.foe.org/cruise-report-card

 

HAL gets a C, but there are some surprises according to their own in-house ranking system. Some of their members are globalizing the recent Princess Cruise line dumping violations into an across the board attack on all cruise ships. Learn where they are coming from.

 

NB: To determine the Transparency grade for each cruise line we graded each line based on whether it responded to our 2015 requests for information regarding their environmental practices. (They all got an automatic F in that category lowering all their scores - except Disney)

Edited December 20, 2016 by OlsSalt

[wales4ever]

I have nothing but contempt for FOE - completely two faced. I do not believe anything they say, if they said today was Tuesday I would check the calendar!

[Krazy Kruizers]

Thank you for the information.

I would take that report with a grain of salt.

[DeeniEncinitas]

Ditto!!!!

Don't believe everything you read!!!!

Denise:)

[claudiniusmaximus]

Someone posted this scorecard a while ago - its not related to the illegal dumping that Princess did and the 2016 scorecard was published before Princess got caught.

 

They've been producing a scorecard for years and giving an F for transparency is always a factor. If anything, Princess' actions just reinforces that.

 

FOE are quite transparent about how they come up with the score, their methodology is right there on the card, it's not hidden in a sub clause hidden away somewhere.

 

In fact it appears that FOE are more transparent and upfront in their scoring methodology than the cruise lines are in providing the information.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited December 20, 2016 by claudiniusmaximus

[SC_GAY_Cruiser]

Shouldn't every corporate entity be transparent on their environmental issues?

 

Think VW and their lying about engine exhaust issues. Princess and their illegal dumping. Fracking companies in Oklahoma which is now the state with the highest number of earthquakes? Exxon and their denying oil causes global warming. There are others. Why should some deny this report but believe corporate entities tout "how good" they are?

[iancal]

I have no doubt that the F is fair.

 

After all, what business wants a bunch of third party folks poking around in their underwear. Bottom line is that they do not. Does not matter if they are a cruise line or a manufacturer. I would think most companies would get an F for transparency. This is precisely why we have to have so many government regulations as it pertains to health, safety, and the environment.

[Aquahound]

Someone posted this scorecard a while ago - its not related to the illegal dumping that Princess did and the 2016 scorecard was published before Princess got caught.

 

Princess was caught in 2013. It's the final adjudication that occurred this year.

[whogo]

Thanks for the link, OlsSalt. Interesting, looks like Friend of Earth's methodology is straightforward. Can their critics point out any factual errors in the report, or are they being criticized solely for delivering unpleasant news?

[claudiniusmaximus]

Ah, ok, I didn't realise that, Aquahound.

 

The scorecards referencing transparency do go back to 2009, though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited December 20, 2016 by claudiniusmaximus

[DisneyDatknee]

Can their critics point out any factual errors in the report, or are they being criticized solely for delivering unpleasant news?

 

Ditto!

[iancal]

This makes me think about the terrible Hooker Chemical Love Canal mess from years ago.

 

Or the current disgusting GE mess in their Peterborough, Canada plant where carcinogenic chemical dumping was rife, the cancer rate among employees and former employees is extremely high, and the company appears to want to ignore it.

 

We need people like FOE. They may not be perfect, we may not agree with their findings from time to time however history has proven that we cannot rely on either industry or Government to protect us or even to publicize serious issues of public concern. I have no reason to believe the cruise industry is any different.

Edited December 20, 2016 by iancal

[OlsSalt]

Ditto!!!!

Don't believe everything you read!!!!

Denise:)

 

I offered this as a heads up to the over-all impression among certain demographics about the cruise industry. Out West, these things can take on very sinister implications if anything is viewed as a "threat to the environment".

 

This scoring system came to my attention only because local media devoted a column to touting its results. The author used this FOE 'ranking" as a marketing plus for Disney, but also as a condemnation of the cruise industry in general.

 

This is very appealing "fake news" for a potential generation of new environmentally "hyper-aware" cruise passengers. As well as our own local budding attempts to be a new West Coast cruise port destination amidst loud, local voices of wounded protest.

 

I use the term "fake news" because of the disconnect between the opinion piece writer's narrative with her conclusionary condemnations and the actual methodology one found, but only if they went to the trouble and visited the actual FOE website to search for this survey. Perhaps not fair to bring this up, since I did not include the opinion piece article that connected these two sources of information.

 

Always a good idea to view the primary source and their methodology, before this becomes a weapon in the anti-cruise ship crusade.

Edited December 20, 2016 by OlsSalt

[Tom O.]

When OlsSalt said that HAL only got a C, I was expecting to see them in the middle of the list. But, it turns out that HAL was one of the top cruise lines.

In fact, if HAL had been given an A for transparency, like Disney did, they would have been number 1. But HAL got an F for transparency like every other cruise line except Disney.

At any rate, HAL finished third, which is quite an accomplishment.

[OlsSalt]

Thanks for the link, OlsSalt. Interesting, looks like Friend of Earth's methodology is straightforward. Can their critics point out any factual errors in the report, or are they being criticized solely for delivering unpleasant news?

 

Was this really "unpleasant news", or just facts based upon their own chosen set of evaluation criteria.

[claudiniusmaximus]

I offered this as a heads up to the over-all impression among certain demographics about the cruise industry. Out West, these things can take on very sinister implications if anything is viewed as a "threat to the environment".

 

This scoring system came to my attention only because local media devoted a column to touting its results. The author used this FOE 'ranking" as a marketing plus for Disney, but also as a condemnation of the cruise industry in general.

 

This is very appealing "fake news" for a potential generation of new environmentally "hyper-aware" cruise passengers. As well as our own local budding attempts to be a new West Coast cruise port destination amidst loud, local voices of wounded protest.

 

Good to view the primary source and their methodology, before this become and anti-cruise sound bite.

 

 

What's "fake news" about it? It's not a completely made up report (which is what fake news is). It's a report with a clear scoring methodology which has been produced every year or so for over a decade which points out that cruising isn't very green and that cruise lines aren't very transparent about their environmental practices. If anything it's the opposite of fake news.

 

If Disney got an A then it's because their environmental practices are clear and they are environmentally responsible. If other lines got a low score then it's because neither of those things are true. If a cruise line scored somewhere in between then it's because they scored well in some areas but had no transparency.

 

It's not fake news. You might not like it, you might view FOE suspiciously etc but labelling anything we don't like as fake news detracts from the damage that actual fake news can do.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[OlsSalt]

What's "fake news" about it? It's not a completely made up report (which is what fake news is). It's a report with a clear scoring methodology which has been produced every year or so for over a decade which points out that cruising isn't very green and that cruise lines aren't very transparent about their environmental practices. If anything it's the opposite of fake news.

 

If Disney got an A then it's because their environmental practices are clear and they are environmentally responsible. If other lines got a low score then it's because neither of those things are true. If a cruise line scored somewhere in between then it's because they scored well in some areas but had no transparency.

 

It's not fake news. You might not like it, you might view FOE suspiciously etc but labelling anything we don't like as fake news detracts from the damage that actual fake news can do.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

The "fake new" was the presentation of this information in the narrative article without disclosing the FOE criteria for "transparency", that automatically awarded an F grade to anyone who did not provide information upon FOE demand.

 

The article just reported the final grades, which were all obviously down-graded because of this lack of voluntary "transparency" in refusing FOE demands.

 

The article instead implied these cruise lines were all in fact "dirty ships". I think this was an unfair conclusion for the author to have made, without disclosing these grades were dependent upon the cruise lines voluntary disclosure cooperation or not.

 

As I said in the quote you posted, my own comments about the potential misuse of this scoring system must be made in light of the article that triggered my attention to this FOE scoring system in the first place.

 

And on the basis of that alone, I made the follow-up comment about the potential "fake news" misuse of this FOE criteria.

[claudiniusmaximus]

There is a difference between a columnist or journalist letting a bias or opinion skew the content of their article, or a journalist using a source selectively to suit their own arguments versus fake news.

 

All media has a bias. All journalists produce their articles to fit either their own or their editors world view. Some are worse than others, of course. Fake news is completely made up, it has no source, its primarily social media based and shared by people who don't fact check. Fake news is 100% fabrication usually with nefarious aims.

 

It's one thing to complain about what you think is a biased article that uses the FOE report selectively, but that's not fake news.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited December 20, 2016 by claudiniusmaximus

[Tom O.]

Sorry Salty, but I have to agree with claudiniusmaximus on this one.

Your term of "fake news" is too harsh. I think what you meant was "biased news."

[OlsSalt]

Since most here are fans of cruising, it remains a good exercise to view and understand various rankings and reports made about the cruise industry or particularly cruise lines and ships.

 

There was also a recent discussion about the recent Berlitz cruise ship rankings that included patently false information about the Prinsendam.

 

This FOE one caught my attention because of the narrative disconnect between the actual report and the follow-up opinion piece. Much like this erroneous Berlitz report about the Prinsendam deserved further public scrutiny as well.

[OlsSalt]

Sorry Salty, but I have to agree with claudiniusmaximus on this one.

Your term of "fake news" is too harsh. I think what you meant was "biased news."

 

The "fake news" was cruise ships are dirty but if you must cruise, chose only Disney. Now I have to wonder who might have paid the author to even write this.

[cruisemom42]

The "fake new" was the presentation of this information in the narrative article without disclosing the FOE criteria for "transparency", that automatically awarded an F grade to anyone who did not provide information upon FOE demand.

 

The article just reported the final grades, which were all obviously down-graded because of this lack of voluntary "transparency" in refusing FOE demands.

 

The article instead implied these cruise lines were all in fact "dirty ships". I think this was an unfair conclusion for the author to have made, without disclosing these grades were dependent upon the cruise lines voluntary disclosure cooperation or not.

 

As I said in the quote you posted, my own comments about the potential misuse of this scoring system must be made in light of the article that triggered my attention to this FOE scoring system in the first place.

 

And on the basis of that alone, I made the follow-up comment about the potential "fake news" misuse of this FOE criteria.

 

That's not "fake news" -- it's the very definition of bad reporting.

 

Both are real issues, both are bad. But they are not the same thing.

[OlsSalt]

Here is the article writer's final conclusion:

 

The cruising public would do well to choose Disney cruises for their “happiest place on Earth” vacations. As for our Santa Barbara ship visitors, perhaps calls from those of us on the front lines of their sewage would encourage them to make us happy as well.

[Tom O.]

I have always been an environmentalist, but I cruise all of the time. I don't consider cruise ships to be a major source of pollution. There are far greater sources of pollution to be concerned with.

But if cruise ships can be made more environmentally friendly, that would be great. Every little bit helps.

I am a sport fisherman, and a healthy environment is necessary for my sport. I am very concerned about commercial fishing practices, and consider that industry to be one of the prime destroyers of our oceanic environment.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Tom O.

[claudiniusmaximus]

If FOE had never been critical of cruise ships, if the score card didn't exist etc then it would be fake news. But they do exist, the journalist just took licence with the facts.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited December 20, 2016 by claudiniusmaximus