Are our beloved cruiseships contributing to global warming and if so by how much?

[chengkp75]

Thank you for this information. The scrubbers would only need to be used close to port or in environmentally sensitive areas I gathered but who decides what area is environmentally sensitive?

 

Is there any way to know which ships are retrofitted prior to booking?

 

A nation, or group of nations will join to decide that they wish to create an ECA zone, and must present their case to the IMO in London for voting by the member nations (or a committee of member nations, I'm not sure), and then the ECA is added to the MARPOL conventions, and then the affected nations must pass enabling legislation to make the international agreement into law.

 

As far as which ships have scrubbers, no, there is no way really to know in advance. But, know that if the ship does not have scrubbers, and enters an ECA, it must switch from high sulfur residual fuel to low sulfur diesel fuel, which has the same effect as using a scrubber. The emissions standards for an ECA are based on a designated fuel's emissions, in the case of nearly all maritime ECA's, this means low sulfur diesel fuel. So, the scrubbers only clean the exhaust of a ship burning high sulfur fuel to the level of low sulfur diesel fuel. What I am trying to say is that if any ship is within 200 miles of the North American coastline, it will be emitting the same exhaust quality, whether it is equipped with scrubbers, or is burning the mandated low sulfur diesel fuel.

[chengkp75]

Thanks for the clarification on the scrubbers, and I did not mention politics in this thread, as we are here to discuss cruising. I think another fair question would be, though there may not be a clear answer on, would be whether the act of those passengers being on a cruise ship, are creating a lower impact than if they were at home living their normal day to day lives. Of course, that would also vary from person to person and their various lifestyles. I also read that article that was linked earlier, and thought the reporting and grading seemed rather arbitrary. I also noticed how there was a link from the article referencing citizens concerned with pollution from cruise ships, yet not a mention of commercial shipping. Requiring cleaner emissions on commercial shipping at all times would have a rather large increase in the costs required to ship the cargo they are now. Here's a thought on that---could it possibly be that the concerns are only being projected on the market segment that does not benefit everyone? Meaning, not everyone relies on cruise ships for their daily lives, so any increases in cost would only be passed on to the passengers, and not on to all consumers, as would be the case if emissions requirements became more stringent for all shipping.

 

Does cruising affect the environment more than living someone's normal life? Probably, but not more than any other vacation. You've got to compare apples to apples.

 

And, yes, FOE targets the cruise industry because it is seen as "disposable income", while anything that involves the cost of the "absolutely must have" new phone, curved screen TV, or SUV is conveniently ignored. The cruise industry, by its very nature, has a large target on it.

 

And in fact, by 2020, the IMO is targeting to reduce the sulfur limit in fuels used by ships, worldwide, from 3.5% to 1%, which while it doesn't sound like much, due to the nature of petroleum refining and residual fuel, this is a major accomplishment, and will result in raised transportation costs worldwide. Heck, even the Canadian government's establishment of a Right Whale speed restriction zone in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has resulted in some container shipping companies levying a surcharge for the extra fuel needed to make up time lost in the speed zone. So, ships and fuel will impact everything people use and purchase.

[BlueRiband]

If you are worried then do your part and stop cruising.

 

While we were being lectured by various celebrities on the horrors of climate change how many of them were living in direct hypocrisy to what they were preaching. Carbon Footprints of the Telethon Stars

[pliskin]

A missed point here: the comparison should be between a cruise vacation and a different vacation. Say one of the big ships has 4,000 passengers to the Caribbean. That's 4,000 additional plane flights plus driving around, getting taxis, etc for a full week. Or 2,000 RVs driving 1,000 miles. I don't see cruising as any worse than another type of vacation. Add to that, cruose lines have created an economy where there was none which is definately a good thing. Plus NCL got an "A" in the environmental ratings. Woo hoo!

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

[Karysa]

If you are worried then do your part and stop cruising.

 

While we were being lectured by various celebrities on the horrors of climate change how many of them were living in direct hypocrisy to what they were preaching. Carbon Footprints of the Telethon Stars

 

Gathering info. Would like to know more. I would consider using ships that are more environmentally friendly for sure if I knew better ships or lines in regard to this.

[Karysa]

A missed point here: the comparison should be between a cruise vacation and a different vacation. Say one of the big ships has 4,000 passengers to the Caribbean. That's 4,000 additional plane flights plus driving around, getting taxis, etc for a full week. Or 2,000 RVs driving 1,000 miles. I don't see cruising as any worse than another type of vacation. Add to that, cruose lines have created an economy where there was none which is definately a good thing. Plus NCL got an "A" in the environmental ratings. Woo hoo!

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

 

Who is the rater? This is interesting to me.

 

Many people fly from ex California to Florida for a cruise which is farther than those flying from New York to the Caribbean for vacation so you also need to consider that as well.

[Karysa]

Does cruising affect the environment more than living someone's normal life? Probably, but not more than any other vacation. You've got to compare apples to apples.

 

And, yes, FOE targets the cruise industry because it is seen as "disposable income", while anything that involves the cost of the "absolutely must have" new phone, curved screen TV, or SUV is conveniently ignored. The cruise industry, by its very nature, has a large target on it.

 

And in fact, by 2020, the IMO is targeting to reduce the sulfur limit in fuels used by ships, worldwide, from 3.5% to 1%, which while it doesn't sound like much, due to the nature of petroleum refining and residual fuel, this is a major accomplishment, and will result in raised transportation costs worldwide. Heck, even the Canadian government's establishment of a Right Whale speed restriction zone in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has resulted in some container shipping companies levying a surcharge for the extra fuel needed to make up time lost in the speed zone. So, ships and fuel will impact everything people use and purchase.

 

Good reasons to buy local. It's very popular now to try and purchase local for the economy but it also works to help the environment as well. Thanks for the information.

 

 

Canada even fined their own coastguard. Hopefully during an emergency they will choose man over whale though.

[A2Mich]

Good reasons to buy local. It's very popular now to try and purchase local for the economy but it also works to help the environment as well. Thanks for the information.

 

 

Canada even fined their own coastguard. Hopefully during an emergency they will choose man over whale though.

 

When that's possible, it's certainly a great idea. Some places, such as the U.K., which the FOE article seems to focus on, is very dependent on imports. I also buy as much local products as I can, it that is mostly limited to produce. Colorado does grow a lot of various crops locally, but is also seasonal, as are many places in central and northern climates. I also would rather buy from local farmers as well, as you said, it cuts down on transportation, but also puts more money into my "neighbor's" pocket. Some of our grocery stores pride themselves on their locally sourced meat and produce, which benefits our local economy.

[jaxonboy]

I also believe in science, yet the science and "facts" put forth by those believers in man made global warming has been debatable and questionable at best. There is plenty of evidence also available supporting global warming, yet not linking it to man made influences. Please don't confuse your OPINION with fact. There is also ample evidence suggesting that many scientists who are on board with man made global warming may have, in fact, either falsified research data, or have been paid to state the claims they have.

 

Bottom line, I don't really care WHAT you believe or don't believe. I was stating that there is no conclusive science on either side to determine whether or not global warming is indeed influenced by human activity. I could give you many sources disproving your claims, so I still stand y my assertion to not confuse opinion with fact.

Stop concentrating on temperature change. Research chemical changes such as the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the resulting increasing acidity of the oceans.

 

This is driving global warming.

 

To suppose the cruise ship impact on the environment is limited to actual friction through the water is foolish. The cruise ship impact on the environment is the CO2 coming out of the stack.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app

[A2Mich]

Stop concentrating on temperature change. Research chemical changes such as the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the resulting increasing acidity of the oceans.

 

This is driving global warming.

 

To suppose the cruise ship impact on the environment is limited to actual friction through the water is foolish. The cruise ship impact on the environment is the CO2 coming out of the stack.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app

 

I'm not concentrating on temperature change at all. I'm listening to different views and schools of thought on the whole issue. If you think I was serious about conductive heat transfer being a cruise ship's only impact, I was being sarcastic as I mentioned earlier.

 

Again, there is still no definitive proof on the amount of human activity impacting the climate. There are a lot of theories on both views of the issue, yet scientists cannot come to a concensus.

[tip]

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

 

Someone has been watching too much Faux News!

[DirtyDawg]

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

 

Someone has been watching too much Faux News!

 

I thought Faux news blamed Obama for inventing global warming.:confused:

 

So yes, in a sense, pseudoware is correct.......... global warming was created by a foreigner. :halo:

[SteveH2508]

Eat more beef! Less cattle equals less methane from bovine flatulence...:rolleyes:

[navybankerteacher]

How about all the HEATED arguments about whether global warming is even happening, whether it is man made, and if it is whether the present generation has any obligation to the future?

[Karysa]

Stop concentrating on temperature change. Research chemical changes such as the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the resulting increasing acidity of the oceans.

 

This is driving global warming.

 

To suppose the cruise ship impact on the environment is limited to actual friction through the water is foolish. The cruise ship impact on the environment is the CO2 coming out of the stack.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app

 

Is the CO2 coming out of the stack what is being regulated then?

[idraconis]

The cruise industry are building ships that use natural gas, better not perfect. There are around 300 cruise ship afloat at this time and some around 51400 merchant ship afloat.

[jaxonboy]

Is the CO2 coming out of the stack what is being regulated then?

Sulphur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides, and Particulates. The heavy oil they run on is very nasty.

[NMLady]

What impact does cruising have on global warming? I hope to hear that it only contributes a very little bit.

 

Since a lot of people, my husband included, don't believe in global warming, this thread is liable to veer way off topic.

 

Personally I doubt cruising impacts global warming.

[Karysa]

Sulphur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides, and Particulates. The heavy oil they run on is very nasty.

 

 

This would include cargo ships as well then.

 

It seems that stricter rules are being made but it's still confusing to me as to how all of this is enforced.

[Karysa]

Since a lot of people, my husband included, don't believe in global warming, this thread is liable to veer way off topic.

 

Personally I doubt cruising impacts global warming.

 

Wasn't 2016 the warmest on record. The world is warmer. What/who is warming it is what is up for debate I thought.

[Beachdude]

Since someone threw out the "S" word (science), lets hear a one sentence explanation of the science that hasn't been corrupted by the "P" word (politics). Just a hint, there isn't any.

 

As for the global warming being created by cruise ships, the only way for a person to not contribute to changing the natural environment is to stand naked in their back yard.

 

I'm not even sure why someone so concerned about the "Science" of our environment would be on a cruise forum.

 

Burt

[jaxonboy]

Wasn't 2016 the warmest on record. The world is warmer. What/who is warming it is what is up for debate I thought.

 

Atmospheric CO2 passed 400 ppm in 2013. The highest levels over the past 400,000 years were 200 ppm during the ice ages and 280 ppm during the tropical periods.

 

This*rise*in CO2 shows a relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be accounted for based on the premise that about 60 percent*of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.*

 

Brazil is burning the rain forest (nature's co2 scrubber) to make pasture to raise beef cattle to sell to China.

 

So, man is burning fossil fuel and burning the planetary scrubbers at rate never seen.

 

And it is said that humans are not implicated in climate change. Ha ha.

 

Again, concentrate on the chemistry, the cause, not the temperature data, the result.

 

Wasn't 2016 the warmest on record. The world is warmer. What/who is warming it is what is up for debate I thought.

[chengkp75]

The cruise industry are building ships that use natural gas, better not perfect. There are around 300 cruise ship afloat at this time and some around 51400 merchant ship afloat.

 

The cruise industry is banking on "if they build it, they will come" as far as LNG infrastructure is concerned. At present, there is virtually no infrastructure to bunker LNG to ships in the US. Two notable examples are Tote, which have proprietary (only for their ships) facilities in Seattle and Jacksonville. From what I've seen, the first few Carnival Corp ships being built as LNG capable (still not convinced they will burn LNG exclusively, due to technological restraints) will be for Carnival's European lines (Aida and Costa), where the LNG infrastructure is better than the US, but nowhere near universal, or even sufficient to proposed needs.

[chengkp75]

This would include cargo ships as well then.

 

It seems that stricter rules are being made but it's still confusing to me as to how all of this is enforced.

 

As with most maritime regulations, older ships already in operation are exempt from meeting some requirements, like emissions controls, to a certain degree.

 

All new ships have engines that meet IMO "tier" requirements for exhaust emissions. Most ships out there, including cruise ships are either tier I or II, and tier III is the latest requirement for newly built engines, so the newer ships will meet tier III. The engine manufacturer must submit an engine for testing by an international testing agency, and the emissions must meet the requirements of the tier currently applicable. Then, the engine "class" (all engines built similarly (essentially the same engine, but the number of cylinders may vary) ) is given a "class" certificate for IAPP (International Air Pollution Prevention) compliance. If the engine is maintained to manufacturer's specifications, it is considered compliant throughout its life.

 

Then, operationally, the IMO has set, through MARPOL (Marine Pollution) and IAPP codes, the maximum sulfur content that is allowable in fuel oils used by ships (other things are mandated standards for fuel, but sulfur content is the big one). When a ship bunkers fuel, it receives a "bunker delivery note" that contains the fuel's specifications, including the sulfur content. If the sulfur content is not acceptable, the ship has the right to refuse the fuel. This delivery note (BDN) is retained onboard, and Port State Control inspectors in the ports of call the ship goes to (USCG) can inspect the BDN's to see if the vessel is actually burning fuel according to law. Fines can be imposed for burning fuel with too high a sulfur content. If a ship is using a scrubber and burning high sulfur fuel, there must be records of when the scrubber was placed back in operation, showing the ship's position in relation to the ECA boundary. Scrubbers are also required to have "class" certification for the amount of emissions reductions they achieve.

 

The vessel will also send a sample of the fuel received to a third party testing facility and get their own analysis of the fuel, and if it does not meet the specifications ordered, there can be either rebates from the fuel supplier, or in radical cases, the fuel is offloaded back to the supplier. Cruise ships, and most ships meeting tier III requirements have real time NOX and CO sensors in the exhaust stacks to monitor exhaust emissions.

 

So, back to my original statement. Older ships might not meet the current tier III requirements for the emissions directly from the engine, but they are still required to either use a scrubber or burn low sulfur diesel fuel when inside an ECA.

 

Scrubbers have a capital cost of about $1 million per engine, so $4-6 million per ship. This is offset because low sulfur diesel fuel costs twice as much as residual fuel oil. So, the payback period for scrubbers depends on several things, but most importantly on how much time the ship spends inside an ECA.

 

Take my tanker for example. We operate 100% of the time within the North American ECA, so you would think that it would be to our advantage to install scrubbers. However, since fuel cost is paid by the charterer (tanker companies do not buy and sell the product they carry, they charter the vessel to a petroleum company to carry that company's product), it would be up to the charterer to decide if they wanted to invest in a scrubber, and since the charters are typically not long enough to fulfill the payback period, they instead choose to fuel us exclusively with low sulfur diesel fuel.

[Karysa]

Such great information to think about.

 

4-6 million per ship seems like a drop in the bucket to me . If it's only that much I wonder what's holding companies back?