2017 - A Year Of Frustration at The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

WHY IS THERE NO MONITORING NOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE USE OF SHORE POWER AT THE BROOKLYN CRUISE TERMINAL?

If you've been following me on twitter - @viewfromthehook - you'll know that the NYCEDC has been making excuses all through the 2017 season about why cruise ships have not been plugging-in to Red Hook's multi-million dollar, zero-emissions shore power system.

EDC have been telling the public that one ship, the Queen Mary 2, has had "difficulty" plugging-in to shore power (despite the ship successfully connecting to shore power in Halifax and elsewhere). But the EDC also claimed that Princess ships have been connecting to shore power, for the most part, throughout the season. That is just not based in fact. As far as this blog can ascertain, the Princess ships have only plugged-in a handful of times (perhaps only 2 or 3), once on October 26th, coinciding with a press event that included an announcement of the expansion of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal when Borough President Eric Adams was present. This is actually the only time I can be certain that a ship plugged in. Justine Johnson at the EDC confirmed the connection of the ship to shore power in writing to me and I was also able to take a trip on the ferry and view the shore power apparatus (davit, cables, etc.) in place and connected to the ship, and there were zero emissions visible from the funnels. The only other day a ship was stated to be plugged-in (by NYC Council Member Carlos Menchaca and others) was on May 31st, the day the NYC Ferry landing was launched, when the Queen Mary 2 was in port. On that day, Mayor de Blasio and other dignitaries were present. However, there was no confirmation of this connection by EDC.

Every other time I was able to check in on a ship docked at the terminal, throughout the season, it was clear that the ship was not plugged-in to shore power. I was able to both see fumes from the funnels, and many times I took the ferry around the stern of the ship and could see the shore power apparatus was not in place and the cables were not connected to the ship. I could literally see the cables dangling in the wind. This is what I witnessed with the Princess ships too, which the EDC was telling the public had been connecting to the shore power system. As I said, the EDC has not been truthful.

I called City Councilmember Carlos Menchaca one day when a ship was in port and idling, (I can see the funnels from my back yard), and he told me that EDC had not been able to confirm to him that ships were plugging in - they were telling him one thing and the public another. Carlos said that he was frustrated that there was no mechanism to either monitor nor enforce the use of shore power at the terminal. This seems crazy. He did say that he was working on some action that would create an enforcement mechanism, but I'm not sure what that would be and when it would happen.

We need to hold to account the EDC, Carlos Menchaca, and all involved, regarding what is happening here. The new operators of the cruise terminal - Ports America - according to press releases by EDC and statements by Carlos Menchaca, have committed to "zero emissions operations" at the cruise terminal. Ports America took over operations at the cruise terminal at the beginning of the season, and clearly that commitment has not been honored.

With the announcement, on Oct 26th, of the largest cruise ships - 6000+ passengers - coming to our neighborhood in the next few years, we have to ensure that the promises - and the 2011 formal agreement - made by the City, the NYCEDC, Carnival Cruise (who own Princess and Cunard), Ports America and our representatives are honored, the tens of millions of dollars of investments that have been made to build the zero emissions shore power system capitalized on, and the benefits to our community (less pollution and better health) realized. Otherwise, all we'll see is more pollution, more congestion, and zero benefit for Red Hook.

Last point - and a bit of background. When I first started paying attention to this matter over a decade ago - attending Port Authority, EDC meetings - it was always clear that there was a long term goal to expand the cruise terminal in Red Hook. The Port Authority were talking about building another terminal on Pier 10, and more. To me, this was extra incentive to get the shore power infrastructure built, so even if we did get more cruise ships, or bigger ships, at least we wouldn't get more pollution.

That was the whole point of advocating for shore power in the first place.

Now, in 2018, we need monitoring and enforcement of the use or shore power so the benefits of this zero-emissions technology can be finally realized.

Shore Power is Finally Operational and In Use at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (UPDATE: Maybe Not! See Jan. 2018 Post)

The photo from first blog post in April 2009.
My two kids are on bikes, second from left and second from right.
They are now 13 and 19.

You might have read articles in the local media and elsewhere regarding the press release (here) from the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) stating that 'shore power' is finally operational and in use at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. As readers of this blog know, shore power is a technology that lets ships "plug in" to the electricity grid while in port, allowing them to turn off their dirty diesel engines (this is called 'cold ironing'), rather than idling 24/7, as they have been. This is the first shore power berth on the entire U.S. East Coast.

Thanks to those of you who have sent me messages of congratulations for my part in raising awareness and advocating for this technology. I've been working for this result for over a decade since the Cruise Terminal opened at the bottom of our residential street in Red Hook. In April, 2009 - in an effort to further advocate for shore power and raise awareness of port and shipping pollution related issues in Red Hook, NYC and beyond - I started this blog, "A View From The Hook". In 2012, Friends of the Earth named me as one of their "Faces of Change" for these efforts. I was one of 7 individuals or organizations recognized that year for their environmental activism.

So this is a great achievement, right? Unfortunately, despite the press release stating that the use of this technology will “eliminate 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 95 tons of nitrous oxide, and 6.5 tons of particulate matter annually" (and that the) "health benefits associated with improved air quality will generate approximately $99 million in cumulative savings over 15 years”, there is no event planned to celebrate shore power coming on line in Red Hook,

I guess the Port Authority and the NYCEDC don't want to make too big a deal of this technology and its health and environmental benefits, because if more residents knew, they would be demanding (as I have here and elsewhere) that shore power be used throughout our city and region's ports, for all types of large oceangoing ships - cruise and container ships too, which also idle in port, burning dirty diesel, emitting dangerous and climate change-inducing emissions. The truth is that ports on the West Coast - including the two largest in the U.S., the Ports of Long Beach and L.A. - have been building shore power infrastructure for a decade for cruise and container ships, as well as implementing other port pollution reduction measures, such as clean truck programs. In comparison, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have been laggards when it comes to reducing port pollution at our nation's third largest port complex.

On a personal note, it would have also been nice for the EDC and the Port Authority to acknowledge my efforts - a decade worth of activism and advocacy for no personal gain - which was often lonely, thankless work, with no-one seemingly interested in the beginning. From the time I started writing letters to the City and to my neighbors about this issue in 2005, it was many years of research, writing, blogging, shouting into the abyss, going to meetings, and slowly building community awareness. I was joined by a few others who were on-board early with this fight who should also be acknowledged. My old friend, Diana Schneider, from Columbia Street Waterfront District, who for many years had been going to local meetings, demanding action on port pollution. Sherri Harden, from the Red Hook Initiative, who has been an early and staunch advocate for shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and the health benefits it would bring to our already pollution-burdened community. Finally, when progress was stalling, our representatives started to really get on board and demand this technology be put into use at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. That made a difference. I think people in power finally realized that this plan was a "no-brainer" and that the health and environmental benefits (as is now stated in the EDC's press release) would be pretty impressive.

To reiterate:

The use of shore power by cruise ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (will) … “eliminate 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 95 tons of nitrous oxide, and 6.5 tons of particulate matter annually. The health benefits associated with improved air quality will generate approximately $99 million in cumulative savings over 15 years.”

It's a disappointment that those (including our representatives) whose efforts ultimately helped to bring these benefits to our neighborhood and beyond aren't being recognized as part of an event marking this achievement - the much anticipated use of shore power use at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. Wouldn't the fact this technology has finally come on line be something that should be celebrated, as happened in San Diego in 2010 when the "switch was flipped" on their shore power infrastructure? I guess not.


That absence of celebration and acknowledgment makes this victory a little less sweet.

Follow me on Twitter: @ViewFromTheHook

Shore Power Update & Please follow "A View From The Hook" on Twitter @ViewFromTheHook

Hi folks,

As you can see, this blog has been dormant for a while. I'm not shutting it down. You never know when important information might need to be shared in detail - using more than 140 characters! But for now, there won't be many updates here.

Which leads me to remind you, much of the information I have been sharing and news on matters that have been covered in this blog since 2009, I also share via Twitter. Many of the articles and writings I "tweet" pertain to the important issues impacting our New York City neighborhood of Red Hook, Brooklyn, and beyond - shipping & port pollution, resilience, transportation, waterfront issues, development, climate.

So, if you're interested, please follow @viewfromthehook


UPDATE: STILL WAITING FOR SHORE POWER

I guess I should also update you on one of the issues that really kicked off this blog - the cruise ships that idle at the edge of our waterfront neighborhood, spewing dirty diesel emissions into our air and into our kids lungs while they're in port. Well, they're still idling!

Despite the "shore power" infrastructure we all fought long and hard for being ready, according to the NYC Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), and the ships that visit the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal also ready, retrofitted and able to accept the electricity so they can turn off their dirty diesel engines while in port, the latest information is that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) has not fully tested and certified the shore power equipment so that the ships can finally plug in.

In September, 2015, we were told that this "testing" was going to take place asap. We had previously been told that the shore power infrastructure would be ready for the 2015 cruise season. And now it's April, the 2016 cruise season is upon us, and we're still waiting.

This is just unacceptable.

It was the PANYNJ that presented information to the Public Service Commission in January, 2010, stating that plugging in cruise ships to shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, allowing the ships to turn off their engines while in port, would save Brooklyn residents a monetized amount approaching $9 Million per year in health costs. $9M per year!

We have been waiting a decade - since 2006 when the terminal was built - for the Port Authority to do the right thing at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. It's been 10 years of kids in Red Hook and beyond breathing in Particulate Matter (2.5), which has been linked to more and more harmful health effects, especially to children. Asthma, heart disease, cancer, autism, premature birth, and the list goes on. There have also been recent studies showing that when ships use low sulphur diesel (even though this "clean" diesel is still 1000s of times dirtier than the type trucks can legally use), the burning of that diesel actually creates more of this harmful Particulate Matter. So "clean diesel" is no solution at all. It's also been 10 years of the ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal spewing climate change inducing CO2, NOx, SOx, Black Carbon, etc., and burning hundreds of gallons of fossil-fuel diesel per hour - continuously while in port!

I don't know why the Port Authority has such a cavalier attitude towards portside communities and their quality of life, especially neighborhoods like Red Hook which has high rates of asthma and many environmentally impacted residents. Is the health of our kids not important enough for those in charge at the Port Authority to get this shore power infrastructure up and running - asap? The fact is, over the last decade the Port Authority has not been in a rush to implement green port practices. Even when the Brooklyn shore power system does get up and running, it will be the first such berth in the whole of the Ports of New York and New Jersey. Every single other ship in this great port city will be idling in port, burning dirty diesel, warming the planet and spewing all these harmful toxins into the air and into portside communities. While the largest ports in the U.S. on the West Coast have moved aggressively forward with shore power (for cruise and container ships), clean trucks programs, and other green port practices, here on the East Coast - at the Ports of NY and NJ, the third largest port complex in the country - we've been stuck in neutral, still idling.

The Port Authority really needs to start doing the right thing - by our kids and by the planet.

How about starting with getting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal shore power up and running - like yesterday?


NOTE: If you are interested in issues pertaining to clean ports, shipping and transportation, please do follow Moving Forward Network. They have been doing great work on these matters and have an ongoing campaign to reduce the dependence on diesel in our transportation and goods movement sector. It's called #ZeroEmissionsNow

Follow Moving Forward Network on Twitter: @The_MFN

- AA

German TV Covers Cruise Ship Pollution and Climate

On the Day 400,000 New Yorkers and many more around the world took to the streets in the "People's Climate March" demanding our leaders take urgent action to address climate change, the German TV show, "Weltspeigel" on the German public television channel ARD, was airing its story about cruise ship pollution. The introduction of the story noted the irony that only a few miles from the United Nations, where the International Climate Summit was being held and the topic of greenhouse emissions and air pollution was being discussed, some of the biggest polluters in the world were moored - cruise ships.

The piece went on to detail much of the information that this blog has covered over the last 5 years, and specifically related the story of our community - Red Hook, Brooklyn - which has been fighting since 2006 (when the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal opened at the edge of our dense residential neighborhood) to establish the practice of "cold ironing" for the visiting cruise ships. Cold ironing refers to the use of "shore power" - where the ships plug-in to the city's electric power grid so that these huge, dirty, diesel-guzzling behemoths of the sea can switch off their fossil fuel burning engines while docked at port. This practice eliminates the production of all of the harmful emission that the ships' idling engines and the burning of those dirty fuels produce - soot or PM (particulate matter), SOx, NOx, and of course CO2. Among this list of substances are known carcinogens, particles that induce asthma, heart disease, premature mortality, especially to our most vulnerable - kids, people with lung disease, the elderly, minority and low-income communities - and, of course, the list includes the gases which are the major contributors to climate change.

The German TV story notes that the Red Hook Cruise terminal is on the way to becoming the first terminal on the East Coast of the US to have this pollution-reducing and life-saving technology in place. But, it also notes that the cruise ship industry has been a reluctant partner in this process, and Carnival, who operates the ships that visit Brooklyn (and 1/2 of the international cruise ship industry), needed to be enticed to use the clean "shore power" by being offered a tax-payer subsidized rate of electricity. This incentive was required despite the ships already having many tax advantages (as cruise industry expert and critic, Prof. Ross Klein mentions in the piece, Carnival is only paying 1% taxes in the US), the industry as a whole making record-breaking profits, and also despite the Port Authority of NY and NJ stating in public testimony that the use of shore power at the terminal would lift an estimated $9 Million health burden from the shoulders of Brooklynites, especially Red Hook's residents, who were already suffering from staggering asthma rates, particularly in our children.

Below is a link to the German TV story. If you click the transcript (in German) and view it through a "Google Chrome" browser you will have an option to have the text translated. I have pasted a copy of that translation at the bottom of this post. This  is hopefully helpful to the English speaker, though the translation is a little hard to decipher at times.

On a personal note, I'm happy that my work on this blog has been recognized in this story. As someone who has been fighting this fight for years, sometimes seemingly shouting into a vacuum, it's great to get some international coverage of the issues that we have covered here on A View From The Hook. I thank the people at ARD for making such a great program about the issue. The only disappointment is that, even now, there is so, so little coverage of these issues in our local media - from local blogs, newspapers, TV, all the way up to the NY Times - the absence of coverage is confounding. Port pollution, the pollution that ships of all types create, the burning of astronomical quantities of fossil fuels - some of the most dirty fuel on the planet - the environmental and labor issues, the negative health impacts to our port-side communities, all of that stuff - it's hardly, if ever, mentioned in the media. And that's in the city that is home to the 3rd largest port complex in the country. Our new mayor, Bill DeBlasio, to whom I talked personally about the issue of port and ship pollution before he was elected - someone who at that time said he would pay this issue the close attention it deserves - has so far said and done close to nothing. All these recent announcements from the Mayor and the City about greenhouse gas reductions, and improving the health of New Yorkers, and all of that - it's great stuff! - but, in all those announcements, barely a syllable about the maritime industry's role in reducing pollution, limiting the production of greenhouse gasses and the need to decrease our reliance on the burning of fossil fuels. It's shameful, and the silence on this issue really needs to end.

Here's a link to the story - http://www.daserste.de/information/politik-weltgeschehen/weltspiegel/sendung/wdr/140921-weltspiegel-108.html

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: (Via Google Chrome):

Next week will be discussed at the UN climate summit in New York special on the reduction of greenhouse gases. Only a few kilometers from the UN moored daily cruise ships from around the world. These floating hotels, critics say, are among the largest polluters in the world, because the giants produced as much exhaust as 13,000 cars.

Most ships burn residual oil and that goes ashore as hazardous waste. Even at the dock in the metropolis of New York smoke more the chimneys. The district Red Hook holds a sad record. A quarter of the population suffers from asthma. The cruise company whose business is booming, do rather difficult to invest in environmentally friendly technologies.
Hazy Morning - The Queen Mary runs a. Traumschiff- dream trip. Once gliding past the Statue of Liberty in Manhattan. It is a special day - exactly 10 years ago, the luxury liner made its maiden voyage across the Atlantic exactly here. Subtle sounds in the lobby - deep in the belly of the Queen Mary - the guests are personally welcomed individually. The boss is mitgereist prepares his keynote speech. His business is booming - especially in Germany:

"New York is for us very important market, but here we are a year 1 billion to - and the Germans are our dear customers. Because they bring us the greatest growth rates "

He has the cruise manager of the Queen Mary in Sight - Prof. Ross Klein. He is considered the best-informed critics of the industry. How much contribute cruise ships to air pollution - it he points out again and again. "A cruise ship like the Queen Mary produces as much exhaust as 13,000 cars. For years, there are techniques to prevent this, but they cost money and reduce profits in the industry. "

Exhaust as 13,000 cars exhaust as 13,000 cars

On all oceans, the same image. Burnt is often residual oil on land would be special - these ships are among the largest polluters in the world - still. The German Aida fleet, the Queen Mary (are) now the American company Carnival. It controls more than half of the world market.

The chimneys of the Queen Mary smoke continued even after she has created. Exhaust gases of diesel-powered generators to produce electricity on board. The ship anchored in Redhook Brooklyn - Here especially, many children are suffering from asthma. The district holds a sad record. The City of New York indicates that in Redhook quarter of the residents has asthma - which is remarkably high. Asthma can be many reasons to have: air pollution is one of them: The severe asthma cases in his neighborhood drive Adam Armstrong for many years. He wrote to the mayor, and asked why, vessels moored right in front of his door and further pollute the air? "Because here, children die from asthma, I do not imagine that this is our reality. Since we must do everything possible to improve the air quality "

Even after applying the chimneys smoke more Even after applying the chimneys smoke more

Redhook - not exactly the best New York area. Many poor people in public housing live here as the family Geddie. Also Equasha Geddie has asthma. She performs in front of us, as she prepares for an attack und'zeigt us their inhaler - their life insurance. For her little brother Cee Deshawn any help came too late. 4 years ago was because the doctors could only find his death. The mother Kisha had brought him to the hospital: diagnosis: cardiac arrest after an asthma attack. "Now I do not cry as much as before, I got it stuck in my heart and I know he is in heaven now, and he's fine. But I think the strong air pollution here still impaired in our neighborhood respiration of many children. "

Red Hook Brooklyn, here moored cruise ships Red Hook Brooklyn, here moored cruise ships

There are already technical solutions - such as here in Oslo to supply ships from shore power, so that they do not pollute the air at least at the pier. Why were so forget a facility in New York in the new construction of the pier in Redhook, asks Adam Armstrong in 2006, the city of New York? What followed was a year-long tug of war between residents, the city and the company Carnival, a haggle, who has to pay for the expensive equipment.

Now, finally, is built on the pier. The huge current -Transformers are already. The city advertises now even so that the system will greatly improve the air in Redhook and environment. Health care costs would decrease by $ 9,000,000 per year. But can be passed to finally power `s ship, go 1 to 2 years into the country. The leads - are still in Rohbau.'Das company Carnival only a small part of the total cost will take over. "The city, so we taxpayers subsidize the whole thing. Carnival had threatened not to use the system when the power will not be cheaper for them. "

The Queen Mary is thus still some time mess up the environment - many tourists have no idea what environmental impact it there with their tickets abet. The international regulations are lax, soot filters on board, Bestromungsanlagen ashore (Shore Power) - all voluntary.

"We all need to protect the environment and reduce the emission of toxic particles: the reporter asked:" And you have built here on the ship already filter? "This should happen in a little over a year. As long as we still want to burn marine diesel "skimp when environmental protection and to bring in huge profits -. Reality is the market leader Carnival. By the way: In these profits, the Group pays Steuern- just totally legal around the 1 percent: "It's a scandal: there is no other industry in the world, which may so unimpeded avoid taxes. The companies use the services of various government agencies such as the Coast Guard, but they pay almost no taxes. "For 10 years, the Queen Mary crossed the oceans, the clean image of the industry has thick black spots.

Author: Markus Schmidt / ARD Studio New York

Shore Power is Coming! ... at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

Since the announcement in April, 2011 that the DEAL WAS DONE to create the first shore power berth on the U.S. East Coast at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (BCT), it has been a slow, long wait for the Red Hook community wanting to see some physical proof that this plan was actually happening.

Well, it is happening - though there have been a couple of "speed bumps" along the way.

The change in the leadership of the Port Authority was one. In October, 2011, Chris Ward - a strong supporter of the shore power plan - announced he was leaving his Executive Directorship role at the PA and Pat Foye was coming in. After that change of leadership, the Port Authority started baulking at an extra $4.3 Million that was going to be required to get this plan up and running.

See this, from a post on this blog in March, 2012 -

"A few weeks back, there was the troubling news that that the Port Authority was balking at the revised cost of creating the shore power infrastructure at the terminal. They had okayed the original investment, but were questioning the extra amount that would be required. 

How much were we talking about here? According to this Brooklyn Eagle story (here), the shortfall was $4.3 Million.

When the Port Authority has already made statements saying that this plan would save Brooklyn residents $9 Million per year - let me say that again - PER YEAR - in health costs. When those health costs include, as stated by the EPA and many others, asthma, cancer, premature death, lung and heart disease. When those who disproportionately bear this burden are our most vulnerable - our children (Red Hook's kids already have 40% asthma rates), the elderly, minority and low-income communities. Why is this even a question?

Yes, the Port Authority is having budget problems, but on that matter they're talking about numbers in the billions of dollars. So to quibble over this relatively small amount, when the savings are so obvious and precious (we're talking about our kids here) - and knowing that the added investment pays for itself in 6 months - it seems very short sighted to be delaying this plan."

Well, in June, 2012, the people at the Port Authority finally came to their senses and gave their approval to the extra funding (story here). The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal shore power plan was a go!

Then came Superstorm Sandy. 

The storm and the damaging flooding that inundated our neighborhood in October, 2012 threw a wrench in the works of everything that was happening in Red Hook. The shore power plan was no exception. With the new reality of potential flooding, threats to infrastructure, housing, economic activity and more on everyone's mind, there was a lot to consider. The entire future of Red Hook seemed uncertain.

Many people asked in the last year or so, "Is the shore power plan happening?". "When is it happening?". We asked representatives of our elected officials for answers. The replies we received were all assurances that this plan was going ahead, despite the delays. But, people were still asking, "Where is the evidence?"

Then Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez got involved. A letter was sent from her office to the Port Authority asking for an update on the progress. Their response came in May, 2013, in the way of a letter to Congresswoman Velázquez, (and CCd to many of our other representatives), stating that the Port Authority was announcing it was ready to "initiate the construction and installation of Shore Power Technology at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook". They stated that the infrastructure would be ready "no later than the 2015 cruise ship season." View the entire letter here.

Well that was good news, but - again - where was the evidence?

Well last month, with Red Hook's future and resiliency looking better than ever, with new energy filling the neighborhood and an even greater sense of community involvement evident to all, the proof came that the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal shore power plan was truly happening.

Infrastructure!

These pieces of electrical infrastructure appeared on the cruise terminal site. The Red Hook Star Review posted a simple tweet on April 19th - "Shore power" - followed by a group of photos taken during a walk around the neighborhood, within which were photos of theses three pieces of "technology", for want of a better word that had been recently placed on the cruise terminal site. "A View From The Hook" took a look as well.  They look like transformers, but we haven't been able to find out exactly what the correct description of these items are, but they are obviously being installed as part of the coming shore power infrastructure. The Red Hook Star Review was right - 

Now we have it. The physical evidence that the shore power infrastructure is being built and on its way to being completed, with the promise of it being put into service "no later than the 2015 cruise season", as the Port Authority has stated.

This is great news for our community. Finally, the cruise ships will be "plugging in" to the electric grid and will be able to stop idling their dirty diesel engines while in port at the edge of our dense residential neighborhoods. We'll all look forward to enjoying the improvements in air quality; the removal of the carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances that are emitted from those idling engines; improvements in the health of our children and the most vulnerable among us who are disproportionately affected by those pollutants; reduction in the burning of greenhouse gas creating fuels; and so many more benefits - both economic and environmental - that have been articulated in this blog over the last five years. 

We can now all believe it. 

In 2015, the Queen Mary II and other visiting cruise ships will finally be kicking their smoking habit, and the people of Red Hook and beyond will be breathing a little easier.

(5/5/14 - This post was edited for clarity and typos - I don't have an editor, people!)

OTHER SHORE POWER/ SHIPPING POLLUTION NEWS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED 

(Though the NY press/ media is *still* negligently ignoring this issue)

Malta Today: Shipping's black cloud: "Rise in shipping pollution could end up killing 100,000s before new legislation is enforced"

Law 360: @EPA to enforce pollution rules for large ships in US waters. PM (soot), NOx, SOx

Port Strategy: "it is in ports near where people live that human health is most affected"

Shipping News: First Ship Plugged-In @ Port of Hueneme = 92% reduction in PM, 98% in NOx, 55% in GH gasses

Motorship: Taking shorepower to the next level: There will always be a market for shorepower in residential port cities

Ship and Bunker: T&E says don't delay rule "[NOx] is an invisible killer causing cancer and lung disease"

Ship and Bunker: Latest California Cold Ironing represents"the single largest reduction in air emissions by one project in the history of the county"

Port Strategy: There is a shore power standard so "ports in the US can use the same system as Denmark"

Post and Courier: 1 Cruise ship idling in port = SOx "comparable to over 34,000 idling tractor trailers"- "Shore power is a must"

ABC News (Australia): Concern about cruise ship emissions in Sydney, Australia: Locals demand halt to cruise ships in harbour

The Packer: "Shore power in port helps maintains cold chain, reduce emissions"

Environmental Leader: All 13 international cargo terminals at the Port of LA and Port of Long Beach now power docked ships with electricity

Washington Times: February is "SHORE POWER NOW" month in Charleston.

.

Friends of The Earth: "Dangerous Levels of Deadly Soot" From Ships at Manhattan Cruise Terminal

QM2 at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - photo: Joshua Kristal, South Brooklyn Post

In November, representatives from NABU, a German based environmental organization, visited New York to take pollution measurements at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal. NABU had been taking these tests at different cruise terminal location around the world, so these New York measurements were going to provide valuable information about the emissions from idling cruise ships berthed at our city's primary terminal.

Friends of the Earth, who have been collaborating with NABU, just released the results of these tests in a press release (here).

"At each port -- New York, Venice, Italy and Hamburg and Rostok, Germany -- samples taken by NABU with an ultrafine particle counter contained hundreds of thousands of microscopic ultrafine particles of soot per cubic centimeter of air. In New York, the sample contained 201,000 ultrafine particles of soot per cubic centimeter while the cruise ship Norwegian Gem was idling on Nov. 15, 2013."

NUBU recorded video of their particle counter taking the measurements in real time as the Norwegian Gem idled at the Manhattan terminal.

Dr. Axel Friedrich, formerly an air quality expert with the German federal environmental agency, who led the testing, is quoted in the Friends of the Earth press release:

“These extremely high measurements at the cruise ship docks are from the use of heavy fuel oil or bunker fuel and lack of pollution control technology,” 

He stated that, without pollution control technology, such as the use of particle scrubbing or the use of shore power, "cruise ship engines must operate continuously at the dock to keep the lights on, releasing huge quantities of toxic gases that harm public health."

And there's more (from the press release): 

"Leif Miller, CEO of NABU, said the World Health Organization considers soot as carcinogenic as asbestos."

“These measurements now demonstrate for the first time how much worse air pollution in ports is made by the pollution from idling cruise ships,” said Miller. As the cruise industry continued to grow rapidly, this means that every year more and more passengers and residents of port cities are exposed to deadly soot. Since the technology needed to clean up emissions is here today, this is unacceptable.”

The release of the results of this study should give those of us who have been calling for the implementation of pollution mitigation practices - such as the use of shore power -  at all of our city's ports more impetus to keep doing so. The evidence is clear. These idling ships are pouring out huge quantities of carcinogenic emissions into our city's air and into our residents' lungs, and that is totally unacceptable - especially because it's totally avoidable.

Friends of the Earth make the point that Carnival Cruise Lines, which operates all of the ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, has installed some pollution mitigating technology on some of its ships, but Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels program director of Friends of the Earth U.S., states,

"It's unacceptable that some Carnival Corporation ships will be installing state-of-the-art air pollution controls, but not the entire fleet." She states, "It's time for Carnival to stop dragging its feet, not only on the health and safety of its passengers but of people in the ports where it calls. If Carnival cares about people and the planet, the company should install the most health-protective technology on all ships, across all of the lines it operates, to keep the air we breathe clean and healthy."

This is a great point. 

This should be a fleet-wide and port-wide practice. The same goes for the installation of shore power technology. In 2014, the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook is scheduled to become the first port on the East Coast to offer shore power, allowing all of the visiting cruise ships to turn off their engines (that's called cold ironing), and "plug in" to the city's electricity grid while at port, totally eliminating all of those harmful substances we have been discussing and providing great health benefits to the terminal's neighbors and the residents of our city. 

These measures should be in place at all of our ports - including at container terminals - throughout our region. At the Ports of New York and New Jersey, the third largest port complex in the country, we should be implementing these life saving measures comprehensively - as is being done at the largest ports, the West Coast ports of LA and Long Beach. Just as Carnival is dragging its feet on pollution controls, so is the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which have been absolute laggards in addressing issues of port pollution. They are being left in the dust by their West Coast counterparts - and the residents of our city are being left in the soot!

Even if the Port Authority is dawdling on theses matters at our city's major container ports, the next easy step should be the one that is the clear consequence of the findings of the NABU study. 

The Manhattan Cruise Terminal - operated by the NYC Economic Development Corporation - should be the next terminal to be equipped with shore power technology, as is currently being done at its Brooklyn counterpart. The residents of Manhattan's West Side should no more be inundated by the tons of emissions and carcinogenic particles created by the visiting cruise ships - up to three at a time - idling at the edge of their residential neighborhood. Why should the vulnerable residents of that neighborhood - children, the elderly, people with respiratory illness - be subjected to these harmful substances? Especially when their fellow New Yorkers, in Red Hook, Brooklyn, who are neighbors to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, after years voicing their objection to this practice, have secured a solution - the use of shore power for the cruise ships visiting their neighborhood's terminal.

This NABU study should convince us all - the City's "Idle-Free NYC" rule should apply to ships, too - and the cruise ships visiting the Manhattan Cruise Terminal should be the next ones to comply.

.

NYC Welcomes "Norwegian Breakaway" - West Side Residents Welcome More Unmitigated Pollution! (UPDATED: West Coast Stories)

Photo from NYCEDC blog.

This week, New York added a new cruise ship to the list of vessels calling our city's ports home. That ship is the "Norwegian Breakaway", which is the largest cruise ship to homeport in Manhattan. (The largest cruise ship that homeports in NYC - the Queen Mary 2 - berths at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook). Mayor Bloomberg, New York Cruise and the New York City Economic Development Corporation were all abuzz about the arrival of this ship and its imminent "christening".

The NYCEDC blog described the event this way:

This week, NYCEDC and Mayor Bloomberg joined Norwegian Cruise Line and the Rockettes to christen the Norwegian Breakaway, the largest cruise ship ever to port in NYC! The enormous 4,000-passenger vessel with Peter Max’s signature artwork on its hull was a sight to behold at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal at Pier 88.
“The arrival of the Norwegian Breakaway—the largest cruise ship to homeport in Manhattan—is another proof point of the growth and success of New York City’s $200 million cruise sector, a cornerstone of the City’s $55 billion tourism industry,” said Mayor Bloomberg.

The City and NYCEDC are always talking about the economic benefits of the cruise industry, but never talk about the economic and environmental impact of this industry - due to pollution, health impacts, and other factors. (Not to mention the fact that the cruise industry has a pretty poor record regarding labor law and in paying taxes. For example, over the past 5 years, Carnival paid only 1.1% in tax).

The lack of acknowledgement of this impact, particularly regarding the health impacts that the emissions of these visiting ships is having on our city's residents, prompted me to write this comment on the NYCEDC blog website:

Are your readers aware that these huge ships - like all ocean-going ships that visit the ports of New York (cruise, container and cargo) - are constantly idling while in port? While they berth at our city's terminals, often next to our most dense residential neighborhoods, they are continuously running their dirty diesel engines to supply the ship's electrical needs.

 The emissions that these ships' engines create while in port - equivalent to up to 30,000 cars - are high in sulfur and soot and the EPA regards them to be carcinogenic and asthma inducing, among their various well-documented negative health impacts. These impacts, says the EPA, are most acutely shouldered by our most vulnerable - our children, people with respiratory ailments (like asthma), the elderly and low income or minority communities.

As toxic as they are, there is a way to stop these harmful substances being emitted while the ships are in port. That is to "plug-in" the ships to the city's electric grid - using what is called "shore power" - thereby allowing the ships to turn off their dirty diesel engines while in port (this is a practice called "cold ironing"). Despite the fact that this practice has been used widely in many places - like on the West Coast (Ports of LA, Long Beach, etc.) - and has been used by the US Navy for over 50 years, East Coast ports have not one single port with "shore power" in use. (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in New York is supposed to be the first on the East Coast to do so in 2014 - after a long fought effort by the community to make it happen - but no infrastructure has yet been built, and until it is up and running, no one is counting that chicken).

The Ports of NY and NJ make up the third largest port complex in the nation - behind the West Coast ports I mentioned. Compared to the actions taken by the mayors, etc. of those West Coast cities, why hasn't the administration of this city taken the emissions of these ships seriously, especially when there is a way to actually eliminate those emissions - one that is tried and proven in those other port cities?

Yes, the cruise industry and shipping industry is having a positive impact on our city's economy, but without these pollution mitigating technologies, there is a tremendous price being paid - often unknowingly - by our port-side residents. Are the residents of the West Side of Manhattan even aware that these huge ships - sometimes 3 at a time - are all idling while berthed at the edge of their neighborhood, spewing fumes over their heads and into their children's lungs? Why don't they know? Isn't it the City's obligation to educate these residents about the poisons that are being injected by these ships into their air?

The fact is, the City never acknowledges the burden that is being shouldered by our city's residents in negative health impacts due to the emissions of ships and other port activities.

The City and NYCEDC are constantly touting the economic benefits of our cruise industry, but never a mention of any of the negative impacts - on our health and environment. For an administration that prides itself on its "green" credentials, that is shameful. History will not look kindly on the inaction of Mayor Bloomberg, the NYCEDC and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in tackling the impact of port emissions over the last 10 years.

There's still time to do something, but the record - as of now - is a pretty sorry one.


UPDATE: WEST COAST STORIES

In case you wondered what was happening on the West Coast, check out these articles -

Ship and Bunker: "Millions of Dollars Being Spent on Shore Side Power"

Maritime Executive: "Long Beach: Port, Terminals, Ships Investing in Shore Power"

. 

Friends of the Earth's "Annual Report 2012 : The Faces of Change" Highlights Our Efforts to Eliminate Cruise Ship Pollution in Red Hook

Friends of the Earth just published their Annual Report for 2012 (from this page you can download the whole report as a PDF). This year they are calling their report "The Faces of Change" and in it you will, in their words, "read the stories of everyday individuals who are fighting heroically to protect the environment from the abuses of corporations seeking to maximize profit while ignoring environmental impacts, or standing up to government agencies and policies that fail to protect the environment, or working to rebuild after extreme weather disasters like Superstorm Sandy."

In this year's report, Friends of the Earth decided to focus on seven individuals, and I am honored to say that they chose to include me, this blog, our community and the efforts we have all made, over many years, to eliminate cruise ship pollution in Red Hook.

The piece on Red Hook highlights the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal "shore power" plan, which will allow the idling cruise ships to turn off their dirty-diesel engines while in port and plug into the city's electricity grid, thereby eliminating tons of dangerous emissions - NOx, SOx, PM (soot), CO2 - which currently spew over our neighborhood (and beyond) and into our residents' lungs. NOTE: Although the shore power plan was approved nearly 2 years ago, as this South Brooklyn Post article reminds us, it has yet to come "on-line". The most recent statements from the City state that the plan will be up and running in 2014. Meanwhile, these carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances still continue to pump out of the idling cruise ships (and container ships too - but that's another story) that berth at our residential neighborhood's waterfront.

Please find below excerpts from the Friends of the Earth "Annual Report 2012: Faces of Change" (click on the images to enlarge)

I am certainly grateful to Friends of the Earth for highlighting our local story and this important issue. I would like to thank John Kaltenstein who works on these issues for Friends of the Earth and advocates for better maritime environmental standards at the IMO (International Maritime Organization) and elsewhere. He contacted me many years ago when he saw that I was trying to raise awareness of the dangers of port pollution in Red Hook and throughout the ports of New York and New Jersey - from the emissions of ships, trucks and other sources - and he encouraged me to keep getting out the word, sharing information, and himself sharing information with me and drawing attention to the issue in articles like this in Sustainable Shipping - "The Big Apple's Big Shipping Pollution Problem". John made the suggestion to his colleague, Lisa Stone, who is the publications manager at FOE, to include our story in this year's report. FOE has played a tremendous role in raising awareness of the dangers of ship emissions, whether from cruise ships, container ships, or other large oceangoing vessels. They have worked on establishing better emissions standards for ships, through the use of lower sulfur fuels and the establishment of "Emissions Control Areas", as is being implemented in the coastal waters of North America, and have pressed for the use of shore power. They have highlighted the environmental impacts of the cruise industry, and every year release a "Cruise Report Card" which allows potential vacationers to assess and compare a cruise ship or cruise line's "environmental and human health impacts". (FYI - The Queen Mary 2 gets an "F" for "air pollution reduction"). Their work on these matters has been exemplary.

Our inclusion in the Annual Report is heartening recognition of the effort that our community has made on these important issues. But it's still important to recognize that we've still got a long way to go - in Red Hook, our city, and around the country.

As I stated, the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal "shore power" plan still isn't up and running. I haven't heard that there has been any negative impact on that plan resulting from the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy - whether it be delays or otherwise - but the NYCEDC and Port Authority haven't been the most communicative entities in the City, so we'll just have to hope everything is going according to plan.

Also, this shouldn't be the end of the establishment of shore power at our city's ports, it should be the beginning. There should be a plan to use this technology throughout our ports  - the third largest in the country - at cruise ship terminals (hello West Side!) and container terminals, as is being done on the West Coast and elsewhere. Mayor Bloomberg has not been very outspoken on these issues, and though the acknowledgment of "port pollution" made it into the City's "Vision 2020 - Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" (barely, because initial drafts of the plan made no mention of the pollution impacts of ships, ports, etc. - nor ways to mitigate that pollution!), the issue gets no exposure through the Mayor's office, nor - to its great shame - through the press. Perhaps a new Mayor will be more "out front" on port pollution issues, as any mayor of a great port city should be, but we'll have to see about that.

It's clear that these issues are also gaining awareness around the country and world. I constantly see stories (though rarely in our local press) about the impacts of port pollution, the health and environmental burden that portside communities are bearing for the "economic benefit" of cruise terminals, container ports, and other stories about these issues. Look at the current debate in Savannah, Georgia where they are considering building a cruise terminal and note the impact that a similar cruise terminal in Charleston, S.C. has had on its community - "A Savannah Cruise Port: Host Cities Pay the Price". Referring to the "bunker fuel" that large ocean-going ships burn while at sea and while idling in port, the Savannah Morning News article states:

“Bunker fuel is so dirty that even the cleaner bunker fuel is hundreds of times dirtier than on-road diesel fuel,” Keever said, referring to the fact that the current fuel is 650 times dirtier than truck diesel fuel. 

Cruise ships run their engines while in port to power the cabins for passengers and crew.
For a 2,500-passenger ship with a crew of 1,000, the sulfur dioxide emissions for a 10-hour stay equal that of more than 34,000 diesel trucks idling for the same amount of time, based on calculations vetted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Then there is the story from Maritime Professional about Hong Kong - "Ship Emissions an Afterthought at Hong Kong Cruise Terminal".

This is a very familiar story to the residents of Red Hook.

There is much being done to try to fight for measures to reduce this pollution and its terrible health impacts - whether locally or globally - on our port-side communities, often borne by the most vulnerable. Friends of the Earth have been at the forefront of that fight.

I so appreciate Friends of the Earth raising the awareness of Red Hook's part of the story, and I am honored to be included in their Annual Report 2012 as someone who has played a role in that story - as a "Face of Change".

AA

.

FINALLY ... Port Authority OKs Shore Power at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

Photo: Joshua Kristal, South Brooklyn Post

Brooklyn residents will be happy to hear that, yesterday, the Port Authority - finally! - gave the go-ahead for the use of shore power for cruise ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. The news came via a press release from State Senator Daniel Squadron who has been a strong and outspoken supporter of this plan, often citing the health benefits that the plugging-in of these idling, dirty-diesel burning, sea-going behemoths would bring to his port-side constituents and communities beyond. The Port Authority, though technically committing to the shore power plan 18 months ago, had been balking at some additional expenditures that would be required to get the infrastructure built to make shore power a reality at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The total additional expenditure required was said to be only half of the estimated *yearly* health benefits that the change to pollution mitigating shore power would bring to Brooklyn residents, according to the Port Authority's own statements - those savings being $9 Million per year. However, somehow the Port Authority was still struggling with the worthiness of the extra investment.

It seems like the pressure applied by our representatives - State Senator Daniel Squadron, City Councilmember Brad Lander, CM Sarah Gonzalez, Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez - as well as advocacy from Community Board 6 and our own community members and organizations, made the Port Authority see the light. So, yesterday, the plan's full funding was approved.

Here is part of the text from Senator Squadron's press release (full text here):

The agreement, which was reached over a year ago at the urging of Senator Squadron and other community leaders but was not approved until today, will allow cruise ships to plug into the electrical grid rather than burning diesel fuels while idling at the port. The Port Authority expects implementation to be completed by 2014.

Senator Squadron released the following statement:

"Brooklyn just breathed a sigh of relief -- because shore power means we'll be able to breathe a little easier. The implementation of our agreement gets us closer to ending the dirty and dangerous fumes spewed by cruise ships idling in the Red Hook port, which is good news for Brooklynites and good news for our environment.

"For two years, I worked with the community and my colleagues in government, including Congresswoman Velazquez and Councilman Lander, to push for the agreement that's made shore power possible.  By implementing the agreement, the Port Authority will make New York a leader as the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal becomes the first on the East Coast to adopt this cleaner, healthier technology.

As the statement notes, this will be the first terminal in New York and on the entire East Coast to use shore power - despite this life-saving and environmentally friendly technology being used extensively on the West Coast; first being used over 10 years ago in Juneau, Alaska; used by the US Navy for over 50 years; and implemented in many other parts of the world.

Hopefully, the Brooklyn plan will set a precedent for the wider use of shore power by all types of ocean-going ships in our city's ports - the 3rd largest in the country - and elsewhere on the East Coast. Then these carcinogenic and asthma inducing emissions created by the idling ships can be eliminated and the resultant health and environmental benefits shared by even more of our city and country's residents, especially our most vulnerable - the elderly, kids with asthma, low-income communities, etc.

But, for now, we can be happy that in 2014 - as well as looking forward to the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also approved yesterday - the big cruise ships visiting Brooklyn will be turning off their engines, plugging-in to our electrical grid, and our port-side communities can look forward to breathing a little easier.

.

What is Bunker Fuel? The Pollution Threat From The Costa Concordia Cruise Ship Disaster

Photo: Friends of the Earth

As anyone who visits this blog regularly knows, I've had quite a hiatus from writing over the last 6 months or so. This is partially due to the events last year that secured a deal that guarantees the implementation of the use of shore-power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. This plan should be up and running this year, 2012, and will allow the visiting cruise ships to turn off their idling engines and reduce the pollution and health impacts they have on our waterfront neighborhoods and their residents. This had been one of the primary issues addressed in this blog, along with waterfront development, transportation and environmental justice, so I guess the resolution* of this matter gave me a reason to slow down a bit. Additionally, my work life hasn't allowed me to spend as much time as I'd like at the computer writing on the important issues that effect our neighborhood. Despite this, I have been watching closely and trying to get information out about local issues, and I hope anyone who is interested in them follows me on Twitter - @viewfromthehook (see the end of this post for some recent stories you might have missed).

The events surrounding the recent Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster, however, have spurred me back to action and back to the computer keyboard to write again about the issue of ship pollution.

Apart from the terrible human tragedy that has unfolded over the last weeks, the Costa Concordia disaster has the potential to be a terrible environmental tragedy as well. At the time of the ship running aground, it had only been at sea for a few short hours, and, as a result, was carrying a full load, according to this article (here) from Marcie Keever at Friends of the Earth, (700,000 gallons) of fuel, for its journey. That fuel - the fuel that powers most large ocean going vessels (cruise and container ships) - has been the villainous subject of this blog ever since its inception.

That fuel is "bunker fuel".

Bunker fuel is, as Ben Goldfarb describes in this recent article (here), the "viscous, bottom-of-the-barrel residue of petroleum distillation, tar too thick to be burned by any vehicle other than an enormous ship."

Photo credit: NOAA

The shame of this is that this extra-dirty fuel is not only the source of harmful pollution as it is heated up, to make it less viscous, and then burned to power the diesel engines of large ships such as the Costa Concordia and the other cruise and container ships that ply the waters of the globe - which also idle constantly while visiting our ports. It is also that this fuel's very potent and viscous qualities would make for a huge environmental disaster if it leaked out into the pristine waters surrounding Giglio Island, off the Tuscan coast of Italy, where the Costa Concordia now rests.

(UPDATE - Monday: Coincidentally (perhaps?), James Kanter makes the same above point in the New York Times story on the subject today - HERE)

In 1999, in one of the worst environmental disasters from a bunker fuel spill, the "Erika", a tanker that was carrying 30,000 tonnes of bunker fuel, broke up in a storm and sank in the Bay of Biscay, off the Atlantic Coast of Brittany, France. The amount of fuel that was spilled was approximately 19,000 tonnes, and the ship sank between 30 and 50 miles off shore. The spill initially created a 10 mile long slick and, eventually, on-shore pollution that resulted in an oily layer up to 1 foot thick along the shores of the Loire River where it meets the coast, approximately 80 miles away. According to the web site of "Cedre", the Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution, "a viscous oil layer, 5 to 30 cm thick and several metres wide, covered parts of the shoreline." Apart from the huge impact on seabirds, seals, shellfish and even salt production, much of the damage to sea life in the ocean and on the sea floor was not visible. But, as you can imagine, this was a massive environmental tragedy - one that France considers to be its worst environmental disaster which, according to this story at Guano Island blog, "polluted 400 km (250 miles) of coastline and caused damage valued at up to 1 billion euros ($1.30 billion)". It eventually cost the negligent ship-owners, who apparently were aware that the tanker was not seaworthy, $280 Million in compensation. This disaster also lead to the implementation of regulations that required oil tankers to have double layer hulls that would reduce the risk of such environmentally devastating spills.

Most importantly, this event has made clear the terrible impact such a spill would have if it ever happened gain.

Photo: Guano Island

Now, according to "Cedre", the Costa Concordia is only carrying a tenth of the quantity of bunker fuel (2,400 tonnes) compared to the "Erika" (which was not only being fueled by the substance, but transporting it as well). However, the cruise ship is right on the shoreline and is moving with the currents with the potential for its bunkers to rupture and spill the contained fuel, literally feet from shore and in pristine and protected waters. If that leak occurred, the damage to the eco-system and the shoreline would be dramatic, not to mention the damage to the economic health of the whole area (simulation here). Thankfully, the authorities are doing everything they can to ensure that this potential environmental and economic disaster never eventuates, and many of us around the globe are hoping for that positive outcome.

However, this disaster is another reminder of the unpalatable and harmful nature of this substance - bunker fuel - that propels the world's ocean going vessels, pollutes our air, harms our children's health and potentially damages our environment.

Let's remind ourselves, this viscous, tar-like, bottom-of-the-barrel, high-sulfur, (yes, cheap!) fuel - stuff that we all hope will not end up coating the Italian shoreline, killing its economy and eco-system - is being burned at sea in huge quantities to power these cruise and container ships, as well as being burned mere feet from our homes, and from our most vulnerable residents, while the ships idle on the edge of our waterfront communities. As Ben Goldfarb writes, in the previously mentioned article (here) -

"the ongoing use of bunker fuel is also one of the most appalling public health scandals in the world. Bunker fuel, when burned, produces an olio of airborne chemicals, including sulfur oxide, that have been linked with acid rain, asthma, and lung infections. In 2009 James Corbett, a University of Delaware expert on ship emissions, calculated that 64,000 residents of port cities die every year of bunker fuel-related ailments; in 2012, Corbett predicted, that number will rise to 87,000."

The great news for residents of Brooklyn is, some time later this year, these harmful emissions will cease to be produced in-port by the cruise ships visiting our neighborhood's Cruise Terminal. This is when the NYCEDC, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Carnival Cruises (who also operate the Costa Concordia), have promised to implement a long-awaited and hard fought for plan to plug-in the now idling ships to shore power while berthed at the terminal. (my post here)

The not-so-good news is that for the foreseeable future this bunker fuel will continue to be burned in-port and at sea by the container ships visiting the Brooklyn Container Terminal, and by every other cruise and container ship visiting our city, and in much of our country. That is apart from some ports and waters of the West Coast where a lot of work has been done over the last decade to implement such pollution-reducing and life-saving practices as the use of shore power - also called "cold ironing" - while the ships are in port.

There are regulations coming into effect over the next number of years that will reduce the amount of sulfur in the fuels that can be burned by ships using North American waters and using our ports. But, make no mistake, the fuel that will be used by these ships in the future will still be some of the dirtiest diesel on the planet - with Sulfur levels hundreds of times higher than is present (or legal) in the diesel used by trucks or trains, as opposed to the thousand times higher Sulfur levels that are present in the fuel currently used by ships.

So, even though there will be an improvement in the level of pollution that these ships emit while cruising the world's oceans and transporting our goods, if they're not using shore power when they're in port, the ships will still be idling, burning extra-dirty diesel and emitting harmful substances into our neighborhoods' air, compromising the health of our residents.

Additionally, they'll be buying and adding to our reliance on imported fossil fuels, adding to greenhouse gasses, creating soot or black carbon, and adding to the bottom line of already prospering multinational oil companies, instead of purchasing much cleaner electricity from our local, domestic utility companies, thereby helping our local economies.

This doesn't make sense - and it's unnecessary.

For my part, the Costa Concordia disaster is another reminder of what the real-life risks and impacts of shipping are, and the choices that we have to make to improve this industry's impacts. I'm not anti-cruise ships, per se. I'm not anti-industry - at all. It just seems to make sense that these industries should not be making their (sometimes minimally taxed) billions at the expense of the environment or the health of our residents, particularly our most vulnerable. The recent ship wreck on the Tuscan coast, like the one that created the environmental disaster in the sea off Brittany in 1999, is a reminder that we don't want bunker fuel - this noxious, bottom-of-the-barrel, viscous substance - ruining our environment and degrading our quality of life.

Whether it be as a result of a spill - coating the beaches of Brittany, the Mediterranean coast, the wings of seabirds or acres of unseen ocean bed - or whether it's being heated up and burned to power berthed ships, idling constantly at the edge of dense residential neighborhoods, with the resultant, yet avoidable, carcinogenic and asthma-exacerbating emissions being pumped into the air of our cities and into the lungs of our children, there is no place for this substance and its emissions in our environment.


It's time to say good-bye, and good riddance, to bunker fuel.

Photo: Wikipedia

.........

OTHER STORIES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED -


Red Hook Star Review: American Stevedoring Out at Red Hook Terminal | Brownstoner story HERE

Port Authority Honcho: Red Hook/ BK Waterfront Like 'Vietnam', Trucks are Killing NYC | Brownstoner story HERE

Port Authority Boss: "Red Hook must be connected to Governors Island", if not, "the island will never reach its full potential" Crain's New York story HERE

@NYCEDC's East River Ferry feasibility study excludes most of Red Hook's 12,000 residents. In the study - page 25 - http://bit.ly/kSuVtG - even the "secondary market area" excludes most of Red Hook's 12,000 residents

NY's clean truck program sucks! (Same with ships) - Carroll Gardens Patch story HERE

What Clean Truck Program? Only 11 out of 7,000 replaced. MT @FromBKtoBXL: Port Authority Failure (via COWNA's Brad Kerr) http://bit.ly/pAlCSd

In fight against global warming, NASA calls for reduction of black carbon (i.e. soot) http://goo.gl/BQn1M

My post on ships, black carbon and greenhouse gases from Dec. 2010 http://goo.gl/z039g

Plugging 1 container ship into shore power takes pollution = 33,000 cars out of LA's air - C'mon NY. We can do it too! Story Here

And from OnEarth Magazine -

Shocking stat: pollution from 2 dozen giant container vessels equals pollution from ALL of world’s 1 Billion vehicles http://bit.ly/orZ4Xd

ONE container ship can emit as much pollution as 50 MILLION cars. Maersk Line is trying to change: http://bit.ly/orZ4Xd

World’s freighter fleet puts out 3.5% of global warming emissions -- twice the share of aviation: http://bit.ly/orZ4Xd

.