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

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.

.

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

.

Port Authority's Press Release on Brooklyn Cruise Terminal Shore Power Plan

 I thought I'd post the Port Authority's press release regarding the approval of the shore power plan for the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. It seems like the situation with the shortfall in funds  - the sticking point in making this plan a reality - was resolved by the Empire State Development Corporation, which shifted some funds from the New York ports dredging commitment to the shore power plan.

The press release also states that Governor Cuomo had a hand in making this all work, and if that means that he is aware of the importance of investment in this sort of life-saving and environmentaly friendly technology to our city, its ports and our residents, that's a very good thing.

Given the Port Authority's initial reluctance to make up the shortfall in getting the shore power plan up and running, it was pleasing to read Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye's statement saying that “The return on our investment in this project will be measured in the tons of toxins removed from the environment, cleaner air and better health for Brooklyn residents who live in the neighborhoods near the terminal.”

He goes further, stating, "The Port Authority has a long-standing and unwavering commitment to safeguarding the environment in the communities that host our facilities and across the bi-state region we serve."

Well, in reality, the Port Authority has been pretty slow in acknowledging the negative environmental and health impacts that the activities of the ports have our city's residents - especially our most vulnerable. In one of the meetings that I attended, convened by the City Council's Committee on Waterfronts, under the heading "Greening New York City's Working Waterfront", the Port Authority spokesperson, Richard Larrabee, went out of his way to understate and minimize the pollution impacts that the activities of our city's ports create. In my post covering that meeting, (here), and in testimony I made to that committee, I tried to set the record straight. Here's what I stated -

"The facts are, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (via this article from John Kaltenstein, Friends of the Earth) the yearly operations of the Ports of NY and NJ (Ed Note - i.e. the ships visiting the ports) create as much pollution as 7.8 million cars. That's 7,000+ tons of NOx (nitrogen oxides), nearly 5,000 tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide) and 600 tons of Particulate Mater (PM)."

"Ships create 91% of the SO2, 47% of the NOx, and 62% of the particulates the operations of the port produces - that's information from the Port Authority. Trucks that service the ports also contribute significant percentages of these substances, with 25% of the NOx, 12% of PM and 37% of CO2."

It was clear, at that time, that the Port Authority was hardly coming clean on this stuff. My point was that until the Port Authority acknowledged the contribution that the activities of their ports had in creating this dangerous pollution, how could they ever meaningfully address it?

And they have been slow to do anything in the way of shore power - Brooklyn will be the first - and even in getting a comprehensive "clean truck" program up and running, we're dawdling. The truth is that this city and its agencies are way behind their West Coast counterparts on "green port" matters.

Even regarding this shore power plan for the cruise ships visiting the Brooklyn Terminal, when the Port Authority came to our community in 2009 and told us that they were going to get this plan up and running - after years of community activism calling for this life saving technology to be used at the new "state of the art" terminal in Red Hook - the PA spokesperson, when asked, said that he'd only know about shore power for "a couple of years". Now, this is a technology that has been used by the US Navy for over 50 years, has been increasingly implemented on the West Coast after its first use more than a decade ago, and has been available in many other countries around the world. For someone representing an entity called the Port Authority to make this statement was astounding to me.

Anyway - all of that history aside - these statements from Mr. Foye are pleasing and seem to show increased acknowledgement of the impacts of port pollution on our residents and of the Port Authority's responsibility to address and reduce those negative health impacts. As I've said many times, this Brooklyn plan should be the first step in implementing this type of life saving technology throughout our ports. We have the 3rd largest port complex in the country, outside of Long Beach and Los Angeles. In those West Coast ports, much has been done with these technologies, with all types of ships - cruise, container, etc. They've seen the value in it. The Mayor of Long Beach, Bob Foster, stated that plugging a large container ship in to shore-power "takes enough pollution out of the air to equal 33,000 cars”. That's a huge reduction in carcinogenic and asthma inducing emissions, not to mention green house gases.

So, there's still lots to be done here, in New York.

Perhaps the recent statements from the Port Authority acknowledge that.

If so, hopefully the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal will be the first of many, similar shore power berths around our city.

One thing's for sure - this is a good start.

Here is the Port Authority press release -

 June 28, 2012

PORT AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH INSTALLATION OF SHORE POWER TECHNOLOGY AT BROOKLYN CRUISE TERMINAL

Board authorizes funds to pay unique first-of-its-kind environmental project

Construction of the East Coast’s first shore power port facility will move forward toward a 2014 completion following today’s action by the Port Authority’s Board of Commissioners. The project will create 30 jobs and result in $22 million in economic activity.

At its monthly meeting, the Board authorized additional funds provided by the Empire State Development Corporation needed to complete the $19.3 million shore power port facility. The project will allow cruise ships serving the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal to plug in to a more environmentally friendly electrical landside power source rather than operating on their diesel generated power while at the dock.

“The cruise industry is a vital contributor to the region’s economy, and today’s action will ensure it continues to drive job growth and economic activity,” said Port Authority Vice Chairman Scott Rechler. “Today’s action makes good economic sense, is good for the environment and will help make the port more competitive.”

“The Port Authority has a long-standing and unwavering commitment to safeguarding the environment in the communities that host our facilities and across the bi-state region we serve,” said Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye. “I want to thank Governor Cuomo for his leadership on this issue, which will create jobs and sustain the long term viability of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The return on our investment in this project will be measured in the tons of toxins removed from the environment, cleaner air and better health for Brooklyn residents who live in the neighborhoods near the terminal.”

“Shore Power will help Brooklyn breath a little easier while maintaining the competitiveness of one of its greatest assets, the working waterfront,” said Kenneth Adams, President & CEO, Empire State Development. “Under Governor Cuomo’s leadership, we look forward to continuing to work with our partners at the Port Authority to strengthen the economy of the harbor while ensuring a cleaner environment.”

“Shore powers means Brooklyn will be able to breathe a little easier. The implementation of our agreement gets us closer to ending the dirty and dangerous fumes spewed by idling cruise ships at the Red Hook port - and that’s good news for Brooklynites and for our environment,” said Senator Daniel Squadron. “Thank you to the Port Authority, Empire State Development and all of our colleagues and partners who made today’s great news possible.”

Ships serving the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal are typically in port for up to 11 hours loading and unloading passengers and supplies. While docked, the ship’s power is supplied by auxiliary engines on board the vessel, which are typically powered by high sulfur diesel fuel. The use of shore power will allow two ships calling on the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - Queen Mary 2, and Caribbean Princess - to connect to an electrical grid on the dock and turn off their engines. The environmental benefits include an annual reduction of 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 95 tons of nitrous oxide, and 6.5 tons of particulate matter.

Funding for the project includes $12.1 million from the Port Authority, a $2.9 million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On Tuesday, the Empire State Development Corporation voted to allocate $4.3 million from the Port Authority’s Bistate Dredging commitment to New York State to the shore power project. In addition, Princess and Cunard will spend up to $4 million to retrofit its ships. The New York Power Authority will supply electricity to the cruise lines at a fixed and discounted rate for a period of five years, which is valued at roughly $2 million per year.

The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is owned by the Port Authority and managed by the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

CONTACT: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Steve Coleman, 212 435-7777

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.

.

Port Authority's Shore Power Question: Is It Worth Spending $4M to Save Brooklyn Residents $9M Per Year in Health Costs?

Photo: Joshua Kristal, South Brooklyn Post

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey acts in mysterious ways. I found that out a few years back when I attended a Port Authority Board Meeting that was deliberating the expansion of the Red Hook Container Terminal and the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to the Brooklyn waterfront. Phoenix were being given use of Pier 11 on the Atlantic Basin as well as Pier 7 at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue. The meeting called for public comment, but, as the meeting progressed, I realized that my comments and those of others in our community - many who wished to express their worries about pollution, congestion, and the exclusion of meaningful public access - would only be allowed after the board had already made its decision. After the gavel had come down. Literally (my post here). It was weird, to say the least, and obviously frustrating considering the matter on which they were supposedly "deliberating" was one that involved publicly owned land (as is the case with all Port Authority controlled land), and considering the PA itself is a public entity.

Since then I've realized that the Port Authority has also been willing to throw sand in the gears of many proposed people-friendly improvements to the use of Red Hook's waterfront. In 2009, when PortSide New York and the New York Economic Development Corporation facilitated the visit of tens of historic "Dutch Flat Bottomed Boats" to our neighborhood, creating a mass mooring in the Atlantic Basin and providing a great event for the visiting vessels as well as for our community, my family and I walked to the end of Pioneer Street, through to the gates in the mesh fence to Pier 11, where the the continuing road meets the water, and we joined the hundreds of people who jumped at the opportunity to visit this "blue space", the historic Atlantic Basin - the protected harbor that is nestled behind the cruise terminal - which is an underutilized neighborhood treasure (my post here). After talking to a few of the Dutch captains, however, it was clear that the Port Authority had been quite an obstacle in the planning of this unique gathering. One captain described arduous red tape, the changing requirements and conditions to be met that almost scuttled the whole event. No wonder we haven't seen anything like it since. Not only that, we've seen PortSide and its vessel, the Mary A. Whalen, being thrown out of their promised home on the Atlantic Basin and Pier 11, with the Port Authority hardly being helpful with accommodating them temporarily, or allowing them the opportunity to raise funds to remain operational. It's hard to get people interested in your venture when your ship is only accessible to Port Authority authorized personnel, on Port Authority restricted property, and only 5 at a time! A Port Authority spokesperson actually compared PortSide's presence at the Red Hook piers to "having a gypsy camp at Terminal 2 at JFK Airport " - nice!

And then there's the plan to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal.

Under the leadership of Chris Ward, the Port Authority had committed funds to create the infrastructure required to allow for this life saving practice to become operational at the Red Hook terminal. Mr. Ward, in testimony given to the Public Service Commission, cited a study that prompted this statement: "We estimate that the annual health benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT, adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million" (full statement here, my post here). In other words, as things are right now, the annual monetized health cost to Brooklyn residents of these cruise ships is estimated to be $9 million. There were many similar statements from supporters of this plan, all calling attention to the environmental and health benefits it would bring. However, there were a lot of pieces that needed to fall into place to make this happen, and, finally, this time last year the announcement was made that the deal was done - with the participation of, and commitment from the Port Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, the NYCEDC, the New York Power Authority, Carnival Cruises and the support of every representative of our community - shore power would be coming to Brooklyn in 2012.

And since then we've been waiting.

What's the hold up? Well, after a while, hearing no news and seeing no physical evidence of anything happening at the terminal, I started getting a little nervous. I asked someone who was close to one of our 'electeds' if we had anything to worry about. That person's take was that the deal was secure - unless there was a change in leadership at the Port Authority. And then, in October last year, Chris Ward left the Port Authority.

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.

Our representatives in government agree, and many of them, according to recent articles in the Brooklyn Eagle, and the Daily News, have written to the Port Authority urging them to make good on their commitment to see this plan through to completion. Those representatives include Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, Borough President Marty Markowitz, State Senator Daniel Squadron, Assemblywoman Joan Millman, Council members Brad Lander and Sara Gonzalez.

They all agree - the Port Authority should get this done.

The sad fact is this plan in Brooklyn should only be the first, small (easy!) step in implementing the use of shore power throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey, to be used by all kinds of ships - cruise and container. Our ports are the 3rd largest in the country and are laggards in matters of emissions reduction compared to our West Coast counterparts. In John Kaltenstein's 2010 article, "The Big Apple's Big Shipping Problem", he writes that creating a port-wide shore power program in New York would be like "taking the equivalent of 7.8 million cars off the streets", according to the Environmental Defense Fund, and "ridding the air of 7,200 metric tonnes of nitrogen oxide, 570 metric tonnes of fine particulate matter, and 4,600 metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide", according to the EPA's 2002 numbers. (These are the very substances that are threatening the health of our residents, and have been recently found to be more harmful than previously thought - stories here and here.)

In these matters, the Port Authority is truly dawdling.

And concerning in the plan in Brooklyn, which has been described as a "no-brainer", do they really need more convincing?

Benefits of Shore Power:

• Ships stop idling in port - you know, "Idle-Free NYC"?
  
• No more burning of extra-dirty bunker fuel, creating carcinogenic emissions right next to dense residential populations
• Huge reduction or elimination* of dangerous SOx, NOx and Particulates
• Huge reduction or elimination* of greenhouse gasses, including CO2
• Huge reduction or elimination* of soot or "black carbon"
  
• Health burden lifted from vulnerable residents, especially kids with asthma, the elderly, low-income and minority communities near ports
• Reduction of cancer, lung disease, heart disease, premature death, etc.
  
• Cruise operators contribute to local economy by purchasing electricity from local, domestic suppliers, rather than dirty fuel from multinational oil companies
• Reduction of noise and vibration on board ship (relief for ship workers)
• As cruise ship visits increase in number, as is predicted by the Port Authority and the NYCEDC, the pollution will not increase, thereby making the investment even more beneficial
  

* These substances will be eliminated if the electricity is supplied by "green" sources. In the case of the Brooklyn plan, the power would be supplied by the NY Power Authority which generates a significant proportion of its electricity from Niagara Falls hydroelectric - emissions free!



So - c'mon Port Authority. Make good on your commitment. Keep your promise to our community. Let's finally make the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal idle-free.

.

On the Red Hook Waterfront: The Cost of Bananas

The Red Hook Star Review had the scoop on January 17th, with WNYC catching up a few days later in an article on their blog, and the New York Times eventually covering the issue a week later. What was the story? The proposal from the U.S. Customs office to end inspections at the Red Hook Container Terminal. The office stated, in the WNYC article, "the changes were intended to consolidate operations and save on federal spending." The article went on to state that the decision was made as the result of recommendations "from a working group, which included trade stakeholders, that was tasked by the federal government to find ways to improve productivity."

Christine Haughney's New York Times article (here) expanded:

Officials from Customs and Border Protection said they spent more than a year considering whether to close operations at Red Hook. In a letter to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey dated Dec. 5, a customs official, Adele Fasano, stressed that the amount of cargo was “a relatively small percentage of the international cargo entering the Port of New York/Newark.” The Red Hook Container Terminal handles about 1 percent of the containers coming into the Port of New York and New Jersey, or about 110,000 containers, each year. The other container ports combined process about three million containers each year.

Stating that in 2011 only 6% of containers were inspected at the Red Hook terminal, "Anthony Bucci, a customs spokesman, said officials concluded that consolidating operations would “provide more expeditious processing of containers requiring examination.”"

The response from shippers and supporters of the Red Hook terminal was that goods arriving in Brooklyn that required inspection would now have to be trucked to Staten Island or New Jersey, adding extra truck trips, increasing costs and inflating the prices of those products - possibly resulting in the shippers saying, ‘Why bother with Red Hook?’. This was the response from Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a long time supporter of the expansion of shipping in Brooklyn, and others, which was enough to postpone the date to stop inspections - originally slated to be January 9th. The customs inspections would continue for another 90 days, as Michael J. Yeager, an assistant commissioner with the Office of Congressional Affairs at Customs and Border Protection stated in a letter to representatives in government, in order to provide further time “to review the concerns presented, and determine the best approach.”

There are many issues that this kerfuffle raises. Among them is the question of the continuing long-term viability of a port that is small (processing 1% of the 3 million containers that arrive in all of our city's ports), historically inefficient and having no connection to rail, thereby totally reliant on truck transportation, and - not least - polluting, with no shore power infrastructure at the container terminal. Last year, the departing head of the Port Authority, Chris Ward, said (here),

“Red Hook is the wrong location.” Container shipping there, he said, is both inefficient from a transportation perspective and standing in the way of the city’s other plans for the waterfront, including the eventual development of the southern portion of Governor’s Island.

Rep. Nadler and Chris Ward have both supported a plan that would eventually move the container terminal to a larger site in Sunset Park, where Rep. Nadler has said the containers could be loaded onto a newly built cross-harbor freight rail service that would take trucks off the road and, he asserts, finally make a Brooklyn port economically and environmentally viable.

But we'll be waiting a while for that to eventuate.

Another shorter term issue concerns jobs. What impact would the U.S. Customs Office decision have on jobs? Would it precipitate the ceasing of all operations at the Red Hook location? This is a terminal that has just seen a change in operators, with the ousting of American Stevedoring in October last year (story here), and the reclaiming of operations of this publicly owned site by the Port Authority. With this uncertainty as a backdrop, there has been the question of whether the extra expense that the off-site customs inspections would induce would be prohibitive, forcing shipping companies to take their business elsewhere. The jobs on the waterfront, some fear, would then evaporate or move elsewhere, damaging Red Hook's local economy.

But what are these extra costs that would force these businesses to flee Brooklyn?

Well, first, what is coming in to the Red Hook terminal? By the description in the New York Times article, it's mainly beer (via Phoenix Beverages, who seem to have also taken over the stevedoring operations at the port since the eviction of American Stevedoring) and, yes, bananas.

According to the NY Times article titled, "In a Plan to Close a Customs Post, Seeing Harm for Beer, Bananas and a Port Itself", the additional cost of the off-site inspections, if passed on to the consumer, could be an additional 6 cents to a bottle of beer, and an additional "couple of cents" to a pound of bananas.

Is this additional cost prohibitive? Is it one that the consumer would or could not bear?

That was a similar question to the one that was being asked nearly a decade ago on the West Coast when there was a push by government and activists to require ships to plug in to shore power, as opposed to idling while in port, so that the ships could stop polluting the air of portside communities suffering from asthma, lung disease, cancer and more, as a result of the ships' extra-dirty diesel emissions. What were the costs to the consumer of these of these additional expenses, if they were "passed on" in the price of the products being received in those ports? Well, it turned out that the additional costs amounted to a few cents increase in the price of a pair of sneakers, or a dollar or two increase in the price of an appliance. As the Mayor of Long Beach, Bob Foster, famously said in support of these practices (as noted on the side-bar of this blog) - "We’re not going to have kids in Long Beach contract asthma so someone in Kansas can get a cheaper television set.”

The cost vs. benefits argument has very little cache in Long Beach where, since 2006, they have seen a reduction in harmful emissions from ships, as well as trucks and other port related machinery, by huge percentages (up to 70%), bringing resultant environmental and health benefits to their port side communities, while economically prospering.

Which brings me back to the bananas.

While we're worrying about what price impact the revised customs practices will have on our goods and produce, the bananas that come into the Red Hook port are already carrying an extra hidden cost. It's the cost of having a huge ship idling at the edge of our dense residential community - and that's not all.

Despite the plan to plug cruise ships in to shore power at the edge of our neighborhood, bringing all the benefits that have been discussed over and over again in this blog, there is no such plan to do the same thing with the container ships. At one time, after the impacts of ship emissions were finally being given some much needed attention in our neighborhood, American Stevedoring promised that they were going to pursue such a plan at the container port. At the time, I said I wasn't going to "hold my breath", and good thing too. It never happened. And with the departure of American Stevedoring from the Red Hook piers, there's not much hope of holding anyone to that commitment.

So, when you're driving along Hamilton Avenue, or along Van Brunt Street, and you see a big container ship docked at the Red Hook piers, know that it is idling, burning bunker fuel (see my previous post). Constantly emitting all of the harmful substances that we fought so hard to have eliminated from the cruise ships as a result of the deal that should soon bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal.

That was the case on Tuesday, when for 24 hours the Ecuadorian Line's refrigerated cargo ship, Hood Island, was idling, belching black smoke, at the end of our residential neighborhood. (see photo at the top of this post)

What were they unloading? Bananas!

A quick check on the website "Shipping Efficiency", showed that this vessel's environmental ranking was an unimpressive "E". Who was paying for the added cost of this dirty ship's emissions to our residents? The fact is, the ship was being allowed to pollute our air, presumably in the name of economic viability - for the port, as well as the shipping company and the producers of the bananas.
The owners of "Ecuadorian Line" are listed as Grupo Noboa, Inc. Again, some more digging revealed that Grupo Noboa also own the Ecuadorian banana producing giant, "Bonita".

OK, so the company that was shipping the bananas was growing them as well. And who was the owner of this "Grupo Noboa"?

Oh! This guy. (here) Álvaro Noboa.
Photo:Wikipedia

He's the richest man in Ecuador, a politician who has run for president multiple times, who, if you believe his own web site (here) is "The Philanthropist", a "successful businessman who is passionate about arts" - "a social and cultural awareness businessman" - "Alvaro Noboa encourages the awareness of how important nutrition is." "Álvaro Noboa gave a wheelchair to Katherine Valdez."

If you don't only look at his own web site, you'll discover he's the man who in 2002 ordered a bloody crack down on banana workers attempting to organize through unionization. According to USLEAP (US Labor Relations in the Americas Project),

"hundreds of thugs and security guards, arrived at the (Los Alimos) plantations and began to violently evict the striking workers. A second attack took place later in the afternoon. Up to two dozen workers were injured in the attacks, some seriously by gunfire. One worker later had his leg amputated due to the shootings. Noboa later personally admitted to having hired the thugs."

USLEAP also states, "In 2011, Bonita responded to a new organizing campaign at the Alamos plantations with another anti-union campaign."

He (and his company) has also been accused of breaching child labor laws and other nefarious activities.

The 2002 article, "Blood on the Bananas", by David Bacon, outlines the dirty business that is the Ecuadorian banana industry, noting the use of child labor, exposing children as young as 12 to pesticides banned by the EPA in the US.

Apparently, over recent years things have improved in the Ecuadorian banana industry, but at a time when we're all trying to make sure, for example, that we're not enjoying the technological experience that Apple products allow us, at the expense of Chinese workers who are being exploited and abused, it's also important to know what the real cost of a banana is - right?

We need to pay attention not only to the plight of the Ecuadorian workers who are growing and harvesting the bananas, but to the environment and populations that are being harmed in the bananas' transportation.

Certainly, shipping is the most efficient way to get bananas from Ecuador to New York, but once the ship is here, should it be idling and belching carcinogenic and asthma inducing smoke over our residents. Should the ships, whether at sea or at port, be allowed to burn the dirtiest diesel on the planet - bunker fuel - when there are other cleaner options?

Sometimes arguments are made, as is the case with the revised customs inspections, that any additional cost will cripple an industry, or make it nonviable. Maybe there is an argument to make, in the case of the plan to move customs inspections off-site in Red Hook, that this is not a good plan - maybe the anticipated added truck trips are an undesirable burden - maybe the whole operation of the port needs to be revisited. But to say that it's the added cost of the U.S. Customs plan that's going to "break the camel's back" and drive business away - the added few cents that, if passed on, will surely deter consumers from drinking beer or eating bananas - that's a bit hard to swallow.

Arguments about "extra costs" fall flat when we look at the costs that are already being born by others. Whether it's through the cost to our health of allowing ships to idle, burning dirty diesel with emissions equivalent to tens of thousands of cars at the edge of residential neighborhoods, or whether it's the cost to vulnerable banana workers, a half a hemisphere away, who have been abused and exploited by their billionaire employers (who may also be operating the dirty ships that transport their produce), there is already a price being paid.

If we think that these costs are being born unfairly by others, then a choice needs to be made.

Who should pay?

.