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'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

.

TODAY: North American "Emission Contol Area" Begins. Cruise Ship Industry Seeks To Undermine New Clean Air Rules They Helped to Create.

Today is a good day. August 1st, 2012, marks the beginning of the North American ECA - the "Emission Control Area" - with new rules that require ships using North American waters to use cleaner fuel and thereby create less harmful pollution.

*** Please sign a petition to protect these rules - HERE  ***

Here is part of the press release from Friends of the Earth.

An Emission Control Area to reduce air pollution from ships in the waters around North America goes into effect today, two years after the International Maritime Organization approved an application from the U.S. and Canada to create this lower pollution zone. The rule’s measures will prevent tons of harmful pollutants from entering the atmosphere from ships’ smokestacks. Many of these air pollutants, like particulates and smog-forming compounds, significantly impact the health of coastal communities and can travel hundreds of miles inland as well. The EPA estimates that implementing the Emission Control Area will prevent between 12,000 and 31,000 premature deaths each year across the U.S. and save billions of dollars in health care costs by 2030.

The promise of cleaner air for tens of millions of Americans comes from the requirement for ships, over a period of time, to burn fuels with lower and lower levels of sulfur, thereby reducing harmful emissions which are known to be carcinogenic, asthma inducing and otherwise harmful to human health. As the FOE press release states, these rules and the conditions for the phase-in of lower sulfur fuels were arrived at over a period of years - 5 years of negotiations at the IMO (International Maritime Organization), in fact - and the shipping industry has been aware of the coming rules and has worked with the EPA to work out contingencies to address conditions that make it difficult for ships to meet these requirements - for example, unavailability of low sulfur fuel, lack of compatibility due to certain engines, age of ship, etc.

There has been some negative reaction to the prospect of the new ECA applying to certain regions, such as Alaska, where some have stated that fuel expenses will increase by 8% if shipping companies are forced to use the cleaner burning fuel, and those additional costs will be passed on to Alaska's consumers in their food prices, goods, etc. The EPA estimates that in 2015, when the full requirements of the ECA will come into force, the more expensive fuel will add "$18 to the cost of shipping a 20-foot container."  I'll leave you to assess whether that is too much of a burden.

However, the industry that is perhaps now doing the most to undermine these new rules, is the cruise ship industry.

Yes, that's right, the cruise ship industry - comprised of many companies that pay very little tax, like Carnival's 1.1% rate - are saying the added cost is unmanageable. They're not saying it so much out loud, but in the backrooms of Washington they're lobbying and arm twisting to try to water down these new life saving rules. Here's what the Friends of the Earth press release says:

Yet even in the face of progress, the cruise industry is working to water down the ECA, lobbying Congress and the Obama administration to put in place measures that would allow it to bypass the ECA’s protective rules. The cruise industry claims that it will have to avoid North American waters if the ECA’s standards go into effect, citing increasing costs due to the switch to less polluting fuel and replacing ship equipment to accommodate that fuel. The industry’s recent efforts include attempts to amend the ECA to exempt cruise ships from the cleaner fuel requirements in less populated areas like Alaska and Hawaii. If the industry’s efforts are successful, it will significantly increase risks for asthma and other air pollution related diseases.  

The press release continues -

 “The shipping industry, including the cruise lines, fully participated in the IMO’s five years of deliberations on the treaty amendments that included the current ECA protections and the adoption of the North American ECA itself,” observed David Marshall, Senior Counsel with the Clean Air Task Force and a participant in those negotiations. “The cruise line industry has had several years to prepare for its requirements, but instead is mounting an 11th hour effort to convince Congress and EPA to adopt proposals that would violate the international treaty that the United Stated has ratified and is bound by.”

To combat these lobbying efforts, Friends of the Earth has started a petition to protect these landmark rules to reduce air pollution from ships. The petition is addressed to EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

You can find the petition HERE.

I urge you to sign this petition so that we can be confident that the full implementation of the new ECA is successful. If it is, it will be yet another step in the direction of cleaning our air and our lungs of the harmful emissions from ships.

We know what is required: Stopping the use of bunker fuel - the ultra dirty diesel that ships currently use that is thousands of time more dirty and harmful than the diesel that trucks use; the implementation and use of technologies such as shore power, that have the potential to eliminate emissions created by ships when they are in port, benefiting nearby vulnerable residential populations, by plugging them in to the electricity grid instead of idling; and, yes, the creation of ECAs, such as this one, that will reduce harmful emissions created by ships using our coastal waters.

Do we need any more reasons?

Here's one more, via this article -  here -  "(The EPA) estimates that by 2020, the overall cost of implementing the rules will be $3.2 billion while monetized health-related benefits in the U.S. could be as high as $110 billion."

Now that's a good deal. 

ED. NOTE (8/6/12): The introduction of the ECA is only part of the solution to the ship pollution problem. The "cleaner" fuel to which I'm referring, even when the most stringent 2015 rules come into effect, will still be nearly 70 times dirtier than the diesel that trucks can legally use. After 2015, there will still be significant emissions produced by ships at sea, and when they idle while in port. The use of these cleaner fuels should not make us feel complacent about the impacts of ship emissions, particularly when they impact dense residential populations. The most effective way to eliminate harmful emissions of ships while in port and protect vulnerable port-side communities from the impact of these emissions is the use of shore power.

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

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?

.

"Tug Boat Parking Lot" at the Atlantic Basin?

Photo: NY Post

Did you hear the news, recently reported in the New York Post (here), that the City was putting out an RFP (Request For Proposal) for an operator to create a "massive parking lot for tugs" inside the Atlantic Basin on Red Hook's waterfront? For those unfamiliar with where and what the Atlantic Basin is, it's the historic "harbor" that lies behind (inland of) the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. This body of water has been designated as the future home for PortSide New York, who's ship, the Mary A. Whalen, will be moored in the basin permanently. PortSide will also occupy part of the Pier 11 shed (currently used by Phoenix Beverages for recycling and garbage), and have the use of 600 feet of Atlantic Basin water frontage. For anyone who attended any of PortSide's excellent programs held last summer, you know what a great addition their permanent presence in the Atlantic basin will be to our neighborhood, and what a great use of this underused "blue space" this promises to be. The Brooklyn Greenway will also run along the basin, connecting more people to this unique yet underused waterfront location, right at the foot of Red Hook's residential streets.

With these proposed future uses in mind, it was of concern to me that the City and the NYCEDC, who play a large hand in the planning of our waterfront, have put out this RFP without acknowledging the fact that bringing tugboats to the Atlantic Basin - up to 15, as the NY Post article states - will also bring more pollution right into the heart of our neighborhood.

My problem with this plan mostly stems from the fact that the City and EDC have had a history of bringing new activities to our waterfront that impact our neighborhood and its residents with harmful pollution, but never seem to seriously concern themselves with meaningfully mitigating the pollution - that is until the residents discover the negative health impacts they are being subjected to and start to voice their concerns. This was certainly the case with the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, where the visiting ships have been continuously idling while in port, spewing their dangerous fumes into our neighborhood's air for the last 6 years, when they could have been plugging in to shore power and eliminating the negative health impacts they have been needlessly imposing on our community, especially our most vulnerable - kids, the elderly, people with lung disease including asthma, minority and low-income communities, etc.

The City's indifference to the negative health impacts that their plans were having on our residents was also apparent when they facilitated the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to our neighborhood where there was some long term plan (taking over 7 years) to reduce the impact of the emissions from the 200 truck trips that Phoenix was bringing to Red Hook, but there was no acknowledgement that this new business would also be bringing more ships, more emissions, more sulfur, particulates, etc., more resultant negative health impacts to our residents, and nothing was being done to address those impacts.

As with the Cruise Terminal, neither the City nor the Port Authority who operate the terminals were required to do an Environmental Impact Study - because of current land use rules, they can basically do what they like.

This is why I have an issue with the tugs. Tugs currently use dirty diesel similar to the stuff that cruise ships and container ships burn. It's high in sulfur and creates particulates and other dangerous substances that are harmful to human health.

Don't just take my word for it.

"Pollution from the diesel-powered tugboats and other port emission sources has caused negative health effects on the surrounding population, including cancer and respiratory illnesses." (article here)

And this from a recent study - (story here)

"Tugs emit nearly a gram of soot per kilogram of fuel burned — twice as much as any other vessel type, the authors found. The high levels point to their low-quality fuel — a thick, black tar left over from crude oil after the gasoline and kerosene have been removed. Engine age and maintenance also play a role.

Tugboats have a disproportionate impact on air quality because they travel within ports, emitting potentially harmful particles near populous urban areas, according to the authors.

“Tugboats are a huge source of black carbon that may be under-reported or not reported at all in emissions inventories compiled by ports,” said Lack."

These are reasons to be concerned about the introduction of these new sources of pollution into the heart of our neighborhood where residents are already bearing the burden of pollution from other sources in the port and elsewhere.

If the City really wants to bring tugs to the Atlantic Basin, why wouldn't they use the opportunity to set an example for "green" practices, by requiring the use of ultra low sulphur fuel by the tugs that would be using this location - a location that is tucked into a dense residential population? Why couldn't the city put out an RFP for a "hybrid tug" operator using the clean green vessels like those that are being put to use in California and elsewhere (story here). Why wouldn't the city use this opportunity to give substance to some of the environmentally friendly rhetoric about "greening the ports" that emanates from the Mayor's office?

It's certainly the case that over the next 5 years or so, tugs and other vessels will have to use cleaner diesel in US coastal waters, including within our ports, due to regulations coming from the IMO (International Maritime Organization). These new rules are being implemented in response to the real negative health effects that ship pollution is having on our population - both on the coast and inland - including cancers, asthma, heart and lung disease, premature mortality and more.

However, when shipping switches to this new, cleaner fuel, it will reduce - not eliminate - these harmful emissions, so in areas where shipping and dense populations operate in close proximity, as in portside communities such as Red Hook, it's important that port and shipping practices are made as clean as possible. That's been the case in California, where the two largest ports in the country - the Ports of LA and Long Beach - abut dense populations, and as a result the operation of those ports involve the cleanest possible practices - cold ironing (the use of shore power), clean electric cranes and port machinery, a robust clean truck program and more. In California, when the agencies and representatives in government, spurred on by activism in the community, started to address the issue of port pollution in the early 2000s, they decided that where dense populations were impacted by the ports' close proximity, the response must be as robust as possible. Nearly a decade later, those ports and their surrounding populations have been reaping the benefits - in their environment and health. These strategies have the added benefit of reducing the ports' (and our country's) reliance on oil and significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This should also be the case in Red Hook, not to mention the entire Ports of New York and New Jersey, which are the 3rd largest in the country.

In New York, as on the West Coast, shipping business is growing. Where there is more shipping, there is more pollution, so it's important that our dense portside populations are not impacted unfairly by this pollution and it's important that, going forward, the best possible practices are pursued at the ports in our city, and with the ships that visit them, so as to offset this increased impact.

That's my point about the tug boats presence in the Atlantic Basin. Why should we accept more unmitigated pollution, courtesy of the tugs - especially when we already have unresolved issues with cruise ships, container ships, trucks and more? Why shouldn't we expect that the City and the EDC sort out their previous mess before bringing more problems to resolve? Why should anything that the City brings to our neighborhood add to our residents' pollution burden?

That's just going backwards.

Yes, the Atlantic Basin should be re-activated. Yes, the activities of PortSide New York are a great example of what can be done in this unique "Blue Space". Yes, there is a place for commercial vessels, and tie ups - ferries, charter boats, etc. - and, hey, whatever happened to the plan for the Governors Island Ferry in the Atlantic Basin?

But to create a "massive tugboat parking lot"? To inject more pollution into our neighborhood's air from what is known to be a significant contributor to port pollution - i.e. tugboats - without having a plan to mitigate it? That is unacceptable.

Just as we're getting something done with cruise ship pollution with the seemingly imminent, but long fought plan to get them to "plug in" to shore power, why should our residents be asked to accept the same sort of dangerous unmitigated pollution from a different source?

It just isn't right.

PortSide New York at the Atlantic Basin