City Postpones "Shore Power" Resolution Hearing - Carnival Breaks Records - Residents Left Waiting ...... and Continuing To Pay With Their Health

Photo by Joshua Kristal (edited), South Brooklyn Post

As I noted in the updates to my previous post, the City's Committee on Waterfronts has postponed its hearing on the resolution (here) urging the Public Service Commission to establish a new rate of electricity that would allow the use of shore power for the ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. The new date for the hearing is tentatively set for 1pm., March 8th, at the same location - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor. Open to the public.

While we're waiting - yet again - for further action to be taken on this long awaited plan, I think it's helpful to reflect on a couple of pieces of news that are pertinent to this issue.

I'm pleased to see that the "South Brooklyn Post" is continuing to do a great job of covering the story of the stalled process that is holding up the implementation of the shore power plan in Red Hook. After covering the story of cruise ship pollution when the rest of the city's media was AWOL, and after covering the protest that was held in January that urged the breaking of the impasse that was holding this plan up, this week they did a follow up to their initial story, which was published in November, that went into further detail about the conflict. The most recent article, "Big Money Ignores Brooklyn Air" by Lisa M. Collins, basically asks this question: If Carnival are doing so well right now - making huge profits ($11.3 Billion over the last 5 years, $2 Billion in 2010) while paying very little in tax (1.1%, in fact) - why is it such an imposition to ask them to pay a little more, a tiny percentage of their Queen Mary 2 sized profits, to pay for the ongoing costs of using clean, green-house gas reducing electricity while in port, instead of idling their engines and using the dirtiest form of diesel on the planet, the burning of which spews carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances into our city's air, and into our kids' lungs?

This article clearly puts at least some of the onus for the resolution of the shore power stalemate on the shoulders of the cruise operators, Carnival.

And it's only fair.

You know, for the most part, in my writing on this blog, I've tried not to demonize the cruise ships, their operators and billionaire owners. In full disclosure, I've worked on cruise ships in the past as a musician, I've taken a cruise with my family, I've enjoyed the cruising experience on the whole and haven't had any particular animosity towards them. When the cruise terminal opened at the end of my young family's residential street, I, like most of my neighbors, wasn't against it. We all thought it could bring a little more vitality to our waterfront and our neighborhood. However, after that "vitality" never materialized, greatly due to the expedient and shoddy planning of the terminal and its site (without shore power), and since finding out more about the harmful emissions from the visiting ships and generally about the cruise industry and their practices - particularly their patchy environmental record - I've obviously become more ambivalent about it.

Still, the reality is that recently many of the cruise ship operators have been trying to clean up their environmental act - at least a little. (See Friends of the Earth's 2010 "Cruise Report Card" here). For example, some have been reducing or eliminating practices like the disposal of rubbish and waste (including sewerage) at sea. To their credit, Carnival and others are converting some of their ships to accept shore power, as is the case with a number of the Carnival ships that are based on the West Coast, so that they can eliminate the practice of idling in port. Unfortunately, none of the cruise lines, as far as I can see, are volunteering to switch to the use of cleaner low-sulfur fuel while out at sea, but the ships that cruise in the continental waters of the US and Canada will ultimately be required to burn cleaner fuel in those waters, due to the future implementation of the North American Emissions Control Area.

I get it. They're a business. They're just trying to make money, and according to the City of New York, the cruise industry is bringing money to the city and benefiting us all.

But, really, in an environment where the cruise operators are doing so well, and where there is clearly the ability on their part to pay a fair portion of the cost of using shore power, why are Carnival being so recalcitrant?

How well are Carnival doing? Well, apart from the facts about their profits (and miniscule taxes) that are noted above and in this NY Times article (here), there is this recent article in USA Today (here) that notes this staggering, record-breaking information -

Carnival Cruise Lines said it set a one-week reservations record, booking 165,308 customers between Feb. 7-13, eclipsing its previous one-week reservations record set nearly four years ago.

The line said bookings were at "unprecedented levels" across its fleet.

It's good times for Carnival. But, while many of the parties involved in this deal to "plug in" the cruise ships at Brooklyn seem to be making some concessions to "get it done", Carnival hardly seems to be coming to the party.

The New York City Economic Development Corporation, the City agency that built the new cruise terminal and brought the polluting ships to our neighborhood, has been trying to strike a deal with the New York Power Authority to subsidize the rate of electricity supplied to the ships to make the practice more economically viable. The Port Authority has allocated $12 Million for the building of the shore power infrastructure. The EPA, through its Diesel Emissions Reduction (DERA) program, has granted nearly $3 Million for the same. (Side note: Worryingly, for proponents of cleaner ports and those wanting to reduce the health burden of port pollution on our most vulnerable, DERA was given no mention in the recently released US budget proposal). Our legislators are pushing for an end to the "idling ships and idling negotiations", as they said at the recent protest, and with the NY City Council Shore Power resolution, they are urging the Public Service Commission to establish a new "shore power tariff" to allow the cruise ships, in the long term, to "plug in" without economic disincentive.

A lot is being offered.

So far, Carnival's only commitment has been to retrofit their ships to accept shore power, at a cost of $1 - 2 Million per ship. That sounds like a decent offer on the surface, but aren't Carnival getting off pretty easily? They've already done many of these conversions on their other ships, and isn't it likely that they'd have to do this with them all anyway because many ports, including some on the West Coast, are making it mandatory to for cruise ships to plug in while in port. Also, as I've mentioned before, there is the coming regulation that would force ships of all types to use cleaner, more expensive diesel in US waters, so the cost differential for using shore power will eventually be far less - a further incentive for its broad use. Additionally, as our cities and nation as a whole tries to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and with the EPA playing a role in regulating these emissions, (despite push-back in the Republican House), the use of shore power will, no doubt, be an obvious and effective method being encouraged to reduce these significant emissions from all types of ships while in port, while reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

My point is, given these factors, and with all of this news about Carnival and the cruise industry as a whole doing so well, why shouldn't we expect them to do their bit to get this shore power deal done - soon?

It's troubling enough to know that Carnival, like many cruise lines, is using every loophole they can to minimize their taxes and reduce their operating costs - like being registered in Panama, or not having to comply with US labor laws - while benefiting greatly from the tax payer-funded services and infrastructure of the cities they visit, like New York. It's hard enough to hear Carnival cry "poor" and unable to pay for shore power when they're operating luxury cruise ships like the Queen Mary 2 and doing business at a record breaking, "unprecedented" pace - in a recession!

While they're getting away with all of that, isn't it at least fair to ask them to give back a little to the communities that they call their neighbors?

What's at stake here isn't just Carnival's bottom line. It's the health of the residents of the communities in which they operate. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, when I criticized the callousness of the way Con Edison and the Public Service Commission were weighing up the "cost" and "fairness" of establishing a shore power rate, this isn't just about money.

You can certainly count the costs of the extra pollution that the ships are bringing in monetary terms. The Port Authority did this in their recent testimony to the Public Service Commission, stating that the avoidable cruise ship pollution was costing Brooklyn residents an estimated $9 Million per year in monetized health costs.

But it's not just about the money.

It's about the boy on our block, a friend of my 7 year old son, who is suffering from increasingly regular bouts of asthma, often ending in a visit to the emergency room.

It's about the three kids in the Red Hook Houses that died from asthma attacks just last year.

It's about the two women on our block, and more in our community, who have recently developed cancers.

It's about the 40% childhood asthma rate, and cancer clusters that occur in our neighborhoods.

Can Carnival - and the others who are dragging their feet - tell these people that the ship emissions are playing no role in these negative health outcomes? Can Carnival tell our residents that they are doing their business and earning their massive profits at no cost to their neighbors - our community, our residents, particularly our most vulnerable?

At a time when there's a lot of talk about shared sacrifice, I think it's clear that our community has done its fair share. We've been bearing the burden of the many hundreds of tons of new pollution that has been emanating from the ships since they started calling Red Hook home in 2006, all in the name of "economic development".

Now it's time for those, like Carnival, who are benefiting from this economic development and are doing very well, to do their bit to make sure our residents don't have to carry this cost any more - in their health or otherwise.

It's Carnival's turn - even if it means taking a small hit to their ever-growing profits.

.

Council of the City of New York To Hold Hearing on Shore Power Resolution, while Con Edison asks, "Who Should Pay?" (NEW UPDATE - HEARING POSTPONED!)

UPDATE (2/14/11): HEARING POSTPONED - TENTATIVELY RESCHEDULED FOR MARCH 8TH.

UPDATE: An article in the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance's excellent on-line publication, "Waterwire", titled, "CITY COUNCIL ADDS TO CLAMOR CALLING FOR ELECTRICAL SHORE POWER IN BROOKLYN" (story here), notes that the City Council's Committee on Waterfronts hearing on the shore power resolution is open to the public.

Details: Thursday, February 17, 1pm, 250 Broadway, 16th Floor.
............
In my last post, I wrote about the squabbling that continues to stall the plan to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

This squabbling centers around the debate about who should pay for the added cost of powering the ships by using shore generated electricity compared to the cost of burning the cheapest and dirtiest form of diesel (bunker fuel) to idle their engines while in port, as the cruise ships (and every other cruise and container ship visiting the Ports of NY and NJ) currently do.

There are those that think that Carnival, the operators of the cruise ships, who are making huge profits (while paying very little tax), should just "cough up" and pay the added cost of using electricity. It's been asserted that this is only fair because there is coming regulation that will eventually create an Emissions Control Area (ECA) around the continental waters of the US and Canada that would stipulate that ships had to use a cleaner form of diesel in those waters, and therefore while idling in port. This fuel will be more expensive, and so the difference between paying current rates of electricity, as supplied by Con Ed in Brooklyn's case, and using the cleaner, more expensive fuel would be negligible, according to many - including a commenter on my last post. So the argument is, the ships should pay for the clean, green-house gas and harmful emissions reducing electricity now, because they'll just have to use the more expensive fuel in the future.

The alternate argument is that Con Ed should supply a cheaper rate of electricity so as not to create an economic deterrent to the ships' operators for the use of shore power. This is a strategy that cities on the West Coast have taken to incentivize the use of shore power with all types of ships in many of their ports, including ones that Carnival cruise ships use now.

Con Edison has not been willing, so far, to go along with this idea. This is why there has been this drawn out process at the Public Service Commission regarding a case that has been requesting the creation of a special "tariff", or rate of supply of electricity, which would specifically address the requirements of the cruise ships. The argument has been that the ships would be creating new business for Con Ed, business that they would not otherwise have, and that the unique needs of the ships - i.e., plugging in for short periods (12 or so hours at a time), and their ability to generate their own power if there was any interruption of shore power supply, etc. - warrants the creation of a special reduced rate tariff.

There have been many supporting this idea.

In their original testimony to the Public Service Commission, the EPA made important statements about the harmful health impacts of ship emissions (see them on the side bar of this blog), and made these further points supporting the establishment of a "shore power tariff" -

• e. Implementation of a shore power tariff is consistent with economic development in New York City.
• f. Implementation of an appropriate Shore Power Tariff in New York City would provide an impetus for ship owners to invest in ship-side Shore Power equipment and for widespread use of this technology in other ports on the East Coast.
• g. None of the Company's tariff's accurately account for the unique service characteristics of ships that dock in New York City.

There have been others making similar points - from the Port Authority to many of our elected officials - some who have made their argument in written testimony to the Public Service Commission in support of the establishment of the new tariff.

However, the Public Service Commission - over a year after hearing these arguments - has yet to act, and in a statement made by their staff, quoted in a recent NY Times "Questions About New York" column by Michael Pollock (here), the PSC claims that "the way Con Edison’s delivery rates are currently structured posed “neither a barrier to, nor an unwarranted incentive for” the kind of electrical facilities shore-based power would need."

Not exactly encouraging.

In that column, in a section that deals with a question about the stalled shore power plan, there is also a quote from Con Edison that explains their recalcitrance on this matter, stating that they are reluctant to create a new shore power tariff because they are concerned that setting a "special rate" for one group, i.e. the operators of the ships, may unfairly burden another, i.e. homeowners.

“How do you come up with a fair rate that doesn’t burden other customers?” Chanoch Lubling, Con Edison’s vice president of regulatory services, said in an interview. Shore-based power through feeder connections “happens to be a great idea,” he said. “I think the big debate here is who should pay for their cost.”

Unfortunately, the representative from Con Edison doesn't seem to recognize the fact that there is already a cost being paid. It's a cost being borne by the residents of port-side communities such as Red Hook, Carroll Gardens and others. A real health cost.

Nowhere in their equation of "fairness" does Con Ed acknowledge the real health effects that our communities are suffering - in asthma, cancer, heart disease and premature mortality. This burden is being carried by our most vulnerable - children, the elderly, low income and minority communities, people with lung disease - and the Port Authority has stated in testimony to the PSC that the switch to shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal would save Brooklyn residents yearly health costs "approaching $9 Million".

If the concerned parties could work out their differences and finalize this shore power deal, the burden of these health impacts could finally be lifted from our communities.

The concern about those real health impacts is pushing some of our representatives in the Council of the City of New York to present a resolution that, as Resolution 463 states, "urges the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods."

The entire resolution is at the bottom of this post. It cites many of the facts I have been articulating in this blog and makes a compelling case for the immediate creation of a "shore power tariff".

The Committee on Waterfronts will be holding their hearing on the resolution on February 17, 2011 at 1:00PM at Council chambers, 16th Floor, 250 Broadway, New York, NY. This hearing is open to the public.

Hopefully the resolution will spur some action and push forward a process that will lead to a long-term solution. But while we're waiting for the PSC to rule on this - and given their track record, it might take a while - something needs to be done to get the shore power plan up and running, a.s.a.p.

The bottom line is, at least in the short term, someone might need to pay - whether it's Carnival who seem to be doing pretty well right now, or perhaps the NYC Economic Development Corporation (who could subsidize Carnival or Con Ed in the short term), or, hey, Con Ed could just create a cheaper rate for the ships and know that they're getting a whole lot of new business, and maybe more to come with what should be the expansion of shore power throughout the Ports of New York.

What is clear is that it's unfair to ask our most vulnerable to pay this cost any longer. Kids with asthma, the elderly, minority communities and people with lung disease shouldn't have to bear this burden any longer.

Action is needed - right now.

Here's the resolution -



Res. No. 463


Resolution urging the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods.

By Council Members Nelson, Chin, Fidler, Gentile, James, Koppell, Lander, Palma, Rose, Sanders Jr., Williams, Rodriguez, Seabrook, Levin, Gonzalez and Halloran

• Whereas, Bunker fuel, a heavy petroleum product that is left behind after the distilling process, is one of the dirtiest fuels and is used to power most cargo ships because it is much cheaper than other fuel sources; and
• Whereas, Bunker fuel releases gases such as carbon, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide when it is burned and therefore, 43% of particulate matter in ports are due to marine vessels; and
• Whereas, According to a study published in the journal of the American Chemical Society, pollution from cargo ships in 2002 was linked to the premature deaths of 60,000 people worldwide; and
• Whereas, When cruise ships dock, their engines idle at the terminal in order to keep the electrical systems on the ship running; and
• Whereas, Environmentalists believe that a ship docked for one day emits as much exhaust as 10,000 cars; and
• Whereas, To avoid idling, ships have begun to employ a process called shore power, or cold-ironing, in which a ship plugs into an electrical power supply at the port, allowing the ship to turn off its engine; and
• Whereas, Shore power permits a large extension cable from the pier to be plugged into the ship, giving it power to operate its machinery without running the engine; and
• Whereas, According to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, implementing cold-ironing at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal would reduce annual nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions by 100 tons each, particulate matter by 6 tons, and carbon dioxide emissions by almost 1,500 tons; and
• Whereas, The Port Authority also estimates that reducing emissions by switching to shore power would create $9 million per year in health benefits; and
• Whereas, Shore power is already in use at ports such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego; and
• Whereas, In order to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, the Port Authority has committed to invest $15 million in capital for infrastructure improvements and the Environmental Protection Agency awarded the Port Authority $2.85 million to support improvements as well; and
• Whereas, Carnival Cruise Lines has also committed to investing $1 million to $2 million per ship to enable the vessels to connect to electric power; and
• Whereas, A major obstacle, however, that is standing in the way of implementing shore power at the cruise terminal is the price of electric power, which can cost millions of dollars more than leaving the ship idle; and
• Whereas, Con Edison's electric rates for shore power are too costly and must be lowered in order to be competitive with the cheaper bunker fuel that is used while idling; and
• Whereas, New York City and the Port Authority have both lobbied the New York State Public Service Commission to institute a shore power tariff that is economically viable for cruise ships; and
• Whereas, An appropriate shore power tariff in New York City would discontinue the use of high polluting diesel engines, improve the air quality of Brooklyn and New York City in general, and provide the potential for the establishment of shore power throughout the ports of New York; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York urges the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Despite Carnival paying only 1.1% Tax, the Quibbling Continues about Who Pays For the Cost of Shore Power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

There was a New York Times article this week, "The Paradox of Corporate Taxes", by David Leonhardt, that detailed how little many corporations pay in taxes in this country due to the exploitation of loopholes in the tax code - this being despite the US having an official corporate tax rate higher than many other countries.

The example that Mr. Leonhardt cites as an example of this practice of tax minimization - an "extreme case", as he puts it - is Carnival Corporation, the operators of Carnival Cruises, the company that operates the cruise ships that use the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

The NY Times article states -

"Over the last five years, the company has paid total corporate taxes — federal, state, local and foreign — equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits (That's profits folks - not earnings - Ed). Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes."

It's also noted that Carnival operates with the benefits of many tax payer funded services - Customs officers and services; infrastructure, including roads, bridges and terminals; US Coast Guard services, etc. - and that Carnival "wouldn't have much of a business" without these publicly funded services. Anyone who has ever wondered who was paying for the NY City Police who park their cars to stop traffic going through to Summit Street from Hamilton Ave at Van Brunt Street and control traffic at the Bowne Street intersection while the ships are in - well, if Carnival aren't paying their fair share of taxes, I guess we have our answer.

We are.

Now, many corporations are benefiting from these corporate tax loopholes, but the reason that the revelations about Carnival's tax avoidance seem so egregious, is that they come at at time that there is a squabble about who should be paying for the ongoing costs of supplying "shore power" to the visiting ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. This is in relation to the already funded plan to build infrastructure and implement the practice of "cold ironing" at the terminal, allowing the visiting ships to stop idling their dirty-diesel burning engines while in port, as they currently do.

In my previous post, I wrote of the rally that was held in January, convened by many local politicians and attended by representatives from the community, demanding that the drawn out process that was taking place to resolve the differences between the various parties involved - The City of New York, The NYC Economic Development Corporation, Con Edison, The New York State Public Service Commission, Carnival Cruise Lines and others - finally come to a close by getting an agreement to finally get this deal done.

The message from that rally was that this process was taking too long. Despite all parties being in agreement about the merits of the "shore power" plan, and various entities, including the Port Authority, the NYCEDC, Carnival Cruise Lines the EPA and others, committing real funds to build the infrastructure and support the plan, many were still quibbling about who was going to pay for the ongoing operating costs, or whether the Public Service Commission should set a new rate of electricity supply from Con Edison to make this plan more economically viable, or whether Carnival should just pay the additional cost of electricity vs. diesel - yadda, yadda, yadda.

The quibbling continues.

The City of New York will be holding a hearing on Monday, Feb. 17th, during which there will be a resolution presented, as the text in Res. No. 463 states, "urging the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods."

Full Google Docs text of the resolution here. (It outlines many of the facts and figures I have been trying to disseminate in this blog).

The Public Service Commission moves very slowly and this may be a long process - this case has already been at the PSC for over a year - but, if this resolution has any influence, maybe there's hope that something will get resolved concerning the long term operation of the terminal.

But, we also need to make sure something gets done in the short term - like right now.

We've already waited 5 years .... it's 5 years since the "state of the art" terminal was built .... it's already hundreds of avoidable tons of carcinogenic SOx and smog causing NOx later ... it's already tens of tons of avoidable asthma inducing Particulate Matter later .... it's already $27 Million in avoidable health costs later .....

We need someone to step up to take these burdens off our communities. But, at least in the short term, who will pay?

Will it be the NYCEDC who built the terminal without this already proven "shore power" infrastructure that was being used up and down the West Coast a decade before? Will it be the Port Authority who own the terminal, but who, according to one of their spokesmen, weren't aware of the pollution mitigating practice of "cold ironing" till 2007 (despite the U.S. Navy using it for decades)? Will it be the City of New York that benefits economically from the visitors that the cruise ships bring ($145 Million last year), but, despite the proclaimed "green" credentials of the Mayor himself, seems slow to acknowledge and address the health burdens the operation of their ports - cruise, container, etc. - puts on the residents of the city? Will it be Carnival, a company that in the 5 years since this terminal was built has seen profits of $11.3 Billion, while paying little tax, but can't seem to "cough" with the added cost of using electricity while in port, instead of burning extra dirty diesel?

No one seems to be putting up their hand.

Meanwhile, the residents of Brooklyn are still breathing in these carcinogenic and otherwise harmful substances. The residents of Brooklyn, especially our most vulnerable, are paying with their health, and as the statement of the Port Authority to the Public Service Commission states, "we estimate that the annual health benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal), adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million".

That's a $9 Million Per Year health cost to Brooklyn residents - to our kids - to our elderly - to our minority communities - you know, in cancer, asthma, heart disease, premature mortality - right now.

I wonder how much of that is covered by the 1.1% tax rate that Carnival currently pays?


.

Rally For "Shore Power" at Red Hook Cruise Terminal Generates Much Needed Publicity

Yesterday, representatives from government and the community braved the cold to hold a rally and press conference to try to push forward the stalled plan to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. This is a plan that will allow the cruise ships to turn off their extra-dirty diesel engines while in port instead of idling, as they currently do, spreading dangerous substances through the air of the neighborhoods of Red Hook, Carroll Gardens, the Columbia Waterfront, Cobble Hill and beyond.

In attendance were Councilmember Brad Lander, state Sen. Daniel Squadron, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, State Sen. Velmanette Montgomery and Councilmember Stephen Levin. Also in attendance were representatives of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (who's district includes the Red Hook waterfront and a few of its residents) and CM Lander conveyed the support of Councilmember Sarah Gonzalez, who represents Red Hook in the City Council, who was absent.

We should be thankful that those who are representing us in government are providing the political muscle to try to break the deadlock that is stopping this deal, more than two years in the making, from being finalized. It's been missing in the past, but, in recent years, Congresswoman Velazquez, CM Lander and Senator Squadron have really taken the lead on this. I'm happy to say the others are now truly "on board", and at the rally showed themselves to be outspoken advocates for our communities on this matter.

Rather than explain the details of what the "hold up" is with making this deal happen and finalizing this plan (I've discussed that at length in my previous posts), please take a look at the list of articles at the bottom of this post that this event generated in local news and blogs.

After spending many years asking questions (writing my first letter to the City in 2005 about whether "shore power" was going to be used at the $56 million Brooklyn Cruise Terminal being built at the end of my young family's residential street), trying to educate myself about, and raise awareness of the issue of ship pollution - not only with cruise ships, but with container and cargo ships too - and after starting this blog in early 2009 in response to the frustration I was feeling about the lack of action on this matter, the lack of political advocacy, the absence of coverage in the media, and in an effort to try to spread the information that I had gathered concerning the problems and solutions regarding the impacts of port pollution, I am so pleased to see this matter being given the coverage it deserves in the press.

It's something that should be being getting broad coverage and a matter that should be addressed seriously by the Ports of New York and New Jersey. In reality, the plan for "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal should be the first step in implementing this pollution mitigating practice throughout our city's ports - cleaning the air and bringing the resultant health benefits to all of our city's residents.

Hopefully, this recent coverage will help to push this initial, important process forward - urgently. The bottom line is (and many people said this) - this is taking too long. All parties involved agree this should happen. The EPA has made statements that this plan will eliminate tons of harmful substances from our neighborhoods' air and the lungs of those who are most vulnerable to their impact - "children, the elderly, people with lung disease" and asthma. The Port Authority has stated that this plan will save Brooklyn residents a monetized amount "that approaches $9 Million" in yearly health costs - that's in cancer, heart and lung disease, premature mortality and asthma - every year.

I don't really care about the quibbling, who wants to pay, who doesn't. At the moment it's our residents who are paying, many who are the most vulnerable in our community. As others have also said, this is a matter of "environmental justice".

All I can say is let's get this done. For our kids. For our neighborhood. For our city.

It will be worth it.


NEW YORK POST - "B'klyn moves to clean up pollution from Cruise Ship Terminal at Pier 12", by Rich Calder

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS - "Cruise ships docked at Red Hook terminal are 'choking Brooklyn,' community leaders say", by Erin Durkin

GOTHAMIST - "Red Hook Sick of Cruise Ships' Idling Engines", by John Del Signore

NY 1 NEWS - "Advocates Make Push for "Shore Power" in Brooklyn"

CBS New York / 1010 WINS - "Residents: Idling Cruise Ships Choking Brooklyn", by Al Jones

BROOKLYN PAPERS - "Pols: City needs to ‘cruise’ on green solution to pier pollution", by Gary Buiso

CARROLL GARDENS PATCH - "A Big Push For Shore Power In South Brooklyn", by Georgia Kral

BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE - "Officials Call for Cleaner Power at Cruise Terminal"

NEW YORK OBSERVER - "Meanwhile, Red Hook Choking on its Tourists", by Matt Chaban

SOUTH BROOKLYN POST - "Rally Demands End to Cruise Pollution", by Lisa M. Collins

PARDON ME FOR ASKING - "Local Politicians Start The New Year By Calling For Agreement On Shore Power For Brooklyn Cruise Terminal", by Katia Kelly

Rally For Shore Power - Monday, Jan 3rd, Noon. Cnr. Pioneer and Van Brunt Street, Red Hook, Brooklyn.

Photo, above, by Joshua Kristal, from South Brooklyn Post article - here.

There has been much frustration in the community about the inability of the City of New York, the state's Public Service Commission, New York Power Authority and other 'powers that be' to finalize the much anticipated deal to bring "shore power" the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, thereby allowing the visiting cruise ships to stop idling their extra-dirty diesel engines while in port, and consequently eliminating the harmful yet avoidable pollutants from our neighborhood's air and residents' lungs.

This frustration has finally forced our representatives to start asking questions about why this deal - years in the making, with all parties in agreement about its benefits - is so hard to close, and why this proposal, which has been referred to as "low hanging fruit" and a "no-brainer" by advocates in the community, government, industry and environmental groups, is all taking so long.

Two of our local representatives, Council-member Brad Lander and State Senator Daniel Squadron have been outspoken on this subject, and in an attempt to push this process forward have organized a rally and press conference to raise awareness of this issue .... and maybe even generate some much needed press coverage of this issue (hello, Brooklyn Papers?).

Gas masks will be issued at the event - this Monday, Jan. 3rd, Noon, at the corner of Pioneer and Van Brunt Streets.

See the flier/ press release from CM Lander, below (click to enlarge).

If we can get this shore power deal done, the Port Authority has stated in testimony to the Public Service Commission that the estimated savings in "monetized health costs" to Brooklyn residents will be $9 Million, per year. My post with links to this statement, here.

That means that currently the cruise ships are costing Brooklyn residents, especially our most vulnerable, $9 Million in health costs, per year - that's in cancer, asthma, heart and lung disease, and more.

In reality, this plan should be the first, small step in taking these harmful ship-created emissions, including greenhouse gasses, out of our entire city's air. Shore power and the idle-free practice of "cold ironing" should be being pursued throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey with all types of ships - cruise, container, etc., (as has been implemented over the last 10 years in L.A. and Long Beach and other West Coast ports), with resultant health benefits to all of our residents, but especially to vulnerable port-side communities.

Please attend this rally to show that you want to see this deal closed and this important first step taken.

Click above to enlarge.

The Queen Mary 2 will be in port, so don't forget to get your gas masks!

Oh, and another thing .... Greenhouse Gases and Black Carbon (UPDATED: w/ Link to NY Times Article)

Observed black carbon - from NASA

This blog has mainly concentrated on the substances in the smoke-stack emissions from ships that are harmful to the public health, directly. These emissions, which include Sulfur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides and Particulate Matter, are created by the burning of extra-dirty diesel (called bunker fuel) and they have been designated by the EPA as likely carcinogens, harmful to children, the elderly, people with lung disease and the most vulnerable in our communities - particularly low-income and minority communities near ports.

These health effects are of great concern to those of us who have become aware of their impact, and the growing acknowledgment of their impacts have been an compelling reason to establish "clean port" practices in cities around the world, where ships currently idle while in port, emitting these dangerous emissions for the duration of their stay. This has been the driving reason for the yet to be realized initiative to establish "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, for example, where the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states that the "plugging in" of the cruise ships that visit that terminal, which all currently idle while in port, would save the residents of Brooklyn an estimated $9 Million in annual monetized health costs (you know ... cancer, asthma, heart disease, premature mortality, etc.).

There is, however, another good reason to pursue cleaner shipping and "clean port" practices in our ports, and throughout the world.

The ships' contribution to climate change.

It is estimated that by 2050, if unabated, ships will contribute 18% of all man-made CO2. The Friends of the Earth also states that NOx emissions that ships produce could have an equally significant effect on climate change as the CO2.

Another little-known contributor to climate change in which shipping emissions play a large role, is the matter of "black carbon", more commonly known as soot. In 2007, in a petition to the EPA regarding the effects of shipping emissions on climate change (see it here), the organization Earthjustice, supported by Friends of the Earth and others, make the argument that "black carbon" has the potential to be the second greatest contributor to climate change, second only to CO2.

This is because "black carbon" particles are both suspended in the air, as well as falling on ice and snow. In both cases, because of its non-reflective qualities, the particles conduct heat and therefore contribute to warming, as well as, in the case of snow and ice, contributing to melting. It's also thought that with melting Arctic ice and shipping lanes becoming open in those previously unnavigable waterways, the ships will deliver the "black carbon" more directly to the ice and snow, thereby accelerating the damage.

Given these reasons, momentum has been building, world-wide, to acknowledge the contribution of shipping emissions to green house gasses and to assess and address their contribution to climate change.

With that in mind, organizations around the world have been trying to draw attention to the impact of shipping on climate change, as well as trying to share information about ways to mitigate the impact of these emissions.

In that spirit, Sir Richard Branson and partners in the shipping and energy industry have launched a site called "Shipping Efficiency" in an effort to "increase information flows around international shipping's energy efficiency and ultimately help reduce the environmental impacts of the world's shipping fleet."

The site goes on to state -

"Shippingefficiency.org enables anyone with access to the internet to tell an efficient, low-emission ship from an less efficient one, for the first time. Using a simple search function, users can pull up an A to G rating for around 60,000 existing ships, including the majority of the world's container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, cruise ships and ferries."

This means that, for instance, if I'm interested in the Grande Nigeria that is berthed at the Red Hook Container Terminal for a couple of days (idling continuously, I might add), I can go to the Shipping Efficiency web site and look up the "rating" of that ship.

As it turns out, that ship gets a "D".


I can also see the other information about that ship's engine size, fuel efficiency, etc., and if I had the skill (which I don't), I could analyze that information and work out how much fuel that ship consumes and how much pollution it creates - not only at sea, but while it's idling at the bottom of our neighborhood's residential streets.

Now, the information on this site is intended to be a tool to allow choice of shipping and to increase the overall efficiency of the world's shipping fleet. But its existence provides acknowledgment of, and insight into, the real impact that shipping has on the health of the planet, as well as the health of it's inhabitants - particularly the residents of port communities.

The point is that there are many ways that shipping can be cleaned up - both at sea and in port. Lower Sulfur fuels can be part of the equation, as their use can help drastically reduce the creation of some of these harmful emissions - including "black carbon" that not only contributes to climate change, but also is a dangerous contributor to cancers and lung disease, including asthma. There are technologies and practices out there that can be used to reduce these emissions and their impacts.

The goal should obviously be to take measures to reduce all of these impacts - on both health and climate. In the case of the ships visiting New York and New Jersey, there are efforts being made to reduce the impact that the ships emissions are having on health. There is program that is supposed to encourage the use of low-Sulfur fuels in the City's waters, as well as a much bigger long-term plan to reduce the sulfur in the fuel of all ships using the continental waters of the U.S. and Canada through an ECA (Emissions Control Area). There are plans to reduce the speed of ships and to encourage "slow steaming" in open waters. These plans are worthy, and, if implemented well, will significantly reduce harmful emissions from ships in our city's air, with flow-on health improvements to our residents.

However, in the short term - and, more importantly in the long term - don't we want to reduce all of these emissions as much as possible?

By plugging a cruise ship into "shore power", by practicing "cold ironing", (even taking into account the effect of the extra power produced by power stations, which is zero if you use hydro-electric generation as is a large proportion of NYPA provided power), you not only virtually eliminate the emissions that are harmful to human health that have been so much a focus of this blog - SOx, NOx and PM - but you also reduce the emission of Greenhouse gasses much more than any use of alternate fuel or low-sulfur diesel would.

Look at that site, Shipping Efficiency. Take a look at how much diesel these ships burn - even when they're in port. When they're idling in port it's equivalent to tens of thousands of cars, or thousands of trucks - idling right on the edge of our residential neighborhoods.

Do we want to burn more of that carbon-based fuel than is necessary? Do we want to import more petroleum products from overseas? Do we want to keep relying on fossil fuels or move to a cleaner energy economy?

So, when it comes to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, or the Brooklyn Container Terminal, or any of the ports of New York and New Jersey, it's time to get a move on in implementing these clean port and shipping practices - especially "cold ironing" - because it's not only about ridding the air and our kids' lungs of these dangerous emissions, it's about ridding the air of the Greenhouse gasses and "black carbon" that threaten our planet's climate.

UPDATE: Dec. 6th. Coincidentally, yesterday, the New York Times did a story on shipping emissions titled, Shipping Faces Calls to Lower Its Carbon Footprint, By JAMES KANTER. The first line of the story reads,

"In an era when industries are competing to shrink their carbon footprints, shipping has charted a slower course."

Please read on .....

.

"South Brooklyn Post" Sheds Further Light on the Fight To Plug Idling Ships into Shore Power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

Today I was thankful to read the 'front page' story in the new on-line newspaper, the "South Brooklyn Post", on the battle in Red Hook, Brooklyn to get the visiting cruise ships to plug into "shore power", thereby turning off their idling, extra-dirty diesel burning engines in a practice called "cold ironing", at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal.


The story, "State Stalls on Brooklyn Air Pollution" by Lisa M. Collins (click here), was the first I've seen in the press on the subject in over a year.

Anyone who has been following this blog has read about the attempt to raise awareness of the facts of ship pollution and its remedies since learning about the issue in 2005, when the City's Economic Development Corporation was planning and building the cruise terminal at the end of my family's residential street. I attempted to do this first by writing letters to the City of New York, the mayor and other politicians, bringing it up at community meetings, then by starting this blog in early 2009 in an effort to push the issue further into the spotlight.

Over the last couple of years, there has been some decent progress in establishing this practice at the Red Hook terminal, with the Port Authority, EDC and cruise ship operators, Carnival, all offering commitments - financially and otherwise - to get it done. (my post here) But, as Ms. Collins notes in the article,

"the city and the New York State Power Authority are battling over the cost to subsidize Carnival Cruise ships for making the switch from idling with bunker fuel to plugging in and paying for electrical power.

Until the rates and who will pay them are determined, the project to build the electrical plug-in station is stalled."

Ms. Collins goes on to state that,

"The issue is a political hot potato—nobody wants to talk on the record about the rate dispute."

The reporting continues, referring to Michael Saltzman, spokesman for the New York Power Authority, who was unwilling to comment on the rate dispute other than saying,

“We do not have an agreement with the city,”

Also quoted is Craig Hammerman, District Manager of Community Board 6, who affirms,

“The funding is set aside, the only thing holding everything back is for the Power Authority to establish a rate. We would have expected that they would realize how important this is to the community.

“The stars are lined up to help solve this problem. We just have to get to the Power Authority to move this thing forward”

And that's where the press should be playing more of a role.


The last part of the article mentions this blog and its attempts to raise awareness of the ship smokestack pollution issue. This being a problem not only for the Brooklyn-based cruise ships, but with all types of ocean-going ships, every one which currently idles while visiting the ports of New York and New Jersey - whether container, cruise, etc. - producing total smokestack pollution that is equivalent to that created by 7.8 Million cars.

However, as far as getting this first step done in eliminating these dangerous yet avoidable emissions from our air - i.e. the establishing of "shore power / cold ironing" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - that cause could have used a lot more help in the way of coverage by the press - local or otherwise.

When the case to set a new shore power rate at the Public Services Commission (PSC) was stalled in early 2009 - yes it's been going that long - there was a little press coverage of the story in the Brooklyn Paper (here), and in a story and a blog post at the NY Times (here and here). But since then, there has been almost nothing - no significant attempt in the press to raise the awareness of the issue itself nor of the important facts that were coming to light in the PSC case, no pressure put on the entities that were dragging their heels, and, as a result, no help in moving this process forward.

When the EPA, in testimony given to the PSC at that early 2009 hearing in support of the establishment of this power rate, made such statements as this, regarding the unmitigated ship smokestack pollution -

"Such air emissions are harmful to the pubic generally, and especially to our children, the elderly, people with lung disease, those who exercise outside, and low-income and minority communities located near ports." (and the other statements permanently listed on the side-bar of this blog)

... where was the coverage in the press?


When our local politicians, such as Joan Millman and Brad Lander made similar statements later, noting that these avoidable pollutants ...

"damage lung tissue, increase respiratory illness, suppress immune systems, aggravate breathing problems and asthma" and additionally that they "contribute to premature death for people with respiratory and cardiac disease"

... where was the story in the New York Times?


When the Port Authority, in testimony to the PSC in January this year, included this statement from their Executive Director, Chris Ward (full statement here) -

"we estimate that the annual health benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal), adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million"

..... in other words, that currently the annual monetized health cost of the cruise ships visiting Brooklyn to our community is estimated to be $9 million - that's roughly $150,000 per ship visit ....

.... where was the coverage in the Brooklyn Paper?

Couldn't coverage of these facts in the press have leveraged a more urgent response from the PSC, or pressured the New York Power Authority to set a rate that could work for everyone - including the residents that are still breathing in these harmful emissions?


On this last matter, regarding this staggering $9 Million figure cited by the Port Authority, after reading that testimony I did try to spread the word to local papers and in my blog (my post here) but was ultimately disappointed by the absence of coverage. I spoke to a reporter at the Brooklyn Paper who told me that he'd write an article about the subject, including these facts, but none materialized.

I happened to bump into that reporter recently, and he told me that he had written the story, but it hadn't been published.

I decided to write an email to Gersh Kuntzman, the editor of the Brooklyn Paper, to ask why this had happened, especially since he had recently interviewed a newly elected Representative and quizzed him about his lack of environmental advocacy, asking him whether lack of regulation could lead to a situation as seen in "other countries", where "kids are dying of pollution". His response to my question about the reason for not publishing the story about the $9 Million in annual "monetized health costs" to Brooklyn residents from the cruise ship pollution was not particularly reassuring.

He advised me to contact some guy at a PR firm ... not really sure why. Then he concluded with this statement -

"He handles all outside questions about our coverage. I am not authorized, unfortunately, to discuss such matters."

Oh well.

At least we have the "South Brooklyn Post".

Maybe their excellent story will help to shine a light on this agonizingly protracted process, the compelling arguments that are being made about the benefits of establishing shore power, and finally push the entities involved toward a resolution.

Then, finally, we'll have taken the first small step in ridding our city's air of these harmful, yet avoidable emissions.

.