The federal Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that large ships traveling within 200 miles of the United States must burn cleaner fuel. To use the proper fuel is no problem for commercial ships that go directly into and out of port. The container and shipping industry has indicated that it can meet the new standards easily. Cruise ships, however, since their travel is largely within the 200-mile zone, will be put to extra expense.
And the howls can be heard.
Large ships burn a heavy fuel with 2,000 times more sulfur than the diesel fuel used by smaller marine vessels – plus trucks, locomotives and construction equipment. Every day, a typical cruise ship emits the same amount of sulfur dioxide as 3.1 million cars, and as much soot as 1.6 million cars. Multiply that times a 10-day cruise and there is a lot of mud in the slough.
The new rule requires large ships to immediately cut the sulfur content of their fuel from 2.7 percent to 1 percent – and further in 2015 to 0.1 percent.
Countries bordering the Baltic and North seas enacted sulfur dioxide limits in the late 1990s, and in 2007 the Bush administration proposed similar limits for U.S. waters. Three years later, the joint U.S.-Canadian proposal to create an “Emissions Control Area” in the Pacific was adopted – and now these restrictions represent one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious, and least-noticed, anti-pollution programs. Air pollutants from ships off the Pacific Coast contribute to lung disease and air quality as far away as North Dakota. The EPA estimates that within 20 years, the new rules will avoid tens of thousands of premature deaths each year.
But a couple of cruise lines serving Alaska claim their fuel costs could eventually rise 25 percent, and have mounted a major counteroffensive. Alaska’s attorney general filed a lawsuit July 13 challenging the federal government’s right to impose such limits, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has pressed EPA officials to work out a compromise with the industry, saying, “The impact of these regulations, moving forward, potentially can be devastating to the public, especially those in rural Alaska. The cost of shipping already inflates prices for everything from milk to laundry detergent. You cannot afford a 25 percent increase in a box of Tide.”
But Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, tribal liaison for the Alaska Wilderness League, said, “We’re very concerned about the emissions they’re putting in the air. We’re already seeing an increase of respiratory illness.”
Even the companies that have touted their environmental credentials – Disney Cruise Line and Royal Caribbean, for example – are lobbying the EPA to reconsider how it enforces the new rules. They claim that every major cruise line is rethinking whether it will need to scale back on some itineraries.
But the EPA has rejected the cruise industry’s proposal, saying it would cut the program’s health benefits in half.
It is difficult to get precise estimates on what the cleaner fuel will cost. The EPA estimates that, when fully implemented, the program would add $18 to the cost of shipping a 20-foot container and about $7 per day to the cost of a passenger’s cruise ticket. Cruise industry analysts, however, say it could add as much as $19 a day per passenger.
Imagine that. Two cocktails a day!
Thought for the week
If your mother had terminal cancer, you wouldn’t hide that news from her. You would want her to have a chance to make the best use of what life she has left. The disease of political decline may be compared. By advising John McCain and Newt Gingrich that their clocks are running down, you may be encouraging them to take another wife or move to California to run for governor.
Rodney Quinn, a former Maine secretary of state, lives in Westbrook. He can be reached at rquinn@maine.rr.com.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
