February 11, 2009

Alaska Cruise Industry Wants Strict Water-Pollution Rule Abolished

Bookmark and Share Email this story Print this post Add your comments

The Alaska cruise industry is having trouble getting traction with legislators to abolish a strict water-pollution rule approved by voters in 2006, Anchorage Daily News reports.

The cruise lines and some communities see the environmental rule as detrimental to tourism.

The 2006 law requires cruise ships to meet tougher pollution standards and puts new taxes, fees and environmental monitoring on the industry. It also bans cruise lines from applying for state permission to use mixing zones. Mixing zones allow cruise lines to discharge pollution that exceed the state’s water-quality standards. The mixing ban for cruise lines goes into effect in 2009.

House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, says revising the pollution rules may be a hard sell and seems premature because the cruise lines have until next year to comply.

Cruise ships emit three times more CO2 than airplanes, EL reported last year.

Cruise ships contend they are working hard to lessen their environmental impact. Royal Caribbean said it had installed advanced water purification systems on board and smokeless gas-turbine engines and that it also burns bio-fuel when available.

Bookmark and Share Email this story Print this post Add your comments

Advertisers

Join the Discussion

Reader Comments

Could Royal Caribbean tell us more about the “advanced water purification systems”? Do these use the least amount of energy possible (lowest CO2) to produce fresh water, OR, are they “advanced” because they take up very little physical space on board BUT burn significantly more fuel to produce water? How many kWhr to produce 1000 liters or fresh water? And how does that compare to best practice desalination? I think we know the answer to those questions, but it’s interesting that the cruise lines are trying to give the impression that they are caring for the environment when they say they use “advanced” technology, whereas the technology is actually “advanced” towards a different goal, not towards the environment.

Get EL Daily in your inbox, subscribe to free newsletter

Recent Daily News [ see all ]

  • 02/09/2010
  • 02/08/2010
  • 02/05/2010

Recent Jobs

Post a Job
Jobs powered by Simply Hired

Comments and Discussions

John Bergdoll on Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
"I was following the logic your article..."

Liz Amason on Clorox Comes Clean With Chemical Content on Web Site
"But look at their ingredients listings. For example, their regular liquid bleach..."

Rigidflexibility on Companies Going Green Should Ignore Green Consumer
"I was about to market a metal working fluid that is 98>% Soybean oil and..."

Stuart on Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
"Canadians have been waiting for the feds to act on climate change for..."

Steve Wolford on Sports Teams Embrace Sustainability
"Hello Environmental Leader, We just returned from the National Sport Forum in Baltimore. Team and..."

Mauibrad on Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
"Finally some enlightened ideas out of Congress!"

Cameron Green on Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
"I did a blog post about this. Essentially PUE doesn’t give you very much..."