Experts: Cruise ships failed to water down climate rules
The trade group representing the cruise ship industry unsuccessfully pushed international authorities to water down new environmental regulations despite its members’ climate commitments, experts in marine air pollution warn.
However, the International Maritime Organization rejected a cruise industry effort that would have improved cruise ships’ carbon pollution scores. Environmental groups say it also would have led to more air pollution by allowing cruise liners to continue with business as usual.
The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) has membership that accounts for 95% of global cruise trips. Its four biggest members, Carnival Cruise Line, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line and MSC Cruises, tout their climate awareness and have all committed to drastically cutting emissions.
Yet according to a filing in April, the cruise ship association lobbied the International Maritime Organization’s members to change proposed rules in a manner critics say will lead to increased emissions, while saving cruise lines money.
The International Maritime Organization is the United Nations body responsible for regulating the safety and environmental impact of shipping. Some 175 member states vote on its proposed legislation.
The proposed change would “certainly” have had a negative climate impact, said John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, an umbrella group of environmental groups that has official status at the maritime organization.
“The regulations are very weak anyway, and CLIA is trying to make them even
weaker,” said Maggs, who has almost 30 years in the field. “They are trying to water down the regulations.”
But the cruise industry argues the new regulation misrepresents the efficiency of their vessels, which should not be penalized for spending more time in port than cargo ships.
Shipping emits about 2.9% of global carbon dioxide emissions, just over a billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. Cruise liners produce more carbon dioxide annually on average than any other kind of ship due to their air conditioning, heated pools and other hotel amenities, studies have shown.
Carnival, which describes itself as “sustainable from ship to shore,” has committed to reducing its carbon emissions 40% by 2030 to meet the terms of the 2015 Paris climate accord, which aims to limit global temperature rises to 2.7F.
Royal Caribbean and MSC Cruises have each pledged to meet net zero emissions by 2050, while Norwegian Cruise Lines has spoken of a “longterm goal” to reach climate neutrality.
Beginning in 2023, all large ships will be assigned a carbon intensity indicator, worked out by dividing carbon dioxide output by the capacity of the ship
and again by nautical miles traveled.
It will give ships an A to E sustainability rating. If a ship gets a poor rating, it has to submit a plan for how it will improve to at least a C, but there is currently no plan for penalties for badlyrated ships.
Nevertheless the trade group lobbied national delegations at the International Maritime Organization, which was established in the wake of the Titanic disaster, to make a special allowance for cruise ships. It argued their vessels differ from cargo ships because of the lengthy stays in port that are part of a cruise liner’s existence — typically with engines running to keep the lights on. This time in port hurts cruise ships’ ratings, because they thus emit more carbon per mile.
“As a result, in-port emissions have a disproportionate impact” on a ship’s carbon intensity grade, the industry told the agency.
Bill Weihl, a former sustainability chief at both Google and Facebook, who established Climate Voice, which calls on employees to pressure their companies into climate action, called it a familiar story for U.S. companies.
“They say — and sometimes do — good things on climate, while behind the scenes their trade associations obstruct and delay.”