The Caribbean "Princess" was docked in Brooklyn
this week-end,
heading back to warmer climes,
no doubt.
The blogger was envious.
She wanted to leave port as well.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brad Lander's Damning Developer Donations
click on image
Follow PMFA
Popular Posts
-
Pardon me for asking, but could it be that Paul J. Manafort, Junior , the veteran Republican strategist and former national ch...
-
Outside it was sweltering on that particular afternoon, but there was a gentle breeze in...
-
I know that poop and condoms are not a pleasant topic, but it bears repeating over and over, until the City Of New York finally ...
-
.JPG)
PMFA just received an email from local resident Y. H. who would like to warn others that the NYPD was 'ambushing' rid... -
Mention the Gowanus Canal to anyone in the Gowanus neighborhood and they will inevitably wonder aloud what one may find buried beneath its f...
7 comments:
Yes, she looks grand and appealing, Katia. But the Princess and the other visiting cruise ships, including the Queen Mary II, are idling while in port and are belching 100 tons of NOx, 100 tons of SOx and 6 tons of particulate matter into the air over our neighborhoods and into our children's lungs every year they visit. These emissions, designated as "likely carcinogens" and "harmful .. especially to our children" by the EPA, would be eliminated if the cruise ships were able to "plug in" to the city power grid while in port. The cruise ships have agreed to do this and have committed to converting their ships to do so, but the main impediment for this happening right now is the recalcitrance of Con Ed to supply a competitive power rate to the Cruise Terminal that would allow the cruise ships to turn off their polluting, extra-dirty diesel engines while in port, as is being done in many ports on the West Coast. Unfortunately, it seems as though Con Ed - like BP, Chemtura and their ilk - are happy to make their profits at the expense of our environment and the health of our children.
Another environmental factor of these boats is the traffic caused by suburbanites streaming through the 'hood for their cruise.
And really, after being on that sailing ship earlier this month, can you really find this ungainly floating motel appealing?
This doesn't look appealing to me -too big. And it pollutes -we are paying for it with quality of air. Also, Adam A, cruise ships want Con Ed to give them lower rates - aren't the cruise ships making enough money/profit? Why should their energy be subsidized?
Arent they planning a plug in application for the ships docking in Red Hook? It isnt any worse than the BQE, Gowanus and Prospect Expresways during rush hours 7am-8pm. Add the Red Hook school bus depot and Ikea bus runs into Red Hook all day is far worse than one or two cruise ships in port for usually 1 day or less?
I feel no incrimental revenue generated by local businesses due to the positioning of the ships in Red Hook is more disturbing. Most passengers (seniors) want to get from point A The airports or hotel to the port as quickly as possible. It would be nice if they had day tours to Smith St or Brooklyn Heights...oh but wait a minute more buses means more pollution. Damn progress.
Katia, sorry to use your blog as a forum for this discussion, but I thought it would be helpful to address some of the points made in the previous comments. I hope you don't mind. (And maybe the previous commenters want to check out my blog for further information and references pertaining to this issue)
Cruise ships, container ships and other large ocean going vessels burn a type of diesel (bunker fuel) that has sulfur levels up to 2000 times more than that used by trucks, buses, etc. Sulfates, Nitrates and Particulate Matter are the real villains, as far as public health goes (cancer, asthma, heart disease, etc.). One cruise ship emits the equivalent of 12,000 cars worth of pollution per daily port visit and the EPA states that cruise ship pollution accounts for 8,300 deaths per year in the US and Canada. It's been calculated that some of the world's largest container ships produce as much sulfur as 50 million cars and that the world's 16 largest container ships produce as much sulfur as all ... yes all .. of the world's cars. So ship pollution, though you may not read about it on the front page of the NY Times every day, is a significant problem.
The fact is there are ways to reduce or even avoid the harmful effects of these emissions by using lower sulfur diesel, hooking up ships to "shore power" and turning off their engines when in port, slower speeds, etc.
Despite the ports of New York and New Jersey being the third largest in the US (behind Long Beach and LA), and despite the fact their operators and owners (The Port Authority) are projecting serious growth in the coming years, few of these mitigating measures are quickly being put into place in our city.
On the West Coast there has been much done in the last 10 years including "shore power" for container and cruise ships, and - regarding another source of pollution form our ports - a "clean truck program", something that IS just recently getting support here.
But with the ships here on the East Coast - not so much action.
Yes, the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is moving towards the implementation of "Shore Power" operations. Last year the EPA awarded the Port Authority $3 million in diesel reduction grants to go towards infrastructure, the Port Authority has committed $3 million of their own funds, and the cruise ships are spending roughly $1 million per ship to retrofit them for shore power. The Con Ed issue is not really about these ships getting a special deal, it's just making sure they're getting a 'fair' deal, one that is not beneficial to them, nor a deterrent, and once this rate is set for "shore power" operations, it could theoretically be applied to any "shore power" operations in any of our ports, for any of the ships visiting. The "shore power" rate has been bouncing between various agencies (Public Services Commission, etc.) for nearly 2 years now, and I find Con Ed's reluctance to work out a deal on this issue troubling.
Sorry for the length ... just continuing -
The bottom line is, the harmful effects of port pollution is an important issue for all of us - not just Red Hook, Carroll Gardens or even New York City. It is an issue for all port cities. The port of Charleston, N.C. just did a study that estimated the monetized health costs of the unmitigated pollution from the operations of their soon to be expanded port on the residents of that city to be $81 million a year. Charleston's port will be the 10th largest in the nation and is surrounded by a much less densely populated city. Thinking about our city - with its dense population and much larger port - you can only imagine what it costs us, both financially and in costs to our health.
Obviously the cruise ships are only a part of it, and I have nothing against them or other ships, per se. I'm always content to stand on my stoop and see the QM2 or Princess parked at the bottom of my street. One day, I'd be happy to walk to the end of my street with my family, get on board and wake up the next morning in the Caribbean (as long as they were using low sulfur fuel and operating in an environmentally responsible way in getting there). But I wish these ships, and the others visiting our city's ports, were abiding by that rule being enforced for other "vehicles" operating in our city.
"NO IDLING"
Hi Adam,
I don't mind at all and actually agree with you.
I know that Red Hook and Columbia Waterfront residents have been working on this issue for a while and I think we should all support their efforts.
I hope that you will update me, so that I can post further information on this, Adam
Post a Comment