By Melissa Locker

Carnival Corporation and its Princess subsidiary just can’t seem to quit polluting the planet. As the Financial Times reports, Carnival’s pollution problem is so bad that across its fleet, the large boats pollute 10 timesmore than all 260 million of Europe’s cars. That tidbit comes courtesy of a study by the European think tank Transport & Environment, which looked at 203 cruise ships sailing European waters in 2017. The organization found that Carnival–and its brands–were the proud owners of seven of the 20 most polluting cruise-ship lines.

The report also found that besides over-tourism and crashing into ports, there’s a good reason for European cities to dislike cruise ships: they are emitting sulfur dioxide all over the place. If you can’t keep your pollutants straight, sulfur dioxide causes both acid rain and lung cancer. Cruise lines, it turns out, have been dropping the gas all over Europe; the report says Barcelona, Palma Mallorca, and Venice were the cities worst affected by sulfur dioxide emissions. Per the FT, “sulfur dioxide emissions from cars was 3.2m kt versus 62m kt from cruise ships, with Carnival accounting for half that, the study found.”

The report comes just days after Carnival agreed to pay a $20-million fine and undertake increased monitoring of its delightful practice of dumping sewage and plastic waste directly into the ocean (as well as its leaking gas, dirty water, and oily discharge). The company apparently tried to cover up its environmental misdeeds by falsifying records, fixing problems right before inspections, and even trying to get the U.S. Coast Guard to redefine the terms of its environmental compliance plan.

This isn’t the first time that the company has admitted culpability. It has a long list of environmental violations dating back to 1993. Carnival was hauled into court in 2016, and the company pleaded guilty to dumping oily waste from its Princess Line ships; it was fined $40 million and given a five-year probation period. On Monday, it admitted to violating that probation, which resulted in this latest $20-million fine as well as a dressing down by U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz. “You not only work for employees and shareholders. You are a steward of the environment,” she told Carnival CEO Arnold Donald, according to NPR. “The environment needs to be a core value, and I hope and pray it becomes your daily anthem.” Couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

We reached out to Carnival for comment or, you know, a plan to stop polluting. Here’s what they sent:

CLIA and its cruise line members are committed to a zero-emission future, as is the entire maritime sector. The cruise industry represents less than 1% of shipping and is making progress towards this goal, but it will take time. The industry welcomes the involvement of civil society in this discussion and is disappointed Transport & Environment has published the internal analysis, conducted exclusively by internal staff, without discussion, input or updated insights from the cruise industry or cruise destinations. There is further concern that the results have been published without any academic scrutiny, peer review or scientifically-robust methodology.

By The Editorial Staff Feb 16, 2020

Click to read online

It’s been more than a decade since Charleston and the State Ports Authority began their epic feud over the proper presence of cruise ships next to the city’s historic core. There’s been precious little progress made, and we hope that changes soon.

There’s simply too much at stake beyond the cruise business.

As the S.C. Supreme and the U.S. District courts prepare to rule on aspects of the dispute, both sides should commit to restarting a dialogue about how they can find common ground and reset the important relationship between the state agency and the city. We recognize leadership will be required, and any breakthrough will take each side out of its comfort zone.

Cooperation between the city and state led to the creation of the State Ports Authority in the early 20th century, and its success has been crucial to South Carolina’s modern economy. But the state’s economy also thrives on tourism, and the dramatic success of historic Charleston is one of the leading drivers of that. This success was brought about partly by aggressively regulating many aspects of tourism under the correct belief that Charleston is an attractive place to visit foremost because it is an attractive place to live.

We don’t expect a resolution of the long-standing cruise debate would produce a clear winner or loser in this long-running dispute, partly because its complex nature includes the following issues:

• Whether there should be a legally binding penalty if the SPA exceeds its voluntary cap of no more than one cruise ship docking at a time, no more than 104 visits a year. The authority has abided by the cap for years and says it has turned down business to do so, but some in the city rightly wonder why, if the authority’s intent is to comply with the limit, it finds such a provision a problem.
• Whether cruise ship passengers should be taxed more to contribute to the city, where struggles with flooding and sea-level rise have increased dramatically since the cruise ship controversy began. Ports Authority CEO Jim Newsome has argued cruise ships are just another form of maritime commerce, but Mayor John Tecklenburg said, “I respectfully believe that having cruise ships here is more than a maritime business.”
• Whether the authority should take further steps to reduce cruise ship emissions while in port. Mr. Newsome said low-sulfur fuels have improved the situation, and any decision on shore power is tied up with the following issue.
• Whether a new cruise ship terminal should be located on Union Pier, near the current, outdated facility. The debate over this facility and what sort of mitigation the state should provide the city to help offset impacts on the Historic District are the basis of the pending lawsuits.

As with most big disputes, there’s fault on both sides. Mr. Tecklenburg has talked about the desirability of a new tax on cruise passengers to help pay for the city’s infrastructure needs, but he has not yet sat down personally with ports officials to make his case. Mr. Newsome and his board have excelled in positioning the Port of Charleston for long-term growth but have seemed insensitive at times to legitimate local concerns. This problem isn’t unique to Charleston. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey has his own frustration with the authority stemming from issues related to the new Leatherman terminal there.

The time is right for fresh talks, especially as the Ports Authority renegotiates a long-term deal with Carnival Cruise Line, whose ship Sunshine is based here, and as it plans for the future sale of its vast Union Pier site downtown.

There is some validity to the notion that no one wins except the lawyers whenever disputes are settled in court. When the two opposing sides are both arms of government — and accountable to many of the same people — inaction and litigation only increase cynicism about whether our government is really working for us.

Click to read article online

Two Carnival cruise ships collided off Cozumel, Mexico, Friday.

The Carnival Glory had an allision — when a moving ship hits a stationary ship — with the Carnival Legend as the Glory was maneuvering to dock, the cruise line told FOX Business. The cause wasn’t immediately clear.

Six guests on the Glory have been evaluated for minor injuries, according to Carnival.

Carnival said it was assessing the damage but there were no issues affecting the seaworthiness of either ship. The cruise line said it had advised guests from both ships to “enjoy their day ashore in Cozumel.”

Witnesses’ videos showed damage to the Glory’s stern well above the waterline.

The Legend is on a seven-day cruise from Tampa, Florida, while the Glory is on a seven-day cruise from New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Glory is 952 feet long and weighs 110,000 tons. Its normal cruise capacity is 2,980 guests and it has more than 1,100 crew members, according to Carnival. The Legend is 963 feet long and weighs 88,500 tons. It has a normal cruise capacity of 2,124 guests and has a crew of about 930.

The collision came the same day that Carnival Corp posted better-than-expected revenue and profit, Reuters reported. Carnival said its net revenue increased 7.3 percent to $4.78 billion, beating analyst estimates. A big part of the increase was on-board spending, which rose by about 30 percent.

By David Wren dwren@postandcourier.com

The company that keeps its Sunshine pleasure ship at Union Pier Terminal in downtown Charleston is defending its use of scrubbers to comply with global emissions standards that begin in 2020.

Under the International Maritime Organization mandate, shipping lines will be required to use fuel that contains no more than 0.5% sulfur — or install equipment that reduces sulfur dioxide emissions — starting in January.

The coming demand for low-sulfur fuel — and potential shortages — means it will be more expensive than today’s bunker fuel, which contains 3.5 percent sulfur. Some analysts predict fuel prices will rise by one-third, and the higher costs will be passed throughout the transportation chain.

Some ship operators, Carnival Cruise Line included, have gone a different route by installing pollution-control devices called scrubbers that help filter sulfur dioxide from smokestack emissions so the vessels can use the higher-sulfur fuel yet remain compliant with the new rule.

The scrubbers aren’t cheap — they run as high as $5 million apiece — but Terry Thornton, Carnival’s senior vice president, told The Post and Courier they’re more cost-effective in the long run than buying expensive low-sulfur fuel.

That plan has run into opposition from environmentalists, who have called for a moratorium on scrubbers. They cite evidence in a criminal pollution case against Carnival that showed the devices failed multiple times, leading to significant air pollution.

Such pollution is one reason environmental and historic preservation groups and some Charleston residents are going to court to fight the development of a new cruise passenger terminal at Union Pier. Tommie Robertson told The Post and Courier in June that black smoke from the ship stacks have made her sick while sitting on the porch of her Laurens Street home.

Last month, a webcam operator in the Bahamas posted video of a Carnival ship belching black smoke while docked in Nassau, prompting environmentalists to again call on Carnival to switch to low-sulfur fuel rather than rely on ineffective equipment.

Carnival has responded to the controversy with a new website that argues scrubbers aren’t just the best way to reduce sulfur dioxide but also a host of other airborne pollutants.

Scrubbers “have the proven capability to outperform low-sulfur fuel alternatives,” the website states, adding they provide “overall cleaner air emissions in a way that is safe for ocean environments.”

Thornton said the technology has long been proven in land-based uses, such as reducing pollution at factories.

“The challenge has been fitting it into the space we have on our ships,” he said. “Our existing ships were never designed for the space this technology requires.”

To date, Carnival has invested $500 million in scrubbers and installed more than 220 of them on its fleet. The Sunshine has been operating with scrubbers for months and is “fully compliant,” Thornton said, with the new rules. The same is true for the Ecstasy, which called Charleston its home port until the Sunshine replaced it in May.

“We’ve made tremendous investments in all the technology that’s needed to meet those requirements,” he said of the IMO regulation.

That’s not likely to satisfy environmentalists. In a May 14 letter to the IMO’s secretary general, 10 environmental groups called on the maritime agency to take action.

“As Carnival Corp.’s criminal debacle has shown, (scrubbers) are not the answer to delivering air pollution reductions for the shipping sector,” the groups wrote, asking that scrubbers be banned pending a study in which the IMO “reviews the technology’s marine and air pollution impacts.”

Click to view the live feed: http://media.sccourts.org/videos/2018-000137.mp4

By Kaitlin Stansell | June 6, 2019 at 10:22 PM EDT – Updated June 6 at 11:32 PM Click to view

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) – Attorneys and community members entrenched in a legal dispute over expanding the cruise ship industry in downtown Charleston are gearing up for a hearing before the state supreme court next week.

It’s been called the “cruise ship case” as it’s made its way through the court system, and now it’s getting its day before the state’s highest judges.

Environmental groups and community advocates have challenged the SC Ports Authority and Department of Health and Environmental Control over state-issued pollution permits related to the expansion of the cruise ship terminal in downtown Charleston.

“My primary concern is with air quality,” said Tommie Robertson. She lives off Laurens Street, a neighbor to the current cruise ship pier. “That’s impacted very negatively both by the ship itself, their emissions and also by all the cars that come in. Then, there’s traffic congestion, and then there’s noise pollution.”

However, the argument has moved past environmental concerns. The focus of June 11th’s hearing will be to ask the SC Supreme Court to review and reverse a prior decision by a lower court. The plaintiffs claim the Court of Appeals shut the door on Charlestonians who aimed to appeal state-issued pollution permits for a proposed terminal.

“Do communities, community groups have the ability and the right to protect themselves from pollution, and that’s really what’s at stake,” said Amy Armstrong, the Executive Director and General Counsel for the SC Environmental Law Project. “I think that would, should be concerning to anyone. All citizens of the state of South Carolina because we all want to protect our health, our quality of life, the quality of our environment.”

The state ports authority wants to build a newer and bigger terminal to host larger ships and more of them.

By Kaitlin Stansell | June 6, 2019 at 10:22 PM EDT – Updated June 6 at 11:32 PM

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) – Attorneys and community members entrenched in a legal dispute over expanding the cruise ship industry in downtown Charleston are gearing up for a hearing before the state supreme court next week.

It’s been called the “cruise ship case” as it’s made its way through the court system, and now it’s getting its day before the state’s highest judges.

Environmental groups and community advocates have challenged the SC Ports Authority and Department of Health and Environmental Control over state-issued pollution permits related to the expansion of the cruise ship terminal in downtown Charleston.

“My primary concern is with air quality,” said Tommie Robertson. She lives off Laurens Street, a neighbor to the current cruise ship pier. “That’s impacted very negatively both by the ship itself, their emissions and also by all the cars that come in. Then, there’s traffic congestion, and then there’s noise pollution.”

However, the argument has moved past environmental concerns. The focus of June 11th’s hearing will be to ask the SC Supreme Court to review and reverse a prior decision by a lower court. The plaintiffs claim the Court of Appeals shut the door on Charlestonians who aimed to appeal state-issued pollution permits for a proposed terminal.

“Do communities, community groups have the ability and the right to protect themselves from pollution, and that’s really what’s at stake,” said Amy Armstrong, the Executive Director and General Counsel for the SC Environmental Law Project. “I think that would, should be concerning to anyone. All citizens of the state of South Carolina because we all want to protect our health, our quality of life, the quality of our environment.”

The state ports authority wants to build a newer and bigger terminal to host larger ships and more of them.

The debate isn’t against cruise ships though. Instead, it’s a fight to make sure the future of the industry in the Charleston Harbor is environmentally responsible.

“We’re only going to see more and more of this,” said Winslow Hastie with the Historic Charleston Foundation. “These issues aren’t going to go away. Again, I think the residents, the people who live closest to these impacts are the ones most directly affected and so they need to have a voice.”

The case goes before the state’s highest court on June 11th at 10 a.m. in Columbia.

A free round-trip bus ride is being offered to people wanting to join the efforts.

The bus will depart from downtown Charleston around 7:30 a.m. and arrive in Columbia at 10 a.m. Oral arguments are expected to last one to two hours.

You can reserve your seat and get more details at https://p2a.co/xE3IB2w

DHEC said the state agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation, and the state ports authority did not respond for a statement, but a spokesperson said the US Army Corps of Engineers is expected to decide on the federal permit by the end of the year.

Copyright 2019 WCSC. All rights reserved.

There is nothing more rewarding — or challenging — than turning a piece of Charleston’s rich history into its future.

I am proud that I was part of transforming the long-dormant Cigar Factory into a vibrant part of our economy. My partners and I hope to have similar success with the Garco Mill in Park Circle and properties in and around the old Navy Yard in North Charleston.

To me there is no big secret when it comes to successful development in Charleston. Whether renovating a historic building or erecting a new one, it is critical to stay true to our region’s charm, character and authenticity. This long-standing commitment by previous generations to the Lowcountry’s style and spirit (with a few exceptions) is why we have evolved into the economic engine we are today.

Since our character is affected by the public and private sectors, we need to take a careful look at the State Ports Authority’s plans to build a larger cruise terminal in the heart of the Historic District.

While I am not opposed to a cruise terminal and I support a healthy port, this conversation is not dissimilar to the deliberations over the hotel boom or the increased port traffic on Long Point Road or the growing pains hitting Mount Pleasant. How much is too much? What adds to our region’s charm and what detracts from it? What is the benefit and what is the harm?

The key difference is that, unlike Charleston’s hotel discussion and Mount Pleasant’s growing pains, the residents and municipalities most affected by our growing port have been told that they will have no voice in the discussion.

As a state representative it concerns me that a state agency and, so far, the lower courts have declared that the people who will be the most affected by port activity will have no standing in any permit review.

These neighbors should have a right to be heard, and the state and the SPA would be smart to listen. Our economy is diverse and has evolved into a fine-tuned machine that gets its power from the simple fact that people love living here. There can and should be a balance because government acting in a vacuum has damaging unintended consequences. And just like the neighbors of any government or private sector facility where a planned expansion will affect how they live and work, they deserve a voice. Government at all levels has a duty to listen to the people it serves and to work in good faith to address their concerns.

What is more, because the Ports Authority is a state agency, municipal leaders can do little to assuage the neighbors’ concerns. That too is wrong. I have been a strong proponent of giving more authority to local government for this exact reason. My experience in the private sector has taught me that local buy-in is what keeps this balance in order and is essential to any project’s long-term success.

When it comes to the cruise terminal, the only assurances locals have is a voluntary agreement that limits the size of ships and the number of visits per year. While I applaud the SPA’s willingness to do this, the reality is it could be canceled at any time with little to no recourse.

The Port and Carnival Cruise Line are clearly committed to making Charleston a cruising destination. And that’s a good thing. The cruise industry is part of the vibrant tourism economy that annually brings in 10 visitors for every one resident.

But tourism and the port are no longer the only drivers of our robust economy, and there needs to be a balance. We need to remember why people love the Lowcountry, and that starts with giving the people who live here a real voice in what goes on in their community. In my professional and political experience, locals usually know best and they always bring value.

William Cogswell is a Republican representing House District 110.

Click to view the article