In essence, cruise ships are floating small towns. They carry thousands of passengers on ships that often stand thirteen decks tall. The cruise ship industry that travels from Washington State to Alaska contributes billions of dollars into the economies of many American and Canadian port cities.

Each time a ship docks at Seattle, it pumps \($1.7\) million into the local economy,

\($2\) million into the greater Vancouver economy, and \($1\) billion annually into Victoria’s tourism sector.

The cruise line industry spends millions of dollars annually promoting trips with photos and videos of travel through pristine waters and of passengers observing aquatic wildlife in its natural habitat while enjoying the scenic beauty of the shorelines of the Pacific Northwest. However, cruise ships, which normally carry 3,000 passengers and crew, generate enormous amounts of both water pollution and air pollution.

A typical cruise ship produces approximately 170,000 gallons of gray water (the water from showers, sinks, swimming pools, dishwashing, and laundry), 21,000 gallons of sewage, 6,400 gallons of bilge water, and 1 ton of solid waste per day.

However, there are no consistent regulations concerning water pollution caused by cruise ships. For example, the states of Washington and Alaska have rules about discharging gray water, but the province of British Columbia does not. Therefore, cruise ships tend to release their untreated gray water as they pass through the Straits of Juan de Fuca separating Vancouver Island from the mainland of Canada and the United States. According to Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada, “Cruise ship companies are taking advantage of Canada’s weaker laws on sewage discharge to save money. It is bizarre that B.C. residents should bear the burden of cruise ship pollution from well-heeled tourists.”1 The sulfur content of heavy bunker oil is 2,000 times more than the sulfur content of diesel fuel that is burned by smaller ships. The estimated daily air pollution generated by a 3,000-passenger ship burning bunker fuel is the equivalent of 12,000 cars. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that the pollution from these Alaska-bound cruise ships can travel over 4,000 kilometers, across British Columbia and Alberta, to as far away as North Dakota in the United States. In order to reduce air pollution, some cities, including Juneau, Vancouver, and Seattle, allow cruise ships to connect to the local power grid when in port.

Prior to 2012, the sulfur content of the bunker fuel that was burned by cruise ships sailing from Seattle to Alaska averaged 1.5% to 1.8%. In 2012, new laws enacted in both the United States and Canada forced container ships, oil tankers, and large cruise ships to reduce their bunker fuel air pollution. The allowable level was to be 1% in 2012, dropping to 0.1% by 2015. When the new rules were enacted, the EPA estimated that the improved air quality resulting from these new regulations would save as many as 14,000 lives each year. They said that this was the same as eliminating the sulfur dioxide emissions of 12.7 million cars per day.

Pollution rules only apply to cruise ships sailing within the 200-mile limit of Canada and the United States. Ships outside the limit can burn heavy bunker fuel and discharge their gray water and sewage without violating any international environmental laws or regulations. However, the International Maritime Organization, a UN agency, has proposed a worldwide limit of 0.5% sulfur content on all marine vessels by 2020.

Complying with pollution standards can be costly. The EPA estimated that the cost of following the 2012 rules would be an additional charge of \($7\) per day for a cruise line ticket. The industry estimated the cost to be \($19.46\) per day, or over \($133\) per passenger charge for a seven-day cruise. By way of comparison, a \($50\) head tax imposed by Alaska was blamed for a decrease of 142,000 passengers traveling in 2010.

In 2013, Carnival Corp. announced that it was spending more than \($180\) million to install filtration and air pollution control equipment, called scrubbers, on thirty-two of its cruise ships in order to comply with the 2015 standard of 0.1% sulfur pollution.

Tom Dow, the vice president of public affairs, said, “It means that we’re going to burn more economical fuel with a better environmental impact. The outcome’s better, the cost is less.”2 The cruise line industry has not always complied with the prevailing pollution laws and regulations. From 2010 to 2014, the U.S. government levied 129 wastewater violations and forty-nine air pollution violations against numerous cruise ship companies.

These included the following:

• Ten violations against the Norwegian Cruise Line

• Fifteen violations against the Holland American Line

• Twenty-six wastewater violations against Princess Cruises in 2013 alone In 2015, the Alaskan government charged Royal Caribbean International and Celebrity Cruises with environmental violations that spanned a period of five years. Fines and penalties are not new. In 2000, Royal Caribbean International paid

\($3.5\) million to the Alaskan government for polluting the state’s water.

Questions:-

1. If the pollution laws are lax in one country but strict in another, do cruise ship companies have an obligation to follow the stricter pollution laws even when they are temporarily sailing through the waters of the country with the more lax pollution regulations?
2. Many cruise ships travel outside the 200-mile limits set by the United States and Canada. Do these ships have any environmental responsibilities when they are sailing in international waters?
3. Should port cities compromise on pollution standards in order to generate tourism business?
4. Based on the facts presented in this case, is the cruise ship industry ethical?
Explain why and why not.