[ad_1]
I appreciated reading “Require cruise ships to plug into shore power while docked in Seattle.” [Opinion, April 2] It feels like there’s some unwritten rule against being critical of the industry.
Cruise companies creating the greenhouse gases and toxic smoke should pay the entire $44 million for Pier 66 shore power. Making use mandatory for ships docking in Seattle seems like a no-brainer.
Since we’re having a refreshing moment of honesty, let’s say it: Shore power isn’t a climate solution for cruise ships. It’s good for public health, and communities near ports deserve protection from impacts equivalent to 34,000 diesel trucks idling.
As ships keep getting bigger and dragging more resort attractions around the ocean, the idea that they can somehow decarbonize one day becomes more of a fairy tale. A magical fuel of the future isn’t coming. If cruise companies, ports, and cities are serious about their climate commitments, the solution is much smaller, zero-emissions ships, where the main attractions stay on land at the destinations visited.
In the meantime, sailings should be reduced annually, lowering emissions while sending the industry a clear message about our priorities.
Stacy Oaks, Tulalip
[ad_2]
Source link