It would cost passengers just the price of a glass of wine a day if cruise ships would stop burning highly polluting heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the fragile Arctic environment. That’s according to a new report from green transport group Transport & Environment which analysed the impact on the cruise ship MS Rotterdam had it switched to marine gas oil (MGO) [1] during three summer trips to the Arctic in 2018.
The main purpose of the analysis is to better understand the nature of the likely cost impact of Arctic HFO ban on Cruise industry and passenger ticket prices and in doing so, contribute to informed decision-making at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). This study has analysed these costs for cruise industry using three summer 2018 trips of MS Rotterdam to the Arctic as case studies.
A dispute involving Europe’s ship owners and the European Commission is threatening to weaken the effectiveness of a new EU law aimed at cleaning up the recycling of old ships. T&E together with NGO Shipbreaking Platform has called for the Commission to insist that only scrapping yards that meet minimum standards on environmental and working conditions should be on the EU’s list of approved scrapping facilities.
A company that runs cruises through Arctic waters is coming under increased pressure to stop using a cheap-but-dirty fuel that is destroying the environment its passengers pay to see. Carnival Corporation’s customers and the general public are being asked to sign a petition at cleanupcarnival.com, setup by an international coalition of environmental groups.
As Carnival Corporation’s first ships of the season arrive in the Arctic, an international coalition of environmental groups has joined together to call on the cruise giant to stop using one of the world’s cheapest and dirtiest fossil fuels — heavy fuel oil — on ships traveling in fragile Arctic and sub-Arctic waters. The petition is at cleanupcarnival.com and will be delivered to Carnival Corporation CEO Arnold Donald at the company’s headquarters.
Europe has already spent half a billion US dollars on natural gas infrastructure for its shipping sector in order to comply with an EU law – and continuing its roll-out is likely to cost governments and investors $22 billion by 2050, a new study has found. Liquified natural gas (LNG) will reduce shipping emissions by just 6%, at most, compared to the replaced diesel fuel, the research by the UMAS consultancy shows.
In light of the recently adopted initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions and the Paris agreement, there is a need to better understand the potential market for LNG as a marine fuel, bunkering infrastructure investments required and associated risks in the context of shipping GHG reduction. This report attempts to assess the prospective future public and private financial investments by EU member states into LNG port/bunkering infrastructure consistent with EU plans to foster the widespread uptake of LNG as a means of decarbonising the shipping sector up to 2050. EU member states are mandated to set up LNG port infrastructure under the 2014 Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive.
Rolling out liquified natural gas (LNG) infrastructure for shipping in Europe would cost $22 billion and deliver, at best, a 6% reduction in ship greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to the replaced diesel, a new independent study for Transport & Environment (T&E) by the UMAS consultancy finds.[1] To date Europe has spent half a billion US dollars on LNG infrastructure for refuelling ships.