Should Cruise Ships be more "Green"?

THE CRUISE industry faces challenges due to its environmental impact, and in particular, its contribution to air pollution. With its high carbon emissions footprint, sulfur oxide releases, methane gas, and other pollutants that harm air quality and contribute to acid rain, the industry appears to be the world's highest contributor to air pollution.

A COUPLE different internet sites assert that a single cruise ship creates more carbon, and other emissions than 12,000 cars. While interesting, such assertions may be engaging in "apples to oranges" comparisons. They do not, for example, say during what period this emission occurs (per cruise, or per year?). There is little doubt, however, that the industry is currently targeted by environmental sources as the single-most "polluting" recreational offering. We know, also, that they have created both environmental and structural damage in places like the main canal in Venice. Enough so that they have been banned from docking there in recent years. We also know that Norway (and peraps other Scandinavian and Baltic destinations) have severely curtailed cruise ship activities. We are currently booked on a Celebrity Cruise to the Norwegian Fjords, for August, 2025. We are told that 2025 will be the last year these large ships will be allowed in the fjords. Thereafter, only electric powered (and essentially small) boats will be allowed to carry excursion passengers in the fjords. Norway, of course, considers itself one of the world's "greenest" countries.

Could it be Satan!!!? (Sorry, Dana Carvey fan here) 😀

I HAVE vowed not to get mired in politics on either of my blogs, but I have always been personally in favor of a balanced approach to these things. We all generally "lean" one way or another. But facts do matter, as does thorough research. I am absolutely in favor of research and progress toward renewable, clean energy sources. Even to the point of some reasonable compromise and sacrifice (what I have heard referred to as "social cost or capital"). At the same time, though, before we pat ourselves too hard on the back for being "green" I think we need to do so with wide open eyes that have good peripheral vision. The vast majority of "green" articles and arguments I see fail to take contributing factors into consideration. It is one thing to compare the pollution caused at a single point, between traditional gas powered and alternative energy-powered (EV, Hybrid, and natural gass). The frequently "rose-tinted" conclusions reached from this narrow analysis often neglect the big picture. I haven't ever seen anyone do a full, in-depth and completely unbiased full comparison of this. Hmmn. Wonder why not? Could it be Satan!!!? (Sorry, Dana Carvey fan here). Or maybe its just about the money. But those clean, efficient EV's have some of their own baggage, including the very toxic minerals used to manufacture the batteries, the labor problems (often child labor) associated with them, the certain world-wide shortage of the necessary raw materials as competing demands ramp up, and the very real problem of their useful life and subsequent disposal. We also have to come face to face with the reality that there has to be some source to create and deliver the energy required to charge these batteries. I am not saying we shouldn't continue to use and develop these things. I know traditional energy sources have a lot of their own baggage, and I believe it is a worthwhile endeavor to do all in our power to reasonably and sensibly move toward clean, renewable sources. The key, for me, is reasonably and sensibly. O.k., I'll get down off my soapbox now and return to cruising.

The International Council on Clean Transportation, has criticised LNG usage as a "misleading solution" and an example of attempting to appear environmentally friendly without truly addressing climate issues

I BELIEVE that in at least some measure, the cruise industry shares my view that we should be moving toward a "better" energy source. As I have noted before, however, they are a business, and businesses - for better or worse - are generally motivated by profit. The cost of clean energy transition will always be the major factor in the equation. Some of the newer ships (ironically enough, megaships) have been moving toward some kind of alternative. The newest and greatest RCL ship(s) are now powered by liquid natural gas (known as LNG in the energy and power industry). Indeed several cruise lines have newer ship in service or on the way that will be powered LNG. 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN says its newest "Icon of The Seas" (powered by LNG) is 24% more efficient when it comes to carbon emissions than required by global shipping regulator the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Not everyone is buying, though. Bryan Comer, director of the marine program at The International Council on Clean Transportation, has criticised LNG usage as a "misleading solution" and an example of attempting to appear environmentally friendly without truly addressing climate issues: "We would estimate that using LNG as a marine fuel emits over 120% more life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than marine gas oil," he said in a recent interview. He also stresses that reducing carbon emissions is not the be all and end all of air polution, noting that In terms of warming effects, methane is 80 times worse over 20 years than carbon dioxide, making cutting methane emissions key to holding down global temperature warming. Presumably, he is not seeing the industry seriously addressing this issue.

I am absolutely in favor of research and progress toward renewable, clean energy sources

IN ADDITION to the fuel and power plant impact, cruise ships also generate huge quantities of solid waste from food, to packaging, and use large quantities of water. The industry has been more on top of this type of pollution, perhaps partly because it is more visible. Nearly every line has some level of recyling. Many ships now have onboard solid waste incinerators, and water re-conditioning equipment. Many have also begun to look at the sourcing of their food, specifyng the reduction or outright rejection of single-use containers. These approaches aren't new in some cases and have been in practice for years. It is also common for us to see the voluntary program regarding laundering of towels. We have always felt that we could easily get along with the same towels by hanging them to dry after each use, and it is nice to see that in the past few years, hotels and cruise ships alike have embraced that approach.

The key, for me, is reasonably and sensibly

I DOUBT that the world will stop cruising any time in the foreseeable future, but I do believe it is worth raising everyone's level of observation and attention to these things and to try do do our part as passengers to help.

Would love to hear your thoughts

Rules of The Road - IV - Who has the Right of Way - Power vs. Sail?

UP UNTIL this point, I have mainly focused on the buoy and marker systems used for navigating a waterway. Rules of the Road, however, also regulate the conduct of the many different vessels on the waterway. Vessels as small a canoes and kayaks and as large as 1500 feet long (5 American Football Fields) weighing over 250,000 tons. 

FOR THE blog's perspective, the currently largest cruise ship is the Royal Caribbean Icon of the Seas, nearly 1200 feet long (4 football fields) and nearly 250,000 gross tons. There are a number of other ships that are nearly as big. There are many other vessels in between, including wind-powered vessels, military ships (including aircraft carriers - themselves as much as 1,000 plus feet long and 250 feet wide), commercial cargo ships, commercial passenger vessels, and hundreds of thousands of pleasure craft.

UNLIKE ROADS, which can contain and direct traffic geographically effectively, the world's waterway are not so easy. They are vast. Over 70 percent of the earth's surface is water. As we have noted above, the vessels that sail these waters can vary from a very tiny single person kayak, to the 1500 foot long cruise ship described. Obviously, there are many factors that effect maneuverability, including size, propulsion type and power.

THERE ARE some general rules. First, in general, a boat that is powered by a sail "always" has the right of way over a power boat. It gets less clear, however, once we define "under sail." This rule only applies to a vessel that is solely under sail. If a sailing vessel is actively using an engine, it is no longer a sailboat "under sail" (even if has sails up). That's a fun one. How does the cruise ship captain know whether the boat is running its engines? Then there is another exception to the rule that says when operating within a narrow channel (probably defines most of the ports), the vessel that needs to be in the channel because of its draft (how far does it extend down in the water) has the right of way. I have often thought, standing on the upper deck of my cruise ship and watching sailboats around us, about that right of way rule. So far, I have not been of aware of it having been tested. Most of the time, all the smaller boats maintain a respectful distance from the cruise ships that are under way.

AN OVERRIDING rule, though (as is the case for most rules in our society) holds that even if you believe you are following the rules, if you see an issue and there is something you can safely do to avoid a problem, you must do that. I would call that the rule of common sense, which will undoubtedly be best exercised with a thorough background knowledge of the rules of the road. Do those small sail-only powered vessels really want to "play chicken" with that 250 ton cruise ship that is under way? We all know who will win in that collision, no matter who is technically at fault. In the cruising world, though, the ship captains and navigators still must know these rules and are technically bound to follow them. It is interesting to think about the knowledge and judgment required of cruise ship bridge officers, as we watch the ship come into and depart from busy ports around the world.

The Future of Cruise Ships - Should they be Building More Megaships?

THE CURRENT trend in the cruise ship industry is bigger and more grandiose ships. For sure, there are  cruise lines that focus on a smaller, either more luxury or expedition type experience. And for sure, that is also a growing sector, albeit a much smaller one. The subject of this post will confine itself mainly to what I call "mainline" cruising, with ships that carry from just under 1,000 passengers to nearly 6,000. For the most part, I will refer to passenger capacity, rather than gross tonnage, though the latter is certainly a factor in today's industry. These ships generally offer a combination of a good shore itinerary and various onboard entertainment, including amusement parklike attractions and multiple dining venues.

The current trend in the cruise ship industry is bigger and more grandiose ships

THE MEGASHIP trend really began in the late 2,000s, with Royal Caribbean leading the way with its Oasis Class ships. Offering something more than the traditional pools, sundecks and dining venues, these ships offered things like rock climbing walls, waterslides, surf - simulator pools, go-kart tracks and bumper car paviliions, among other things. They also ramped up the dining/entertainment venues, introducing a mall-like atmosphere on the ships. Passenger capacities on these ships were double those of their predecessors approachin 6,000 passengers. They were also physically much larger, often at an average of around 250,000 gross tons. Since then, there have been a growing number of competitors. By 2025, RC will have 9 ships in their two mega classes: Oasis and Icon. Today's biggest cruise ship, the Icon of the Seas was launched at the start of this year, and her sister ship the Star of the Seas, expected to surpass her in size, has a planned launch of August, 2025. Both have passenger capacities of 5,600. Not to be outdone, Europe-based Costa, MSC, and P&O all sport ships today that number among the 10 largest cruise ships in the world. All of these Mega-ships are some of the largest ships in the world by gross tonnage, bigger than many large cargo ships. 

“We make a lot more money on them. Ticket revenue and on-board revenue is dramatically higher on larger ships than on smaller, older ships.”

DURING THE 20-year period between 1990 and 2009, the largest cruise ships grew a third longer and almost 2 times in beam. The largest have grown considerably since, particularly in passenger capacity. These "megaships" went from offering a single  veranda deck, to offering nearly all decks with verandas.

PERHAPS THE single most relevant factor to the question my title asks, is: is there continued strong demand for these megaships? The data is not crystal clear. A poll done on another blog back about 5 years suggested that about 75% of responders favored  smaller ships, as opposed to the 25% who said: "bring it on!" As of October 2024, 32 passenger ships were on order or under construction with a publicly announced size of over 140,000 GT. According to Wikipedia, RCL has three Icon-class cruise ships on order and two options, with expected delivery in 2025, 2026 and 2027, as well as one Oasis-class ship on order for 2028. While exact sizes are not publicly known, RC has previously stated that each new ship will be a little larger than the last. Celebrity Cruises, which is owned by RCI's parent company Royal Caribbean Group, will introduce a 140,600 gross ton Edge-class ship in 2025. This all suggests to me that whether or not they "should" do so, mainline ship lines will continue to introduce megaships.

ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT factor which drives the introduction of megaships is an age old motivator: profit. My research suggests that these huge ships yield more profits for their owners than small ships do. To an extent, that stands to reason, as they are able to pack more paying passengers on these ships, creating economies of scale. A former large cruise line CEO is quoted as noting: “We make a lot more money on them. Ticket revenue and on-board revenue is dramatically higher on larger ships than on smaller, older ships.” So there's that. And that will likely be a substantial driver.

FROM MY personal perspective, a few of the "pros and cons" are: 

Large Ships Pros:

• Large variety of entertainment options
• Large variety of dining options
• Kid/family friendly
• Party Atmosphere

Large Ships Cons:

• Higher Fuel costs = (sometimes higher pricing (although other "amenties" offered by some of the smaller ships offset that)
• Generally lower food quality
• Can be crowded at times
• Size can negatively effect itinerary/destinations
• Party Atmosphere

AS MIGHT be expected from a topic like this, many of the so-called "pros and cons" are subjective. I tried to illustrate that with my inclusion of "party atmosphere" in both categories. For many passengers the party atmosphere is actually a draw to to cruising. This is particularly true among a younger demographic, and warm weather cruises that focus on (but not necessarily limited to) the caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Baha Peninsula. According to NCL’s former CEO, Colin Veitch, “The thing that’s attractive about bigger ships is you have more choice and variety on board,” he said. “We make a lot more money on them. Ticket revenue and on-board revenue is dramatically higher on larger ships than on smaller, older ships.”

To be sure there are ships with less than 4,000 capacity being built, but they are fewer and further between

FOR OTHERS, though, it will be considered a reason to avoid particular ships. We began cruising in our 50's and our view of cruising is more traditional and would be comfortably within the non-party atmosphere demographic (And of course, it is certainly possible to have a party atmosphere on smaller ships). There are cruisers who want to be pampered and have specialty meals, butlers, and exclusive environments. They are generally well served by either the "exclusive" areas being offered by some of the mainline ships, or by the higher-end, much smaller ships that offer a premium experience (at, of course, a premium price).

WE TEND to fall in between. In our late 60's, our week-long party experiences are well behind us. I do recall the New Year's celebration on the Celebrity Apex in the Caribbean back in December/January of this year. It was a lot of fun. It also confirmed to me that one night was all I really wanted of that. Our idea of an enjoyable cruise is good food, good cocktail venues, nice weather (when possible), good shows and comedians, but above all others, a good itinerary (though it has developed over time that the Caribbean itineray matters much less to us than the weather and ship's amenities). An onboard amusement park atmosphere, with things like climbing walls, bumper cars, rollercosters, surf simulators and such are pretty much a non-starter for us. We prefer a more "chill" and relaxing atmosphere. We have never cruised with young children, and that might make a difference. I can see us, for example, taking our now 5-year-old grandson on a Disney Cruise. But that wouldn't really be for us. it would be for him.

Our idea of an enjoyable cruise is good food, good cocktail venues, nice weather (when possible), good shows and comedians, but above all others, a good itinerary

AS I have noted here in the past, our "sweet spot" ship size has been the medium-sized 2,000 - 3,000 passenger ship. Interestingly, RCL seems to be embracing both the megaship concept and continuing (albeit with their wholly-owned subsidiary: Celebrity) the medium ships, with their Edge class, which is kind of our "Goldilocks" ship.

WHETHER THEY should be continuing to produce megaships, or not, it is clear that they plan to do so. As of this writing there are close to a dozen ships pushing the 6,000 passenger envelope through 2028. There are nearly as many in the 4,000 passenger range. To be sure there are ships with less than 4,000 capacity being built, but they are fewer and further between. I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Big, medium, or small ship? 

A New Idea

AS READERS here know, I spend a lot of time on line on various sites that cover the cruise and travel agency. Not as a professional. As a consumer. Reading responses to a YouTube channel on cruising recently, I came across a comment that planted a seed for this blog. A "new" (to me, anyway) approach to cruising.

Most stops are for less than 12 hours

AS SEASONED cruisers know, the typical cruise is anywhere from 4 to about 14 days (with an average of about 7-12). There are longer ones, of course. But this is the norm. The usual itinerary, depending on distance between ports, has the ship cruising at night and stopping in ports by day. A typical 7-day cruise would have between 3 and 5 stops. Most stops are for less than 12 hours. Sometimes there is an overnight, but even those can abbreviate one of the 2 days you would expect an overnight to consume.

What if there were cruises designed with a smaller number of stops and more overnights or even multiple nights?

WHAT IF the cruise lines changed that up. One of my "negatives" about cruising as a form of seeing the world travel is the shortness of time spent in ports. There is not only not enough time, but we miss some of the best times for things to happen (sunrise, sunset and night time). What if there were cruises designed with a smaller number of stops and more overnights or even multiple nights?

THIS IS just a "raw" idea in my mind at this state. There are certainly going to be complications. For example, I do not know how the approach would change the cost structure. Port fees would most likely substantially increase. Ship revenues might be effected by lower on-ship consumption (shops and casinos closed more -but maybe some concessions could be made there, at least where shore stops don't have the shops and/or casinos). There might be lowered fuel costs, but I am not sure on this one, particularly when ships run engines while docked?

Managing passenger logistics would be a significant consideration

I SUSPECT some of the cruise logistics would be complicated by an approach like this - especially considering that cruise types (traditional and this approach) would be mixed. This could well effect and be effected by port availability. This approach could also change onboard staff management and logistics. Employee contracts would no doubt be different, or at least contain additional provisions.

ANOTHER POSSIBLE logistics problem would be managing passenger accounting. The ships all do - in my view - an amazing job of accounting for passengers who leave the ship and return. By the time I started cruising in the 2000's, we were already pretty much digitized. Our ship cards contained at least a magnetic strip that could be swiped and would show the ship management that you had gone ashore - and that you returned. Even on my first cruise, the efficiency of this process impressed me. I wonder how they did it back in the earlier days. Maybe some reader here is old enough to remember - and would share that with us in the comments?

WITH THIS approach, however, another -different - problem comes to mind. On our Celebrity "England and Ireland" cruise in 2019, we had a unique (for us) experience - very much like what I am proposing here. We ported in Le Havre, France. From there, it was only about a 90 - minute train ride to Paris. Our overnight was the longest I can remember, arriving in the early morning hours and then not departing until around midnight on the second day. Never having been to Paris, we took advantage of this (to us) extra-long stop and booked an overnight in a Paris motel. This gave us about a day and a half in Paris, including the evening. It was well worth it in my view (I was able to see - and photograph - the sunset over Paris from the top of the Eiffel Tower - and photograph the tower at night). We had time to see a few of the main sights in the city (not nearly enough). We ate in a couple of the local restaurants. It was memorable and I remember thinking about this on many of our other unique stops.

It had never even occurred to us that the ship might depart early, leaving us "stranded" in Paris!

THERE IS, however, a logistics issue. It was really underscored when in 2022, we cruise on Celebrity's Apex in the Baltic. We had a planned overnight stop in Stockholm, Sweden. The port was not really within walking distance of the city, though it was only a short shuttle or taxi ride. It would have been another ideal spot to book an overnight hotel and take in parts of the city during the nighttime and early morning hours. We did not plan to do that this time, but I am sure some people did. At some point (I don't remember exactly when, but we were on board at the time), the ship captain came on the PA system and announce that because of predicted high winds, the overnight stay was being cancelled (maybe during dinner), and the ship would be departing around midnight (the passage in and out of Stockholm Port is narrow and winding and a few miles (it took a couple hours each way).

IT GAVE us a jolt when it occurred to us: what about people who were still ashore? What about people who had booked overnight stays in Stockholm hotels? How would they know? What are the mechanics of getting them back aboard? We immediately remembered our Paris adventure. It had never even occurred to us that the ship might depart early, leaving us "stranded" in Paris! We had not informed the ship that we would be overnighting in Paris. Nor had we given them our hotel name, reservation, etc. It is unclear to me what the resposibilities are in that case. I confess I haven't read a contract from end-to-end since our first couple cruises. Even then when I did that, I think I was in the huge minority of passengers. I am an attorney. I will be the first to tell you that these contracts are long, wordy, confusing and tedious. I think - like many large commercial ventures - they count on people not reading the so-called "fine print." In the future though, if I plan an overnight stay on shore, I will at least peruse the contract for that information. An even better approach, however, is to just voluntarily inform the ship of your overnight plans, including the name, telephone, address, and perhaps reservation number of your hotel. Just common sense (even though we didn't exercise it in 2022). 😓

Would there be enough demand for this kind of cruise?

THE THING is, this could become a major logistics headache for cruise ships. Would overnight stays onshore become a popular thing? I am not sure. I think it would partially depend on the port and how close amenities were. If it were easy to walk, shuttle or taxi/Uber, we probably wouldn't want to deal with the extra cost and hassle (some form of luggage would be an issue for most travelers planning to overnight) of booking a hotel when we have a great room right there back at the ship. 

WOULD THERE be enough demand for this kind of a cruise? I honestly don't know. I do know that I would personally embrace it. There are - in my (perhaps myopic) view, some real cruise passenger pluses. Perhaps the biggest positive for all passengers who like to travel and get off the ship at stops (I suspect this is the majority) is the additional time to explore the port city and surrounds. It would likely create many more options and opportunities for excursions. It would allow passengers to take advantage of local cuisine and restaurants (though the cruise lines might see this a negative, considering the food planning logistics require, but lost revenue on upcharge items and alcohol). And of course many passengers are more about the cruising "experience" than the ports. There is certainly an argument that both of these could be accomplished though.

WHAT DO you think? Is this a viable approach to cruising? Would love to hear your thoughts.