More cruises = more health risks

Lately, the cruise ship discussion has been centered on enforceable ship size and visitation limits.

These limits are not just about aesthetics. Defined limits also limit pollution and protect the health of the city. City leaders must take immediate steps. Promises of better fuels, and better engineering of ships, heavy machinery, trucks and cars associated with ports and ships do nothing for the ever-present danger of air and water pollution.

This is not about effects down the line, like global warming -- it is the "now effect" of a variety of pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates that travel through the lung straight to the bloodstream, carbon dioxide, etc.), which are emitted into the air from a ship's engine stacks.

These hazardous pollutants are acknowledged in Carnival Cruise Lines' own 2009 Sustainability Report. This report also states that the incineration of garbage and burning of cruise ship engine fuel should have reasonable limitations since these air pollutants "contribute to smog and health issues."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies air pollution from idling cruise ships as a source of aggravation for respiratory disease, increased risk for cancer, and heart disease.

Meanwhile, the Carnival Corp. and other cruise lines lobby against upgrading federal pollution regulations. As a direct result of their corporate lobbying efforts, the International Maritime Organization, the body responsible for establishing international standards, has only recently begun revising outdated regulations for ship emissions. The effect is to paralyze national and state regulations. This necessitates local pollution controls.

Our economy cannot afford shutting shipping down, but we can concentrate on mitigating big offenders such as cruise ships because their impact is closest to neighborhoods like Ansonborough, Mazyck-Wraggborough and the East Side. Downtown residents already report pervasive black soot on porches and exteriors.

Shoreside or "plug-in" power should be our first line of defense against cruise ship air pollution.

Carnival has already committed to shoreside power in a number of places. Just recently, New York City Mayor Bloomberg announced that Brooklyn's cruise terminal will be the first port on the East Coast to have shoreside power. The neighborhood residents immediately adjacent to the New York cruise terminal are plagued by high rates of asthma.

According to the relevant environmental impact study for Brooklyn's consideration of shoreside power, a "large cruise ship burning diesel fuel emits more than 1,600 tons of air pollutants annually" and switching to shoreside power "would eliminate nearly 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 95 tons of nitrous oxide and 6 1/2 tons of diesel particulate matter annually."

Now the New York Ports Authority is working with the EPA and Carnival to share the cost of installing the power source. Carnival will invest in retrofitting its visiting ships to allow "plug-in."

This measure has already been in force in San Francisco, Juneau, Seattle, Vancouver, Los Angeles and San Diego. Los Angeles even goes a step further, powering its shoreside facilities with solar panels.

In addition to plug-in power, Charleston should also require cruise lines to burn low-sulfur fuel. Carnival proudly asserts that its ships burned low-sulfur fuel in California before it was required by law. Carnival also boasts it "uses low-sulfur fuel in Glacier Bay National Park (Alaska) and Venice (Italy), though not required by law."

With other cities taking simple, common-sense steps to safeguard human health, Charleston should not be left behind. Whether the new terminal goes to Columbus Street, stays at Union Pier or even moves to Patriots Point, health protective measures are an essential part of city governance.

Dr. Frederick E. Reed Jr., Dr. Thomas B. Harper III and Dr. William H. Lee are local physicians.