Local pushback against cruise ships in the world’s top tourist destinations is nothing new. More than three years ago, these vast vessels were barred from Venice’s lagoon on grounds of the risk they posed to the city’s historic buildings. This summer, cruise ships in Amsterdam and Barcelona were targeted by protesters, on grounds of chemical pollution but also as part of a wider movement against overtourism (as the negative impacts of huge influxes of visitors have become known). But – as revealed this week in a series of Guardian articles, The real cost of cruises – the environmental and social impact of this fast-growing industry goes way beyond individual cities, and requires action on a global scale.
The carbon emissions of a cruise are roughly double that of the equivalent flights plus a hotel stay. The industry is also responsible for a vast quantity of waste discharged directly into the sea, as well as high levels of toxic air pollution in the ports where ships are docked – usually with their engines running. Once seen as the exclusive pursuit of a minority of wealthy retired people, these holidays are now mainstream, with vast floating resorts designed and marketed for families and young adults. The largest ships have up to 20 floors and room for several thousand people.
With numerous new vessels under construction, and the latest models twice the size of older ones, the industry is predicted to be worth nearly 4% of the £1.9tn global holiday market by 2028. Rightly, environmental campaigners are calling for much tougher regulations.
Like aviation, shipping in general has benefited from lenient environmental and tax rules – partly due to the difficulty of deciding in which national jurisdiction, and under whose regulatory regime, their activities belong. The EU has recently agreed new penalties for those that use dirty fuel. But in the UK, shipping has not so far been included in the emissions reductions plans submitted to the United Nations – though this should change when these are renewed. The International Maritime Organization’s own carbon reduction targets do not put it on a path to net zero or even the 1.5C average temperature rise allowed for in the Paris climate agreement.
As with aviation, there is an urgent need for increased international cooperation and agreement. Cruise companies should not be able to operate with lower environmental standards than other kinds of travel businesses. Their track record is poor, with many opting to fit “scrubbers” that dump emissions into the sea when they were told to reduce air pollution. In future, the ocean, as well as the air, must be protected when rules are tightened.
As in other industries, the development and adoption of green technologies must become compulsory, not optional. One example is the currently patchy use of shoreside electricity, which is much lower-carbon than on-board power. The green taxes being discussed in relation to air travel should also be imposed on cruises. If this means that the industry’s plans for rapid further expansion are checked, that would be for the best. In its current form, it is not only unsustainable but causing disproportionate harm by comparison with other forms of tourism, including air travel. The environmental costs of the hedonistic visions it promotes – trips of a lifetime, and so on – must also be more effectively communicated. Trading on images of paradise while doing so much damage cannot carry on.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
