March 3, 2010
To the editor:
The effects of Ballot Measure No. 2 (the cruise ship head tax) were immediately felt in Southeast, but it had detrimental repercussions throughout the entire state, including Fairbanks.
The head tax, though well-intentioned, placed additional unobtainable environmental restrictions on cruise companies. Specifically, cruise ships were restricted to 3.1 micrograms per liter per day of dissolved copper in their discharged water. In contrast, the city of Juneau is allowed 95.8 micrograms per liter per day. That creates a problem because the technology to meet the “3.1 microgram threshold” does not exist. As a result of this unobtainable threshold (along with increased taxation), cruise ships that normally travelled Alaskan waters simply moved to other international routes.
How has this affected Fairbanks? Diminishing cruise numbers equated to less folks visiting the Interior. For 2010 alone, the industry is bracing for a 140,000-person reduction from 2009 (which, by all accounts, was a bad year for the industry). Many small businesses dependant on tourism dollars live and die within their margin. Here, the global recession, coupled with a 30 percent tourist traffic reduction, force even “bare-bones” Alaskan entities to struggle for solvency.
Alaska needs to recognize its place in the international marketplace. If Alaska continues its adversarial relationship with the cruise industry, the cruise ships (in an effort to cut costs and overhead), will simply leave. The state does not have the same infrastructure or lower operating costs associated with more popular, tropical destinations. In light of the global recession and increased international competition for tourist dollars, Alaska needs to re-evaluate its current relationship with the cruise industry.
So, what can we change? I believe the state government needs to work with the cruise industry, starting with a reduction in the head tax and a re-evaluation of the “3.1 microgram threshold.” Neither the cruise industry nor the state wants Alaska’s waters polluted. However, the effect of the recession, along with excess taxation, has weakened the foundation on which the entire tourism industry rests. If allowed to fester, Alaska (particularly Fairbanks) could experience catastrophic ramifications to many of the small businesses dependent on seasonal tourism to survive.
"The result may be difficult to obtain, but is most definitely not "unobtainable" if, as your analysis and the report I have referenced mentions, some of the cruise lines were able to pass"
To be fair, I'd never characterize "no completion", "excessively exceeded" (i.e. failed), "partial completion" and "limited data entry" as "passing." Partial completion is a nice way of saying partial failure. Limited data entry (such as Carnival) doesn't mean you can presume they passed their copper, nickel, annonia, and zinc diagnositics (had they be studied with the same scrutiny as Princess or Holland America).
Carnival, who met long term effluent levels, was only being studied using "limited quantity and selected streams of accommodation graywater...the ships held the MAJORITY of their wastewater for discharge outside of Alaska." (emphasis added). Limited selected streams make for terrible studies.
Regardless, the overwelming majority of the ships in port failed the test or gave incomplete data sets (including Carnival). Your assesment that "most of the boats were able to comply with this standard" is incorrect.
I welcome critical analysis and appreicate your point of view.
Cheers, and enjoy your weekend.
I stand by my analysis. Specifically in response to the following from your letter:
"That creates a problem because the technology to meet the “3.1 microgram threshold” does not exist. As a result of this unobtainable threshold"
The result may be difficult to obtain, but is most definitely not "unobtainable" if, as your analysis and the report I have referenced mentions, some of the cruise lines were able to pass.
The question I have for you then, is why they pass sometimes but not others? The report is broken down by company and not by individual ships and also cites instances of ships not passing, installing new pipes, and then being able to pass. This indicates to me that in fact the technology to meet these ionic discharge limits does exist. Where am I wrong here?
If you refer to the entire letter you'll see I referenced the global recession as a component to our current dire straights. Certainly the increased taxation and 3.1 microgram threshold (i.e. a technological impossibility at this stage of game) don't help matters. The State needs to step in and help out (by staying out of the way) while these small, cruise dependant businesses endure our current economy.
Oh_please:
Though you're correct, I, without any hesitation, can say that I represent no one but myself. I'm just an average joe out there like everyone else.
Enjoy!
Was this letter written in your professional capacity? Are you representing the tourism industry?
what a bunch of crap.
its the economy stupid! when all those gray hairs start to get more than 1% from their CDs they'll be back. meantime they sit home.
Respectfully, you’re analysis of the March 2, 2009 report is mistaken. Read it again:
Carnival – only passed because of its limited discharge. Most discharge outside of State.
Silver Shadow – Partial compliance however copper and nickel discharge were inconclusive.
Norwegian Cruise Lines – Unknown
Seven Seas Mariner – Only partial compliance.
Celebrity/Royal Caribbean – No consistent discharge in Alaskan waters.
Princess – Consistently exceeded.
Holland America – Consistently exceeded.
Getting raped by gunpoint is bad enough, but this rape-age with money is horrible, just horrible...
Will this holocaust ever stop?
An interim report from about a year ago (http://eii.org/csaw/AK_Cruise_web_docs/Water Division Staffs Status Rpt.PDF) states that most of the boats were able to comply with this standard and that many of those that didn't meet the 3.1ug/L rule did after replacing old piping on their boats.
the danger of being run over by these huge tourist busses.