David Hindin, a gCaptain reader from the San Francisco Bay Area pointed us to this image and audio file from the New York Times. They tell us;

A small, historic cruise ship with an imperfect security record was listing dangerously after it struck ice in Antarctic waters today, with 154 passengers and crew members evacuated in a flotilla of lifeboats and inflatable boats, the cruise operator and coast guards said.

Late into the day, the small red and white ship — named the Explorer but known affectionately as “the little red ship” — was listing steeply to starboard, nearly on its side, awash in ice floes and steely gray water. The vessel — on an expedition to trace the doomed route of the explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton — sent out a distress signal in the middle of the night (5:24 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time) after it began to take in water through “a fist-sized hole,” said Dan Brown, a spokesman for G.A.P. Adventures, the Toronto-based tour operator that owns and operates the ship. He said the “running assumption” is that it hit an iceberg. Water began to trickle into a cabin and eventually flooded the engine room, causing the ship to lose power.

The accident occurred well north of the Antarctic Circle in an island chain that is part of the Antarctic peninsula, which juts close to South America and has seen sharp warming of temperatures in recent years.As the satellite distress signal was being picked up by coast guard stations in Britain; Norfolk, Va.; and Ushuaia, Argentina, the ship’s 100 passengers — 14 of them American, 24 British, 17 Dutch, 12 Canadian and a smattering of other nationalities— were awakened and told to don warm clothes and life preservers, said Mark Clark, a spokesman for Britain’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which was one of the first authorities to receive the distress signal. They clambered down ladders on the ship’s side to board lifeboats.

Mr. Clark said they were taken aboard a small research vessel, the National Geographic Endeavour, that was nearby, before they were transferred to a Norwegian cruise line.

You can continue reading this NYTimes story by clicking HERE.

The New York Times has the story on a California petition to limit ship emissions:

The California attorney general and a coalition of environmental groups have called for federal regulation to curb heat-trapping emissions from the worldwide fleet of about 90,000 oceangoing ships, including container ships, tankers and cruise ships.

The regulations, sought in separate petitions to the Environmental Protection Agency, would apply to United States territorial waters.

Only six countries generate more emissions of greenhouse gases than the world’s oceangoing vessels, said Michael Hirshfield, a senior scientist with Oceana, an ocean-protection organization.

The group’s petition, whose participants included the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth, argues that “the sheer number of these ships, coupled with operating practices that use fuel inefficiently and poor government oversight, results in carbon dioxide emissions” equal to the emissions of 130 million to 195 million cars. Continue Reading….

Joe Angelo, the deputy managing director of Intertanko, a group representing independent tanker operators, said the best approach was “to reduce emissions worldwide — universally — not just unilateral action in the United States or the European Union.”

INTERTANKO’s solution? Here is a report from their June 2007 study on emissions:

The environmental footprint of ships, which carry 90% of world trade covering over 30,000 billion tonne-miles a year, is extremely light compared to other forms of transport. And yet despite the industry’s tonne-mile efficiency, it has been left behind by other sectors which are already regulated and compelled to use clean, environmentally friendly fuels. This means that the shipping industry has become an easy-to-pick fruit, recently targeted by politicians eager to show that they are still doing something on the environmental front.

A switch from residual fuel to marine diesel oil (MDO) means a comprehensive and practical strategy for an efficient and long-term reduction of air pollution from ships. Should one expect ships to reduce air pollution while still burning residual fuels? These fuels have a significant content of sulphur, nitrogen (that contributes to the NOx emissions and thereby ozone or a greenhouse gas), hazardous components including heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that combine to create a cocktail of particulate emissions and generated sludge

The proposal that the shipping industry switches to distillate bunker fuel (MDO) according to a timescale that takes into account fuel availability, delivers immediate, real and global reductions in atmospheric pollution (SOx, NOx and PM). It deals with the cause of this pollution rather than the effect – i.e. rather than limiting the rulemaking development to cleaning up the pollution itself. These are among the reasons that this proposal has been gaining support from a number of IMO states – including Norway.

This seems to be in contrast with the California petition which calls for elimination of bunker fuel and a proposed reduction of vessel speed by 20%. Considering our industry lives by the motto “Time is Money” it’s not surprising that INTERTANKO is looking for alternative solutions or fighting any actions that would mandate speed reductions. I may be stating the obvious but wouldn’t speed reductions increase the demand for hulls? Wouldn’t this be in the interests of an organization of ship owners?

This debate is destined to expand in direct relation to the growth of our global warming problems. When the argument is settled, whether by the EPA or IMO, I doubt the solutions will be those suggested in the petition or by INTERTANKO but I’m hopeful the coverage will increase awareness and development of workable solutions… that is if the press can avoid misleading and counterproductive headlines like THIS.

CLICK HERE for Maritime News Discoverer stories on Vessel Emissions.

Related Links;

• The EU’s Ship Emissions Strategy
• Shipping bodies challenge EU pollution rule
• Measures for sustainable shipping (Shipping Gazette)
• A look at Modes of Transportation with regard to emissions

Looks the Hawaii Superferry is running into even more trouble with environmental opposition. The New York Times tells us:

Officials with the first passenger-vehicle ferry between major Hawaiian islands canceled plans to resume service to Kauai, despite a partial court victory and an announcement by Gov. Linda Lingle that the ferry would start up again next Wednesday.

Hawaii Superferry officials said late Friday that the decision was made “for the safety of the community, our passengers and our dedicated employees.”

The announcement came a day after more than 1,000 people jammed a public meeting on Kauai with Ms. Lingle, a Republican, who tried to sell the project to island residents. Opponents shouted her down, calling the Superferry a threat to the environment and the island’s rural charm. Read More…

Thanks to SeaFever for the Discoverer Tip.

Update:

Kauai Case Against the Hawaii Superferry Will Likely Be Dropped Thursday, But Appeal Expected