Maritime Local community enforcing ULEZ

[evacguy]

I thought this image reflects how many feel about the contradictions in the London ULEZ regulations. For those outside the UK, ULEZ stands for Ultra Low Emissions Zone. The Mayor of London has just extended the extent of ULEZ from the centre of London right out to the outskirts of London. However, the regulation apparantely does not apply to visiting cruise ships! So this cruise ship visiting London/Greenwich is permitted to moor off Greenwich, belching its fumes into the local community for days, while many motorists are being forced off the roads.

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 125

 

[evacguy]

Always amazing to no matter the forum people need to "educate" others with their specific political agenda, first comment according to info on the internet there were 32 cruise ships who visited London in 2018, on average each ship if it is using their diesel engines will put out the equivalent amount of pollution of about 500 trucks, there are over 3 million vehicles in London, it is a simple math problem. Let be clear I hate cruise ships, so there is no defending them for me, but math is math.

On the other front there is more than one kind of sheep flock. One can disagree with the way things are handled in dealing with pandemic or endemic illnesses but to call this or any other virus one does not understand fake is both foolish and a victim of their own sheperd's agenda.

Again i ask why do we go down these rabbit holes, do people think that everybody will agree with their clan or do they really believe they are going to change minds. There are so many place where one can soapbox away why here?

Hi Bob, thanks for your comments. Locally, this is an important and complex issue, and my photograph was intended to be a lighthearted comment. In response to your comments,
1) I am not anti-cruise ship industry, an anti vaxxer, a COVID denier or anti ULEZ.
2) Extending the ULEZ requirements to all of London has hit motorists where I live in Greenwich, essentially forcing many people with older diesel and some petrol cars (who don’t meet the ULEZ requirements) off the roads as they can’t afford to pay the DAILY ULEZ tax. This is not necessarily a bad thing, although it should have been organized better by the government (so what’s new?).
3) The cruise ship in my photograph has been moored off Greenwich for over a week.
4) Those equivalent ‘500 trucks’ you mention belching toxic diesel fumes are not distributing their fumes all over London, but are concentrating their fumes in Greenwich, an already heavily polluted area – it is ‘simple maths’. Indeed, the main road into Greenwich Village (very close to where the cruise ship is moored) is one of the most heavily polluted roads in London.
5) While my neighbours are not permitted to drive their diesel cars without paying the ULEZ tax, this cruise ship, the equivalent of ‘500 trucks’ is permitted to moor off Greenwich without paying a penny of ULEZ tax.
6) Where the cruise ship is currently moored there was supposed to be a cruise ship terminal constructed. Local planning authorities were not opposed to this but insisted that the cruise ships take power from the shore and so not have to use their diesel engines and pollute the local community while visiting. The terminal has not been built, in part due to the cruise industry not being prepared to foot the bill associated with providing the power.
7) I also dispute your claim that the air pollution produced by a cruise ship in port is the equivalent of 500 trucks. What is this based on and for what period of time? Is that per day, per hour per visit? If per visit, how long is a visit? Again, it is maths, but not necessarily simple.
8) As an aside, and returning to my point (1), I am working on a large multi-national research project (funded by the EU, called Healthy Sailing) exploring mitigation strategies to reduce the risk of infection, on cruise ships, due to COVID and other airborne pathogens.

 

[Brownie]

4) Those equivalent ‘500 trucks’ you mention belching toxic diesel fumes are not distributing their fumes all over London, but are concentrating their fumes in Greenwich, an already heavily polluted area – it is ‘simple maths’. Indeed, the main road into Greenwich Village (very close to where the cruise ship is moored) is one of the most heavily polluted roads in London.

I'm sorry, what? You believe what belches in Greenwich Village stays in Greenwich Village?

 

[spudhead]

Hi Bob, thanks for your comments. Locally, this is an important and complex issue, and my photograph was intended to be a lighthearted comment. In response to your comments,
1) I am not anti-cruise ship industry, an anti vaxxer, a COVID denier or anti ULEZ.
2) Extending the ULEZ requirements to all of London has hit motorists where I live in Greenwich, essentially forcing many people with older diesel and some petrol cars (who don’t meet the ULEZ requirements) off the roads as they can’t afford to pay the DAILY ULEZ tax. This is not necessarily a bad thing, although it should have been organized better by the government (so what’s new?).
3) The cruise ship in my photograph has been moored off Greenwich for over a week.
4) Those equivalent ‘500 trucks’ you mention belching toxic diesel fumes are not distributing their fumes all over London, but are concentrating their fumes in Greenwich, an already heavily polluted area – it is ‘simple maths’. Indeed, the main road into Greenwich Village (very close to where the cruise ship is moored) is one of the most heavily polluted roads in London.
5) While my neighbours are not permitted to drive their diesel cars without paying the ULEZ tax, this cruise ship, the equivalent of ‘500 trucks’ is permitted to moor off Greenwich without paying a penny of ULEZ tax.
6) Where the cruise ship is currently moored there was supposed to be a cruise ship terminal constructed. Local planning authorities were not opposed to this but insisted that the cruise ships take power from the shore and so not have to use their diesel engines and pollute the local community while visiting. The terminal has not been built, in part due to the cruise industry not being prepared to foot the bill associated with providing the power.
7) I also dispute your claim that the air pollution produced by a cruise ship in port is the equivalent of 500 trucks. What is this based on and for what period of time? Is that per day, per hour per visit? If per visit, how long is a visit? Again, it is maths, but not necessarily simple.
8) As an aside, and returning to my point (1), I am working on a large multi-national research project (funded by the EU, called Healthy Sailing) exploring mitigation strategies to reduce the risk of infection, on cruise ships, due to COVID and other airborne pathogens.

That is not a cruise ship Ed that is a rowing boat, so you want the income from tourists but none of the downsides you sound like that mayor you have in London

 

[evacguy]

I'm sorry, what? You believe what belches in Greenwich Village stays in Greenwich Village?

Tim, no I don't, but the 3 million cars that Bob mentions that are in London are not in Greenwich either. Also, I do Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for a living so I have a pretty good idea of how air with trace gases and particulates move and a lot of the pollution generated by these vessels are localised. That is not to say that we don't share the pollution with other neighbouring London boroughs.

 

[evacguy]

That is not a cruise ship Ed that is a rowing boat, so you want the income from tourists but none of the downsides you sound like that mayor you have in London

Hi Gary, I don't think I've suggested that. In fact cruise ship trade is welcome. I would however prefer them to have a dedicated facility that reduces the pollution impact on the citizens living in the surrounding area i.e., have a port that supports land based power for the vessels. And failing that, the ship operators should pay appropriate taxes for the pollution they create, just like the citizens do. It's simple really. And while she is by no means the largest cruise ship afloat, with 1500 paxs and crew, she is a big row boat!

 

[spudhead]

Hi Gary, I don't think I've suggested that. In fact cruise ship trade is welcome. I would however prefer them to have a dedicated facility that reduces the pollution impact on the citizens living in the surrounding area i.e., have a port that supports land based power for the vessels. And failing that, the ship operators should pay appropriate taxes for the pollution they create, just like the citizens do. It's simple really. And while she is by no means the largest cruise ship afloat, with 1500 paxs and crew, she is a big row boat!

you have a choice about where you live, so if you dont like it you can move, since thousands of people travel into the so called city everyday I find it difficult to believe that one small cruise ship even comes close to the issue, and since you say you are working on cruise ship covid issues it seems a bit rich to be attacking the hand that feeds you. London is over populated and has an inflated sense of its own importance anyway

 

[Brownie]

i.e., have a port that supports land based power for the vessels.

Where does the power come from, a different community that suffers additional generation of power due to London's dockside requirements?

 

[spudhead]

Where does the power come from, a different community that suffers additional generation of power due to London's dockside requirements?

London can not supply it own needs let alone a cruise terminal, I dont see why we are talking about this on here anyway!!!!!! wrong place

 

[Landshark99]

Hi Bob, thanks for your comments. Locally, this is an important and complex issue, and my photograph was intended to be a lighthearted comment. In response to your comments,
1) I am not anti-cruise ship industry, an anti vaxxer, a COVID denier or anti ULEZ.
2) Extending the ULEZ requirements to all of London has hit motorists where I live in Greenwich, essentially forcing many people with older diesel and some petrol cars (who don’t meet the ULEZ requirements) off the roads as they can’t afford to pay the DAILY ULEZ tax. This is not necessarily a bad thing, although it should have been organized better by the government (so what’s new?).
3) The cruise ship in my photograph has been moored off Greenwich for over a week.
4) Those equivalent ‘500 trucks’ you mention belching toxic diesel fumes are not distributing their fumes all over London, but are concentrating their fumes in Greenwich, an already heavily polluted area – it is ‘simple maths’. Indeed, the main road into Greenwich Village (very close to where the cruise ship is moored) is one of the most heavily polluted roads in London.
5) While my neighbours are not permitted to drive their diesel cars without paying the ULEZ tax, this cruise ship, the equivalent of ‘500 trucks’ is permitted to moor off Greenwich without paying a penny of ULEZ tax.
6) Where the cruise ship is currently moored there was supposed to be a cruise ship terminal constructed. Local planning authorities were not opposed to this but insisted that the cruise ships take power from the shore and so not have to use their diesel engines and pollute the local community while visiting. The terminal has not been built, in part due to the cruise industry not being prepared to foot the bill associated with providing the power.
7) I also dispute your claim that the air pollution produced by a cruise ship in port is the equivalent of 500 trucks. What is this based on and for what period of time? Is that per day, per hour per visit? If per visit, how long is a visit? Again, it is maths, but not necessarily simple.
8) As an aside, and returning to my point (1), I am working on a large multi-national research project (funded by the EU, called Healthy Sailing) exploring mitigation strategies to reduce the risk of infection, on cruise ships, due to COVID and other airborne pathogens.

Hi appreciate your well written response, the numbers came from sources trying to sell the cruise industry on as you said plugging into the city grid while berthed, my point was not that you are wrong, actually I could very well be wrong in my comment, it was just that comment hit me as just one of those throw away political comments without any of the nuance these issues require. We are in a very grey area when it comes to the dealing with all these regulations and solutions for a better environmental future. There will be many groups that are effected negatively and some positively as we test out each idea. Just keeping the status quo is not a viable solution in the long term. Beside the diesel pollution of the cruise ship I am very concerned about the impact in general they have on the places the visit, makeing some locals thrilled with tourist revenue and at the same negativly impacted the port just by their very presence

 

[evacguy]

you have a choice about where you live, so if you dont like it you can move, since thousands of people travel into the so called city everyday I find it difficult to believe that one small cruise ship even comes close to the issue, and since you say you are working on cruise ship covid issues it seems a bit rich to be attacking the hand that feeds you. London is over populated and has an inflated sense of its own importance anyway

Gary, I and the 290,000 other Greenwich residents were here first. I don't see why we have to move for a cruise ship? And anyway, you miss the point, the cruise ship, and others are welcome, if they pay their fair share for the pollution they cause. If they meet the ULEZ requirements, they are OK, just like the other residents of Greenwich, if not, they should pay up like the other residents, why should they be exempt? How is that fair? I'm not attacking anyone, I'm simply stating a moral case that the majority of Greenwich residents agree with. Your comment about London may be true (London produces 23% of the UK GDP and represents 13% of the UK population), but is irrlevant in this context, it is not London that is the problem it is the cruise ship industry. Southampton has way more cruise ships visiting and it is in a worse situation, the pollution caused by berthed cruise ships there is 40 times worse than in London. And its not just Southampton, its every port in the world that has visiting cruise ships AND does not provide land based power to the ships.

 

[evacguy]

Hi appreciate your well written response, the numbers came from sources trying to sell the cruise industry on as you said plugging into the city grid while berthed, my point was not that you are wrong, actually I could very well be wrong in my comment, it was just that comment hit me as just one of those throw away political comments without any of the nuance these issues require. We are in a very grey area when it comes to the dealing with all these regulations and solutions for a better environmental future. There will be many groups that are effected negatively and some positively as we test out each idea. Just keeping the status quo is not a viable solution in the long term. Beside the diesel pollution of the cruise ship I am very concerned about the impact in general they have on the places the visit, makeing some locals thrilled with tourist revenue and at the same negativly impacted the port just by their very presence

Bob, I don't think my lighthearted comment was a throw away political comment, there is indeed a case to answer. However, like most things in life there are good and bad aspects to everything. The cruise industry does bring wealth to (most of) the ports it visits, certainly London. And there are acceptable negative issues, such as crowds and congestion that it brings. Most of us can accept these. What is not acceptable is when one group is treated preferentially to others, the citizens being forced to accept ULEZ and the restrictions and costs it brings, while the cruise industry can completely ignore it. It is a bit rich to be prevented from driving your 2015 diesel car while a ship that produces 500 times the pollution of a truck can do what it wants. If the government impossed an appropriate ULEZ tax on visiting cruise ships that wouldn't solve the pollution and health problems, but it would make the pollution a little easier to swallow.

 

[evacguy]

Ok I know what you saying but not here this is a photography forum. I suggest you bang your drum somewhere else enough now

Gary, I simply posted a photograph with a light hearted comment, others have been banging their drums, I'm just responding to the drum beat of others. If you don't want to enter a discussion, don't comment.