Environmental groups intervene in Alaska ECA suit
Warning that ship emissions could increase rates of asthma, heart disease, and cancer along Alaska's coastline, environmental groups say they have moved to intervene in a court case concerning the enforcement of an Emissions Control Area (ECA) in the state, Ship & Bunker reports.
The State of Alaska filed a suit in July against the U.S. federal government in July, arguing that the ECA would "irreparably injure the State and Alaska's citizens and economy."
The ECA standards, which went into effect in August, require ships operating effectively within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. or Canadian coastline to use marine fuel with less than 1 percent sulfur content by weight, and the limit is set to drop to 0.1 percent in 2015.
Alaska argues the extension of the ECA to its waters was unlawful because two-thirds of the U.S. Senate had not consented to the extension as required by the U.S. Constitution, and there are also "equally effective alternatives" to protect the environment with a lower economic impact.
Earthjustice is representing the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund in the legal case.
"The cruise industry's insistence on using filthy bunker fuel means that every single day an average cruise ship travels between Vancouver, British Columbia and Alaska it emits the same amount of sulfur dioxide as 13 million cars," said John Kaltenstein, marine program manager at Friends of the Earth.
"That level of pollution is outrageous; the use of incredibly dirty fuel by ships near our coasts must stop now."
