Did you see this: 2016 Cruise Ship Report Card

[Disney Divva]

You all should check out this website "Friends of the earth" (www.foe.org/cruise-report-card). I'm elated an organization is on top of this. Congratulations Disney Cruise Line!!

 

[DISNEY FANTASY]

Good!

 

[cruisehopeful]

It's always nice to see stuff like this. I'm blown away that they are the only line that didn't get an F for transparency.

 

[Steelers0854]

Seems like a stacked deck in favor of DCL to me, just because a cruise line didn't respond to their request shouldn't impact the score based on environmental impact. Take that out and Cunard beats DCL. I would not consider this a reliable report based on what Is disclosed. Just my humble opinion though.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

As usual DCL tops a.list......they seem to do it all the time.

If the other lines are hiding things they don't deserve a better grade......they live with what they provide.

You sure cannot penalize a line for cooperating with information.

AKK

 

[Jennifer777]

I can see how cruise lines may be hesitant to respond to a questionnaire put forward by a well funded special interest group like this. You never know how the information is going to be used or who it will be shared with, but a quick look through their website and 990s shows one of their objectives is to place very strict federal regulations on cruise ships that would result in a costly overhaul to how all cruise lines, including DCL, currently operate.

 

[Disney Divva]

It's always nice to see stuff like this. I'm blown away that they are the only line that didn't get an F for transparency.

That's definitely saying something!!

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Considering the problems and casualties some of the lines have had, especially Carnival , it seems this group is just what the industry needs. If the industry needs costly overhaul, it should be done, especially for safety of the guests and crews. Not providing honest information still smells of hiding things.

AKK

 

[gometros]

It's always nice to see stuff like this. I'm blown away that they are the only line that didn't get an F for transparency.

Who is this organization? Are they an official group that cruise lines should be responding.

 

[Hundredacre]

I personally hate "non profit" organizations trying to make corporations look bad. It is all about money and power. For Disney to look good you can bet they kick back to this organization in some way.

 

[TrySomethingNew]

I'm not surprised that so many got F's for transparency. DCL is likely the smallest fleet with perhaps the lowest average age of their ships, and can also provide the most positive info.

The water quality is only based on complying with Alaska regs, and not all go there. But, maybe Alaska has the most stringent guidelines and that is why they use that measuring stick (kind of like complying with CA chemical rules in the US, which tend to be fairly strict).

Special interest groups have a tendency to twist things to their advantage -not sure if this group does, but this may play a role in the lack of transparency by the lines. Tonkas Skipper noted it is a good thing when a group puts pressure on an industry to improve, and I do agree with this, however, only when accurate and balanced info is actually provided and used. Hopefully that is the case here.

 

[tink1970]

I believe a company's responsibility to the environment in which it is operating is pertinent. That said, I try to keep in mind "the lies, d--- lies, and statistics" approach to remind myself that data can always be presented in a skewed fashion if the presenter deems that important.

It is nice for me to see that DCL is releasing some of their information...although maybe since one of my favorite questions is "where does the poop go?" wherever I am I'm just easy to please

For future cruising (non DCL), I will probably keep this data in the back of my mind (hello, Cunard!).

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I'm not surprised that so many got F's for transparency. DCL is likely the smallest fleet with perhaps the lowest average age of their ships, and can also provide the most positive info.

The water quality is only based on complying with Alaska regs, and not all go there. But, maybe Alaska has the most stringent guidelines and that is why they use that measuring stick (kind of like complying with CA chemical rules in the US, which tend to be fairly strict).

Special interest groups have a tendency to twist things to their advantage -not sure if this group does, but this may play a role in the lack of transparency by the lines. Tonkas Skipper noted it is a good thing when a group puts pressure on an industry to improve, and I do agree with this, however, only when accurate and balanced info is actually provided and used. Hopefully that is the case here.

Agreed ....However I would point out:

1 If the lines don't provide the requested information, how can any group review the information.

2. Since the lines provide the information, it is not a matter information of any outside source providing anything or twisting the facts. The facts are the facts. If the line provide honest information......it is what it is! Not providing information still smells of hiding something.

3. In addition, I don't see how having a more modern fleet should be held against any line. The check list indicates the line with the best results in the various areas. The better their results and higher their score. Should not all the lines be looking to keep up and modernize their vessels to provide the best environment for their guests and the oceans?

AKK

 

[Steelers0854]

Agreed ....However I would point out:

1 If the lines don't provide the requested information, how can any group review the information.

2. Since the lines provide the information, it is not a matter information of any outside source providing anything or twisting the facts. The facts are the facts. If the line provide honest information......it is what it is! Not providing information still smells of hiding something.

3. In addition, I don't see how having a more modern fleet should be held against any line. The check list indicates the line with the best results in the various areas. The better their results and higher their score. Should not all the lines be looking to keep up and modernize their vessels to provide the best environment for their guests and the oceans?

AKK

Makes me wonder though how they can rate each category if the cruise line didn't provide them with the requested information? Clearly they had the information they needed to produce the scorecard. Also, we don't know how long they waited for a response before putting out the report.

Securing the environment is extremely important, and at the end of the day any report that gets people to make positive changes is good. I just question the basis of this particular report.

Edited to add:

I always take news report with a grain of salt. But I just found this article that says that every cruise line in the report took issue with the way this nonprofit conducted its assessment and declined to work with them in providing information. According to the report DCL changed its mind and provided the information requested.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...-liners-emissions-waste?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Makes me wonder though how they can rate each category if the cruise line didn't provide them with the requested information? Clearly they had the information they needed to produce the scorecard. Also, we don't know how long they waited for a response before putting out the report.

Securing the environment is extremely important, and at the end of the day any report that gets people to make positive changes is good. I just question the basis of this particular report.

Edited to add:

I always take news report with a grain of salt. But I just found this article that says that every cruise line in the report took issue with the way this nonprofit conducted its assessment and declined to work with them in providing information. According to the report DCL changed its mind and provided the information requested.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...-liners-emissions-waste?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1

Again if the lines provide honest information....no problem. IF they choose to not issue information its not right to fault DCL's results. Looking at the pollution results DCL did not do that well with a C-, so its not like they were trying to present information just to get a top listing.

Reading the article, it seems to be the usual *A industry against a watch dog group* debate. The industry saying if we cannot play the game our way, we will take our ball and go home!


AKK

 

[Jennifer777]

Considering the problems and casualties some of the lines have had, especially Carnival , it seems this group is just what the industry needs. If the industry needs costly overhaul, it should be done, especially for safety of the guests and crews. Not providing honest information still smells of hiding things.

AKK

This survey was about environmental practices, not safety issues, so regardless how much pressure this special interest group puts on the cruise lines, it's not going to result in improved safety.

Again if the lines provide honest information....no problem.

The objective of the survey was to "expose" the cruise industry so the results could be used to push for excessive regulation this organization wants. If a cruise line sees that success for this organization means they will no longer be able to operate in US waters or will result in outrageously expensive changes, some of which may not even make a measurable environmental impact, it's not wise to help them along by legitimizing the survey with a response. I'm not faulting DCL in any way for the survey or the results. I'm just saying, take the results with a grain of salt and dig a little bit so you can see the big picture. This organization is not a proponent of cruising. They actually call it a "dirty industry" in their press release and claim " taking a cruise is more harmful to the environment and human health than many other forms of travel".

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

This survey was about environmental practices, not safety issues, so regardless how much pressure this special interest group puts on the cruise lines, it's not going to result in improved safety.



The objective of the survey was to "expose" the cruise industry so the results could be used to push for excessive regulation this organization wants. If a cruise line sees that success for this organization means they will no longer be able to operate in US waters or will result in outrageously expensive changes, some of which may not even make a measurable environmental impact, it's not wise to help them along by legitimizing the survey with a response. I'm not faulting DCL in any way for the survey or the results. I'm just saying, take the results with a grain of salt and dig a little bit so you can see the big picture. This organization is not a proponent of cruising. They actually call it a "dirty industry" in their press release and claim " taking a cruise is more harmful to the environment and human health than many other forms of travel".

Envirentail and safety issues run hand in hand..safe water and the processes to make it so .. and safe handling of gray and black waste waters go together. Add in stack scrubbers, to keep the gases and soot from traveling around the decks also at a enivormental amd.saft issue





frankly, except for the modern.ships, like 10, maybe 15 years or so, cruising is a dirty business.

So if it costs more, so be it, If the lines running old ships need to build new ones and scrap the old ones fine with me. That would not be excessive improvements.



AKK

 

[Hundredacre]

That this "non profit" group includes "transparancy" as a scoring catagory shows you what they are about. They feel corporations should have to answer to them. If they want to create a cruise "green" scorecard with available information (which it looks like they were able to do), have at it. They are an internationalist organization looking to destroy the cruising business model. The first thing they say is that cruising is the least "green" way to travel. Whatever information corporations give will in the long run be used against them. It looks like the cruise industry has refused to engage this organization on it's terms until this year when disney broke ranks and decided to play the game to try to look better than the other lines. Very smug on Disney's behalf.
I am very supportive of environmental consciousness but also very skeptical of the motivations of organizations like this. Maybe we need a little more "transparency" from them.

 

[Jennifer777]

frankly, except for the modern.ships, like 10, maybe 15 years or so, cruising is a dirty business.

But if that's true (and I believe you) this shows the industry is already improving their standards and they continue to improve, as they should. Change takes time and money and is best accomplished through innovation and not burdensome regulation. Forcing change too quickly or making it too costly could obliterate the industry and put millions of people out of work. It also demonstrates the advantage DCL has since their entire fleet is less than 20 years old so they've been able to take advantage of newer technology. If you look at ratings ship by ship, the ones that are failing are the older ones. I also question the effectiveness of many of this organizations recommendations and also the sanitary/safety impact of others, like allowing solid and sewage waste to pile up on board until they get to an approved port for offloading. Should cruise lines continue to work towards improvement? Absolutely! Are this organizations recommendations the best way to make those improvements? Doubtful, especially since the latest consensus is that most ocean pollution originates on land. With that being said, pressure to improve is still a good thing and my comments on the matter are more in defense of the cruise lines who didn't answer than a diminishment of DCLs efforts to continually improve their practices. It's only fair to elaborate so the findings of this report card and the grades can be taken in context and with some disclosure.

Speaking of fairness, since this organization gave the cruise lines who didn't answer their questions an F, it's also fair to point out that this $7,000,000+/year non-profit organization failed to answer 3 of the 5 questions regarding board practices on their 990s, including one related to ethics and transparency. Perhaps they should give themselves an F as well. Why not answer the questions if they have nothing to hide, right? [/QUOTE]

 

[belac]

My first reaction was why wasn't Disney all "A"? My second reaction was why was Disney score for Air quality (I figure is Air Emissions) a C-? Third reaction why can't they strive for an A in air emissions, why are others beating them out on something like that? What do other lines have that Disney doesn't ?

Seems to me that although they were transparent they have failed on air quality which in my book is a fail for the environment.
Is there something, filtering or other system Princess or Cunard uses that Disney doesn't?