1/8/24, 1:21 PM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
[EXTERNAL] written comment(s) for 1/9/24 commission mtg
Elizabeth Burton 
Mon 1/8/2024 11:17 AM
To: Commission-Public-Records  

1 attachments (4 KB)
Written commenters for 1-9-24.csv;

WARNING: External email. Links or a achments may be unsafe.
Hi, Clerk Hart,
During the month of December, 2023, each of the 77 people on the attached list sent in some
variation of the comment below. The comment is a detailed critique of the Port’s response to previous
comments, which called for the Port to cap and reduce the number of cruise sailings in Seattle. Each of
the 77 comments sent in was intended as a written comment for the December 11th Commission
meeting; however, none of the comments were treated as such. We are therefore re-submitting this;
please consider this to be 77 comments for the January 9th, 2024 Commission meeting.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Burton
on behalf of the 77 people who sent in comments

Written comment for January 9, 2024 Commission meeting
Topic related to Port business: cruise ship sailings
Comment:
Thank you for the reply to my request that the Port of Seattle cap and reduce the number of cruise
ship sailings. However, the Port's casual acceptance of cruise sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
continuing unchecked until some unspecified future date is unacceptable. The crisis, the U.N.'s "code
red," is here now: global climate and ecological breakdown have reached a point where slow action is
nearly as bad as no action.
Please see my specific objections, below; excerpts from your letter are in quotes.
1. The Port claims to be "deeply committed to maritime decarbonization and emissions reduction."
The climate is not responsive to your "deep commitment," your good intentions, or promises of future
technology. Significant reductions are needed now.
2. The Port says it will "work to understand" how the emissions reduction schedule mandated in the
Clean Shipping Act lines up with the Port's current plans.
The answer to this seems pretty simple: the schedule proposed in the Clean Shipping Act is faster and
more ambitious than yours. The Act calls for reductions in GHG emissions starting in 2027 (your
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    1/3

      1/8/24, 1:21 PM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
reductions don't start until 2030), and it would eliminate GHG emissions from ships by 2040 - ten
years earlier than the Port's goals.
3. The Port wants to understand "how capping the number of cruise ships compares with its current
focus on capping emissions – in terms of the Port’s operations, the local economy, and its
environmental goals," and says that it "would not want to cap the number of cruise ships in Seattle
only to push the problem elsewhere."
The trouble with your "current focus on capping emissions" is that you are not, in fact, capping
emissions: they are rising, and will continue to rise as each year, more and more people fly to Seattle
to take cruises. Furthermore, it's not enough to cap emissions: they need to be significantly reduced
each year, starting in 2024.
Your concern that any reduction of cruise in Seattle would just "push the problem elsewhere" fails to
acknowledge the Port's power to influence the industry and other ports. Consider the Port's admirable
dedication to cracking down on sex trafficking. Like greenhouse gas emissions, trafficking is a global
problem, but the Port does not say "We would not want to crack down on sex trafficking in Seattle
only to push the problem elsewhere." On the contrary, the Port is actively working not only to stop
trafficking in Seattle, but is also cooperating regionally to help other jurisdictions stop it, as well. I am
asking that you bring this same kind of comprehensive, collaborative approach to reducing the harms
that cruise ships cause. You could set a global example, joining the city of La Rochelle, France, which is
already reducing cruise sailings in order to meet its climate goals.
4. The Port's primary strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cruise ships seems to be its
"Green Cruise Corridor," which it claims will not only "reduce emissions from the cruise industry locally
but also have global impacts to how the industry operates worldwide."
The problem is that your so-called "Green Cruise Corridor" has achieved no emissions reductions thus
far, and there's little reason to expect meaningful reductions in the time frame required by our current
ecological and climate crisis. Corridor participants have made no commitment to reducing GHG
emissions by any particular amount or date; the agreement includes no deadlines and no enforcement
mechanisms. Participants have committed only to "explore the feasibility" of decarbonizing the cruise
sector.
Both Port of Seattle Commissioners running for re-election in 2023 made it clear that the Corridor
won't begin to reduce emissions for years to come; meanwhile, emissions are increasing as passenger
numbers increase every year.
In addition, during the April, 2023 webinar that updated the public on the Green Cruise Corridor,
cruise company representatives were still enthusiastically promoting liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a
"green fuel," despite the well- established fact that climate emissions from LNG are often higher than
from conventional marine fuels.
5. The Port highlights "the many other tools it is using to advance cruise environmental sustainability
goals including through business agreements with the cruise lines, terminal best management
practices, shore power infrastructure investments, and advocacy at the local, state, federal and
international levels."
None of these tools are significantly reducing GHG emissions from cruise ship operations.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    2/3

      1/8/24, 1:21 PM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
While shore power - which lets ships plug into Seattle's clean electricity while at berth instead of
burning polluting fuel - reduces negative health impacts on near-port residents, it has little effect on
climate change. Cruise ships are plugged in for only 7 hours during each 7-day journey, so shore
power can eliminate no more than 1/24 = 4% of their GHG emissions. Alaskan stops such as Sitka,
Juneau, and Ketchikan lack the electrical capacity to support shore power, so their residents will
continue to be exposed to dangerous air pollutants, and the ships will continue to emit GHGs while in
these ports. This seems like an example of "pushing the problem elsewhere."
Regarding "advocacy at the federal level," why isn't the Port using its lobbying power to support
passage of the Clean Shipping Act of 2023? This Act would mandate increasingly strict GHG reductions
for all ocean-going vessels over the next 16 years, eliminating GHG emissions entirely by 2040.
6. The Port touts its participation in international decarbonization efforts, including
"the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting that
resulted in an announcement by global maritime interests of a shared goal to reduce emissions."
This is not at all reassuring. It is well documented that the International Maritime Organization has
been captured by industry, and has spent years systematically blocking effective action to reduce
shipping emissions. It is disturbing but not surprising that the strategy developed during the meeting
you attended is not aligned with the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to 1.5℃.
7. The Port mentions that "local water quality and pollution prevention has, since 2004, been included
in the 'Cruise MOU' and has provided voluntary protections for Washington’s water quality; in 2018,
Puget Sound became a no-discharge zone."
It's good that the Port's MOU prevents dumping in Puget Sound, but as soon as the ships cross the
Canadian border, they can and do dump all kinds of toxic waste into the ocean, to the tune of 4 billion
gallons a year. This pollution harms marine life in our waters, as well as in Canada's waters.
8. "We deeply appreciate your engagement in helping us drive the change we need."
Nothing in your response addresses the harms to climate, water and air caused by continued cruise
operations. This is not "the change we need." The Port of Seattle must take action now: quantify total
cruise GHG emissions (including passenger air travel) and reduce these in alignment with the Clean
Shipping Act. Given what we already know, failure to act is a betrayal of the public trust.






https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    3/3

           first_name last_name email     zip_code  can2_phone
Derek    Gendvil   dgendvil@    89117
Kevin     Gallagher kevingal@u   98155
Jared     Howe     jaredchowe   98108
Jennifer   Godfrey   plantkingdo   98119
Linda     Carroll    lindalouise    99205
Jim       Bernthal  jimberntha    98118
Margo   Polley    polleym@h   98045
Patrick    McKee    patmckee@   98040
Paul      Brown    kozemchuk    98107
Mary     Hanson   hansonmar   98105
Anita      Shelton   anitamshel    98103
Andrea   Faste     amfaste@c   98117
Beth      Brunton   bebrunton    98144
Charles    Raymond  cfr98115@98115-2564
Andrea   O'Ferrall  andreaofer   98106
Scott      McClay    scottmc@r    98106
Jordan    Van Voast jordanvvvv    98144
Susan     Helf      shelf30@g    98117
Noemie   Maxwell Vanoemie_m    7043
Barbara   Hindi     barbarahin    98119
Don     Parda    don_seattl 98103-4829
Valerie    Costa      valerista@     98112
Sophia    Keller     keltiawind@  98146
Robin     Briggs    rbriggs120    98112
Donna   Ward    donnafwar   98117
Ron      Tjerandsenron.tjerand   98116
Iris         Antman    antwoman     98118
Antonio   Blasi      antoniobla     4640
Dori       Rosenberg dorirosenb    98118
Nancy    Penrose  mue.rose@   98122
Sara      Bliss      sara.c.bliss    98117
Brie       Gyncild    briegyncild    98122
Lucinda   Stroud    lucinda.stro   98119
G      Levy    bf136@scn98125-4651
Jeanie     Johnson   jjwildwoma   98225
Jane      Covert-Bowsjcovertbow   98125
Brandon  Bowersox-Jbrandonbo   98103
Linda     Golley     linda_golle    98032
William   McPhersonwrmcphers    98102
Linda     McCoy    lindamccoy    98133
Barbara   O'SteeO   barbarajos 98136-2406
Miranda  Taylor    mirandom1   98126
Lauren    Wilson    lcwilson33    98116
Lynn     Gaertner-Jolynngaertn 98117-5415
Cynthia   Ervin      cynthervin    98115
Charles andBagley    candnbagle   98119

         Rosemary Moore    rosemarym   98040
Gregory   Denton   greg.dento    98260
David     Kipnis     dakipnis@g   98116
Wendy   John     wendy.john  98105
Peggy    Printz     peggyjprint   98115
Kristin     Fitzpatrick kristfitz@li     98122
Laureen   France    divifran@c    98199
Wendy   Krakauer  cosauer621   98103
Gordon   Adams   gordondas    98115
Anne     Miller    annemiller   98122
Kathy     Pendrss   kathy.pend   98177
Debra    Scheuermadebscheue    98133
Kristen    Faiferlick  kfaiferlick@   98115
350 Tacoma   350tacoma   98421
George   Lawson   glawson40    98261
Arun     Ganti     ganti.arun@  98122
Robert    Briggs     rsb2@turb    98070
Deborah  Stewart   dstewart98   98103
PJ         Phillips    contagious    98144
Michelle  Lissner    mmlissner@  98177
John      Bito      jwbito@pr    98103
Chris      Covert-Bowc.covertbo     98103
Jason     Li         jasonli468@   98102
William   Livernois  william@liv   98105
Stacy      Oaks      stacyoaks4    98271
Adrienne  Papermast adriennepa   98108
Matthew Kolenski  matthew.k   98115
Elijah      Tripi       elijah.tripi@   98058
Laura     Gomiero  laura.gomi    98115
Clement  Gomiero  clement.go   98115
Cecile     Gomiero  cecile.gom     98115

      1/5/24, 11:46 AM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
[EXTERNAL] written comment for Jan. 9th commission mtg.
Robin Briggs 
Thu 1/4/2024 3:01 PM
To: Commission-Public-Records  
WARNING: External email. Links or a achments may be unsafe.
I am resending a letter I sent on Dec. 8 so that it may be entered in the public record. I recently
received your reply (thank you for that!) but I was disappointed. I would like to hear more about how
the Port plans to decrease its scope 3 emissions. Here's the letter from Dec. 8:
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my request that the Port cap and reduce the number of
sailings for cruise ships. However, I am concerned that the Port does not seem to be taking the
needs of the climate seriously. Climate change isn't some distant possibility; it's here now, it's
adversely impacting our quality of life, and this will continue to get worse until we take proactive
steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
I know that Commissioners and staff at the Port really care about the climate and the environment
as individuals. But there is a lot more that the Port could be doing, and step one is taking
responsibility for the impact it has on our planet and our marine habitat, and laying out a plan for
how to reduce the damage caused directly by the Port, but also indirectly by the cruise ship lines
who are the Port's customers. Your plan, as far as I can see, does not actually result in emissions
decreases when you include the scope 3 emissions.
Ten years ago, I would not have expected us to be experiencing the kind of warming weather,
droughts, wildfires, and dying forests that we are now. Ten years from now, we may well be
experiencing even worse impacts. If so, how will you look back then on the work you are doing now?
On the opportunities you have to change course. No one person or group of people got us into this
mess, but we will all need to cooperate and work together to get out of it.
Thank you for your engagement, and for reading to the end of the letter,
Robin Briggs







https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    1/1

      1/8/24, 9:16 AM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Enough with the Green washing and excuses
Lynn Fitz-Hugh 
Fri 1/5/2024 12:18 PM
To: Commission-Public-Records  
WARNING: External email. Links or a achments may be unsafe.

Commission_Testimony Port Meeting,
I am submitting this as a written comment for the next 2024 Commission meeting.
Dear Port Commissioners & Staff,
Thank you for the reply to my request that the Port of Seattle cap and reduce the number of
cruise ship sailings. However, the Port's casual acceptance of cruise sector greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions continuing unchecked until some unspecified future date is unacceptable. The
crisis, the U.N.'s "code red," is here now: global climate and ecological breakdown have reached
a point where slow action is nearly as bad as no action.
Please see my specific objections, below; excerpts from your letter are in quotes.
1. The Port claims to be "deeply committed to maritime decarbonization and emissions
reduction."
The climate is not responsive to your "deep commitment," your good intentions, or promises of
future technology. Significant reductions are needed now.
2. The Port says it will "work to understand" how the emissions reduction schedule mandated in
the Clean Shipping Act lines up with the Port's current plans.
The answer to this seems pretty simple: the schedule proposed in the Clean Shipping Act is
faster and more ambitious than yours. The Act calls for reductions in GHG emissions starting in
2027 (your reductions don't start until 2030), and it would eliminate GHG emissions from ships
by 2040 - ten years earlier than the Port's goals.
3. The Port wants to understand "how capping the number of cruise ships compares with its
current focus on capping emissions – in terms of the Port’s operations, the local economy, and
its environmental goals," and says that it "would not want to cap the number of cruise ships in
Seattle only to push the problem elsewhere."
The trouble with your "current focus on capping emissions" is that you are not, in fact, capping
emissions: they are rising, and will continue to rise as each year, more and more people fly to
Seattle to take cruises. Furthermore, it's not enough to cap emissions: they need to be
significantly reduced each year, starting in 2024.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    1/3

      1/8/24, 9:16 AM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
Your concern that any reduction of cruise in Seattle would just "push the problem elsewhere"
fails to acknowledge the Port's power to influence the industry and other ports. Consider the
Port's admirable dedication to cracking down on sex trafficking. Like greenhouse gas emissions,
trafficking is a global problem, but the Port does not say "We would not want to crack down on
sex trafficking in Seattle only to push the problem elsewhere." On the contrary, the Port is
actively working not only to stop trafficking in Seattle, but is also cooperating regionally to help
other jurisdictions stop it, as well. I am asking that you bring this same kind of comprehensive,
collaborative approach to reducing the harms that cruise ships cause. You could set a global
example, joining the city of La Rochelle, France, which is already reducing cruise sailings in
order to meet its climate goals.
4. The Port's primary strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cruise ships seems
to be its "Green Cruise Corridor," which it claims will not only "reduce emissions from the cruise
industry locally but also have global impacts to how the industry operates worldwide."
The problem is that your so-called "Green Cruise Corridor" has achieved no emissions
reductions thus far, and there's little reason to expect meaningful reductions in the time frame
required by our current ecological and climate crisis. Corridor participants have made no
commitment to reducing GHG emissions by any particular amount or date; the agreement
includes no deadlines and no enforcement mechanisms. Participants have committed only to
"explore the feasibility" of decarbonizing the cruise sector.
Both Port of Seattle Commissioners running for re-election this year made it clear that the
Corridor won't begin to reduce emissions for years to come; meanwhile, emissions are
increasing as passenger numbers increase every year.
In addition, during the April, 2023 webinar that updated the public on the Green Cruise Corridor,
cruise company representatives were still enthusiastically promoting liquefied natural gas (LNG)
as a "green fuel," despite the well- established fact that climate emissions from LNG are often
higher than from conventional marine fuels.
5. The Port highlights "the many other tools it is using to advance cruise environmental
sustainability goals including through business agreements with the cruise lines, terminal best
management practices, shore power infrastructure investments, and advocacy at the local, state,
federal and international levels."
None of these tools are significantly reducing GHG emissions from cruise ship operations.
While shore power - which lets ships plug into Seattle's clean electricity while at berth instead of
burning polluting fuel - reduces negative health impacts on near-port residents, it has little effect
on climate change. Cruise ships are plugged in for only 7 hours during each 7-day journey, so
shore power can eliminate no more than 1/24 = 4% of their GHG emissions. Alaskan stops such
as Sitka, Juneau, and Ketchikan lack the electrical capacity to support shore power, so their
residents will continue to be exposed to dangerous air pollutants, and the ships will continue to
emit GHGs while in these ports. This seems like an example of "pushing the problem
elsewhere."

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    2/3

      1/8/24, 9:16 AM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
Regarding "advocacy at the federal level," why isn't the Port using its lobbying power to support
passage of the Clean Shipping Act of 2023? This Act would mandate increasingly strict GHG
reductions for all ocean-going vessels over the next 16 years, eliminating GHG emissions
entirely by 2040.
6. The Port touts its participation in international decarbonization efforts, including
"the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting
that resulted in an announcement by global maritime interests of a shared goal to reduce
emissions."
This is not at all reassuring. It is well documented that the International Maritime Organization
has been captured by industry, and has spent years systematically blocking effective action to
reduce shipping emissions. It is disturbing but not surprising that the strategy developed during
the meeting you attended is not aligned with the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise
to 1.5℃.
7. The Port mentions that "local water quality and pollution prevention has, since 2004, been
included in the 'Cruise MOU' and has provided voluntary protections for Washington’s water
quality; in 2018, Puget Sound became a no-discharge zone."
It's good that the Port's MOU prevents dumping in Puget Sound, but as soon as the ships cross
the Canadian border, they can and do dump all kinds of toxic waste into the ocean, to the tune of
4 billion gallons a year. This pollution harms marine life in our waters, as well as in Canada's
waters.
8. "We deeply appreciate your engagement in helping us drive the change we need."
Nothing in your response addresses the harms to climate, water and air caused by continued
cruise operations. This is not "the change we need." The Port of Seattle must take action now:
quantify total cruise GHG emissions (including passenger air travel) and reduce these in
alignment with the Clean Shipping Act. Given what we already know, failure to act is a betrayal of
the public trust.
Lynn Fitz-Hugh
lynn@fitz-hugh.org
Olympia, Washington 98501






https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    3/3



1/9/24, 3:10 PM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
1/9 Public Comment
Kageyama, Janeen 
Tue 1/9/2024 11:04 AM
To: Commission-Public-Records  
Good Morning,
I am sharing this public comment from a community member. Brenda emailed it but received a bounce back.
Thank you,
Janeen

To whom it may concern,
My name is Brenda Gonzalez health program coordinator at Villa Comunitaria, a nonprofit organiza on in
South Park serving our diverse La ne immigrant communi es of South Park and throughout King County.
Over the last (almost) 2 years it has been a great pleasure for me to support with programming that aims
to meet the health and wellness needs of our community. From vaccine pop up clinics to community
events, Villa Comunitaria would not be able to do this work without the support of our community
partners especially that of the Port of Sea le’s Duwamish HUB. One of the biggest issues we face is to
effec ve programming is limited space capacity. The Duwamish HUB is not only a space for us to hold
these events and carry out important programming year a er year, but it’s also a place that the
communi es we serve are connected to and feel comfortable receiving our services at. The Duwamish HUB
is an integral part of our work and a valuable resource to Villa Comunitaria, throughout the years we have
been able to foster a reciprocal rela onship to the HUB and the Port of Sea le Team, this has allowed us
to learn and share about the work that the Port of Sea le does with the communi es we serve. I am
strongly in support of the Sea le Duwamish HUB lease renewal, and I am looking forward to another year
of programming at the HUB and con nued collabora on with the Port. Thank you.

Brenda

Brenda Gonzalez| She/Her
Healthy Community Coordinator
206.741.2520 
Brenda@villacomunitaria.org
www.villacomunitaria.org 
8201 10th Ave S STE. #8, Seattle, WA 98108 





https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    1/1

      1/9/24, 3:11 PM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
[EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT for October 27, 2020
Patrick McKee 
Tue 1/9/2024 11:12 AM
To: Commission-Public-Records  
WARNING: External email. Links or a achments may be unsafe.

Commissioners, Executive Director, Staff -
Looking at proposed Seattle cruise numbers for 2024, this would appear to be the 2nd year in a row with 
slightly fewer sailings - more passengers, but fewer sailings. Welcome news as far as it goes, but what’s 
behind it? Hopefully not just another mysterious arrangement nobody sees fit to share with the public, a 
question to file alongside: Why are we even talking about sustainability without accounting for Scope 3 
emissions? Who’s tolerating cruise ship work-arounds on low sulfur fuel regulations? When is it ok - in 
our state - for billion dollar corporations to pay employees $2 an hour? How does a city of 30 thousand 
accommodate 1.65 million visitors in a single summer?
So, I’ll ask. What is it that’s causing cruise lines to reduce the number of Seattle sailings? Capacity? 
Demand? Conscience?
The Port is Presenting Sponsor for CLIA’s Pacific Northwest Cruise Symposium, right here in Seattle, at 
the end of this month. Is this the long awaited open forum to discuss cost / benefit assumptions driving 
cruise decision making, the experiences of destination port residents and shipboard workers, regional 
health and environmental outcomes? No. It’s an exclusive private affair, tickets (for insider partners only) 
starting at $250 - well, plus another hundred for the opening reception, plus travel, per diem, housing, 
etc.
We all know that deals made in rooms like these - often by our elected officials - have very real 
consequences for our lives and livelihoods. Why doesn’t the Port Commission tell CLIA they’re going to 
open the event to the public? Invite community representation - not just the tourism sector? Livestream it 
for stakeholders up and down the coast; make tickets available to relevant organizations; take questions 
from citizens, scientists, journalists? It's long past time for CLIA and the Port of Seattle, and their various 
partners in profit, to take seriously the health of the ocean and the stakes for the planet, and 
acknowledge the legitimate concerns of impacted communities. 
Thank you,
Patrick McKee
Mercer Island, WA
323.336.3651



https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    1/1

      1/9/24, 3:14 PM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Your Disappointing Response Regarding Cruise
Lauren Tozzi 
Tue 1/9/2024 12:34 PM
To: Commission-Public-Records  
WARNING: External email. Links or a achments may be unsafe.

Commission_Testimony Port Meeting,
I am submitting this as a written comment for the next 2024 Commission meeting.
Dear Port Commissioners & Staff,
Thank you for the reply to my request that the Port of Seattle cap and reduce the number of
cruise ship sailings. However, the Port's casual acceptance of cruise sector greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions continuing unchecked until some unspecified future date is unacceptable. The
crisis, the U.N.'s "code red," is here now: global climate and ecological breakdown have reached
a point where slow action is nearly as bad as no action.
Please see my specific objections, below; excerpts from your letter are in quotes.
1. The Port claims to be "deeply committed to maritime decarbonization and emissions
reduction."
The climate is not responsive to your "deep commitment," your good intentions, or promises of
future technology. Significant reductions are needed now.
2. The Port says it will "work to understand" how the emissions reduction schedule mandated in
the Clean Shipping Act lines up with the Port's current plans.
The answer to this seems pretty simple: the schedule proposed in the Clean Shipping Act is
faster and more ambitious than yours. The Act calls for reductions in GHG emissions starting in
2027 (your reductions don't start until 2030), and it would eliminate GHG emissions from ships
by 2040 - ten years earlier than the Port's goals.
3. The Port wants to understand "how capping the number of cruise ships compares with its
current focus on capping emissions – in terms of the Port’s operations, the local economy, and
its environmental goals," and says that it "would not want to cap the number of cruise ships in
Seattle only to push the problem elsewhere."
The trouble with your "current focus on capping emissions" is that you are not, in fact, capping
emissions: they are rising, and will continue to rise as each year, more and more people fly to
Seattle to take cruises. Furthermore, it's not enough to cap emissions: they need to be
significantly reduced each year, starting in 2024.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    1/3

      1/9/24, 3:14 PM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
Your concern that any reduction of cruise in Seattle would just "push the problem elsewhere"
fails to acknowledge the Port's power to influence the industry and other ports. Consider the
Port's admirable dedication to cracking down on sex trafficking. Like greenhouse gas emissions,
trafficking is a global problem, but the Port does not say "We would not want to crack down on
sex trafficking in Seattle only to push the problem elsewhere." On the contrary, the Port is
actively working not only to stop trafficking in Seattle, but is also cooperating regionally to help
other jurisdictions stop it, as well. I am asking that you bring this same kind of comprehensive,
collaborative approach to reducing the harms that cruise ships cause. You could set a global
example, joining the city of La Rochelle, France, which is already reducing cruise sailings in
order to meet its climate goals.
4. The Port's primary strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cruise ships seems
to be its "Green Cruise Corridor," which it claims will not only "reduce emissions from the cruise
industry locally but also have global impacts to how the industry operates worldwide."
The problem is that your so-called "Green Cruise Corridor" has achieved no emissions
reductions thus far, and there's little reason to expect meaningful reductions in the time frame
required by our current ecological and climate crisis. Corridor participants have made no
commitment to reducing GHG emissions by any particular amount or date; the agreement
includes no deadlines and no enforcement mechanisms. Participants have committed only to
"explore the feasibility" of decarbonizing the cruise sector.
Both Port of Seattle Commissioners running for re-election this year made it clear that the
Corridor won't begin to reduce emissions for years to come; meanwhile, emissions are
increasing as passenger numbers increase every year.
In addition, during the April, 2023 webinar that updated the public on the Green Cruise Corridor,
cruise company representatives were still enthusiastically promoting liquefied natural gas (LNG)
as a "green fuel," despite the well- established fact that climate emissions from LNG are often
higher than from conventional marine fuels.
5. The Port highlights "the many other tools it is using to advance cruise environmental
sustainability goals including through business agreements with the cruise lines, terminal best
management practices, shore power infrastructure investments, and advocacy at the local, state,
federal and international levels."
None of these tools are significantly reducing GHG emissions from cruise ship operations.
While shore power - which lets ships plug into Seattle's clean electricity while at berth instead of
burning polluting fuel - reduces negative health impacts on near-port residents, it has little effect
on climate change. Cruise ships are plugged in for only 7 hours during each 7-day journey, so
shore power can eliminate no more than 1/24 = 4% of their GHG emissions. Alaskan stops such
as Sitka, Juneau, and Ketchikan lack the electrical capacity to support shore power, so their
residents will continue to be exposed to dangerous air pollutants, and the ships will continue to
emit GHGs while in these ports. This seems like an example of "pushing the problem
elsewhere."

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    2/3

      1/9/24, 3:14 PM                                               Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
Regarding "advocacy at the federal level," why isn't the Port using its lobbying power to support
passage of the Clean Shipping Act of 2023? This Act would mandate increasingly strict GHG
reductions for all ocean-going vessels over the next 16 years, eliminating GHG emissions
entirely by 2040.
6. The Port touts its participation in international decarbonization efforts, including
"the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting
that resulted in an announcement by global maritime interests of a shared goal to reduce
emissions."
This is not at all reassuring. It is well documented that the International Maritime Organization
has been captured by industry, and has spent years systematically blocking effective action to
reduce shipping emissions. It is disturbing but not surprising that the strategy developed during
the meeting you attended is not aligned with the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise
to 1.5℃.
7. The Port mentions that "local water quality and pollution prevention has, since 2004, been
included in the 'Cruise MOU' and has provided voluntary protections for Washington’s water
quality; in 2018, Puget Sound became a no-discharge zone."
It's good that the Port's MOU prevents dumping in Puget Sound, but as soon as the ships cross
the Canadian border, they can and do dump all kinds of toxic waste into the ocean, to the tune of
4 billion gallons a year. This pollution harms marine life in our waters, as well as in Canada's
waters.
8. "We deeply appreciate your engagement in helping us drive the change we need."
Nothing in your response addresses the harms to climate, water and air caused by continued
cruise operations. This is not "the change we need." The Port of Seattle must take action now:
quantify total cruise GHG emissions (including passenger air travel) and reduce these in
alignment with the Clean Shipping Act. Given what we already know, failure to act is a betrayal of
the public trust.
Lauren Tozzi
lrntozzi2@gmail.com
Seattle, Washington 98103






https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…    3/3