[EXTERNAL] Public comment regarding Order 2024-10, September 10

Patrick McKee <patmckee@sbcglobal.net>

Tue 9/10/2024 11:01 AM

To: Calkins, Ryan <Calkins.R@portseattle.org>; Cho, Sam <Cho.S@portseattle.org>; Felleman, Fred <Felleman.F@portseattle.org>;

Hasegawa, Toshiko <Hasegawa.T@portseattle.org>; Mohamed, Hamdi <Mohamed.H@portseattle.org>

Cc: Commission-Public-Records <commission-public-records@portseattle.org>

WARNING: External email. Links or aachments may be unsafe.

Commissioners -

I’m writing to address Order 2024-10, which the Commission is considering later this afternoon; the

order requires “the Executive Director to consider the attainment of greenhouse gas reduction goals

before the renewal of any long-term cruise agreement”.

I would urge the Commission not to approve Order 10 today. Setting and meeting GHG reduction

targets is crucial, but this feels unfinished, a press release dressed up as policy. And it’s fundamentally

unserious - sufficient neither to the inflection-point moment we’re in or to the expressed intent of the

Commissioners themselves, working to reconcile climate and economy.

The order was forwarded with the respectful acknowledgment that it might not go far enough for us.

That’s not wrong, but it’s not the point. Everybody understands compromise and half measures are

what progress looks like sometimes, as long as we remain clear-eyed about their effectiveness. But this

order is opaque at its core, really a textbook example of greenwashing that doesn’t further the mission

of the Port.

In the Introduction the order states, “while the growth of the cruise industry will … provide … economic

benefits, without … zero carbon alternatives … it will also lead to an increase in greenhouse gas.” But

it’s not as if we’re discussing some dystopian future scenario; cruise growth has already resulted in

enormous GHG increases. A serious “consideration of the attainment of GHG reduction goals” might

convince the Port to address this ruinous present-day reality, instead of compounding catastrophe by

increasing sailings for years to come.



Cruise corporations have “committed to achieving” the IMO’s 2023 Strategy of net zero GHG goals by

2050, but that strategy doesn't align even with the Paris Accords. Why not acknowledge that cruise

industry emission goals fail to put us on the path to 1.5C necessary to climate sustainability?

We’re told future “clean and zero carbon fuels will eliminate the need for … Exhaust Gas Cleaning

Systems”. Why wait for some new technology? The Port could publicly call on cruise companies to

upgrade to low sulfur fuel tomorrow. Problem solved - no more scrubbers.

The wording of the order reflects a similar reluctance to actually compel the Port’s cruise “partners”:

rife with equivocal qualifiers like “consider the attainment”, “strive”, “include language … that supports

evaluation”, “explore the feasibility”. Don’t bother looking for consequences, for enforcement

mechanisms. Rather, it’s business as usual (or promises of future change) spun as bold progress.

9/10/24, 3:12 PM

Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook

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

1/2