Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
2009), but this pattern is likely to be different for certain passenger vessels.
For instance, cruise ships, while large, transport a high volume of infrastruc-
ture per passenger, compared to a small, non-vehicle, passenger ferry.
The most recent cruise vessels incorporate a diversity of leisure facilities,
such as ice rinks, swimming pools and rock climbing walls, which match the
facilities in resorts (Dowling, 2006). Considerable energy is required to move
and maintain these floating resorts. Indeed, Peisley (2008) reports that rising
fuel costs are an increasingly large proportion of operating costs for a cruise
ship. On the basis of the wide diversity of passenger ships and movement pat-
terns, Psaraftis and Kontov (2009) suggest that, without access to detailed
data on fuel consumption and travel patterns, it is impossible to calculate ship
emissions with any accuracy. A similar conclusion was drawn by Lamers and
Amelung (2007) in their study of Antarctic tourism. However, despite the
paucity of data available, some estimates suggest that for freight, the carbon
footprint measured in tonnes per km is substantially less for shipping than for
air freight (Maersk Line, cited in Psaraftis and Kontov, 2009). Whether this
analysis applies to passenger vessels will be highly context-dependent.
In 2005, overall estimates for ocean-going cruise shipping put emissions
at 34Mt CO
2
(million metric tonnes of CO
2
), less than 5 per cent of the global
shipping emissions (World Economic Forum, 2009). While passenger ships
(cruise and ferries) make up a small proportion of the global shipping fleet
(about 6 per cent) (Sweeting and Wayne, 2006), given the high growth rate in
the sector, emissions are estimated to rise by 3.6 per cent per year, to reach
98Mt CO
2
by 2035 (World Economic Forum, 2009).
The limited data on passenger vessels tends to suggest a fairly large car-
bon footprint per pkm for motorized vessels, but given the lack of data on a
passenger km basis it is difficult to make comparisons with other modes. For
instance, one of the few studies to examine the GHG emissions from cruise
shipping focuses on trips to the Antarctic (Lamers and Amelung, 2007),
which, given its remote location, involves a relatively long-haul cruise. Lamers
and Amelung (2007) calculate that in the 2004/05 season, cruise tourism to
Antarctica produced the equivalent of 5.39 tonnes of CO
2
per passenger,
although this varied considerably relative to ship size and passenger numbers
carried. The relative scale of these emissions can be seen if compared to the
average annual CO
2
emissions per person in the EU-25, which equates to nine
tonnes (in 2005) (Lamers and Amelung, 2007). Therefore, on the basis of
carbon footprint, cruise shipping is excluded from slow travel.
At the other end of the scale, a study of Australian tour boat operators
that focused on small- to medium-sized tourist boats (Brynes and Warnken,
2006) found that a typical boat trip averaged 61kg CO
2
-equivalent if diesel-
fuelled, or 27kg CO
2
-equivalent if petrol-fuelled, per person. Brynes and
Warnken concluded that marine-based recreation is responsible for a large
quantity of GHG emissions. While this equated to only 0.1 per cent of GHG
emissions in Australia, it was identified as a growth area through such activi-
ties as whale-watching and diving, and one with a fast-growing GHG output.
Becken and Simmons (2002) lend support to this view in their analysis of
tourist activities, which showed that jet boat operators were high energy users
