Member for Balmain Jamie Parker has welcomed an announcement from the Port Authority that it will review its 2017 ‘Shore Power Feasibility, Costing and Emission Benefits Study’.
The 2017 study concluded that while shore power was feasible and would reduce pollution, it wasn’t a ‘cost effective’ strategy.
A 2015 NSW Parliament Upper House committee inquiry into the Environment Protection Authority recommended that the terminal include shore-to-ship power.
Jamie Parker MP says:
“Since the last inadequate feasibility study was completed in 2017, the number of ports with shore power has doubled globally.
“While our government has been dithering on this issue, cities like New York, Shanghai, Hamburg and Vancouver have taken measures to protect residents from cruise ship pollution.
“Australia is now one of the only major cruising port cities with not one shore power facility.
“The government is bending over backwards for the cruise ship companies who want to keep shore power out of Sydney so they have somewhere to send their oldest, dirtiest ships.
“Because we haven’t adopted shore power, the vessels that are sent to Sydney are the most polluting in the world – they wouldn’t even be allowed in most ports in the northern hemisphere.
“A cost benefit analysis that doesn’t consider the significant health impacts of cruise ship pollution is completely pointless. If this study is going to be useful it needs to consider the health impacts of spewing out pollution just metres from people’s homes.
“The bushfires have taught us that we can’t take clean air for granted. You can’t put a price on people’s health.
“With over 1.5 million cruise ship passengers using our harbour each year, the government could simply cover the cost of shore power with a small levy on cruise passengers over the next two years,” he says.
