The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed ambitious air pollution limits for U.S.-flagged oceangoing vessels -- cruise ships, container ships, tankers -- within 200 miles of any coast in most of North America, including a large swath of Alaska.

It's a worthy effort aimed at cleaning up a long-ignored pollution source, but the agency is moving a little too fast into a complex legal and technical area.

Beginning in 2010, EPA regulations would ban the sale of high-sulfur fuels in most coastal areas. Ships would have to burn fuels that would cut sulfur and particulate emissions and use new pollution controls to sharply reduce nitrous oxide emissions.

The EPA's argument is simple. Global shipping belches significant amounts of these harmful chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere. They foul the air in U.S. ports and far inland, contribute to respiratory and other diseases and accelerate global warming.

Burn cleaner fuel and run cleaner engines, and Americans will get cleaner air, better health and help with the challenge of climate change. The EPA says its plan to cut this type of air pollution will prevent up to 33,000 premature deaths a year. In Alaska, the EPA rules would apply from Kodiak east and south.

Alaskans are pushing back against the EPA proposal. Gov. Sean Parnell, Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich and Southeast community leaders worry that the rules will drive up costs for Alaska-bound cruise ships and possibly reduce visits. That would be a hit to a tourist industry that's already suffered in the recession.

John Binkley, president of the Alaska Cruise Association, said his group subscribes to the comments made by the Cruise Lines International Association. The international group questioned the availability and costs of the low-sulfur fuels demanded by the EPA. Will the required fuels have to be imported -- carried on foreign-flagged vessels that can belch more pollution because they're not covered by the EPA rules?

Those are legitimate questions and the agency should take the necessary time to thoroughly answer them -- and others.

Among them: Should ships calling at Alaska's ports be required to meet such strict standards? Our air is cleaner and we don't have the industry, the traffic and the population that contributes to pollution in Lower 48 ports. Would alternatives in Alaska, such as requiring ships to use shore-side power instead of running their diesel engines while docked in port, deliver substantial benefit at much lower cost?

Under international maritime law, the U.S. can't unilaterally impose pollution controls on ships from other countries in U.S. waters. That's why only U.S.-flagged vessels are covered. To get standards that apply to all ships, the U.S. will have to work through international channels -- a daunting task.

The EPA is right to push the shipping industry to reduce emissions -- and right to include Alaska in that push. Alaska is no stranger to setting higher environmental standards. Alaskans have imposed some of the strictest water pollution standards on the cruise ship industry.

But before signing on to the EPA's program, Alaska needs to know more about the costs and who pays -- and any unintended consequences.

The EPA is moving fast on a front with a lot of moving parts -- environmental, economic, international, political. The agency should keep moving -- but just a little slower, so the rest of us can keep up.

BOTTOM LINE: Clean air is vital -- but let's clear the air about what it will take to get there.

ADVERTISEMENT