New rules for cruise ships at bad weather forecast in certain Norwegian coastal areas

This proposal affecting ships longer than 150 meters ( more than 1.5 times longer than a football field) will impact the larger ships that hold thousands of passengers.
Hopefully these guidelines, along with the other regulations phasing out fossil fuel-powered ships in the Geirangerfjord and the Naeroyfjord, will force the cruise ship industry to start using smaller ships and begin acting with more regard for both the Earth and the people who are their passengers.

The intelligence of cruise ship lines is nearly only economically - and economies of scale increase the profit. Therefore size matters. Too less people would demand responsible but more expensive cruises. Sure, the situation improved over the last years but very often driven by regulations in one or more countries.

In my opinion we see an honest step here for more security. Just a few numbers. The most Northern state (fylke) of Norway has 10% more area than Switzerland but only less than 80,000 inhabitants. Where shall the rescue and more important the hospital and medical capacities come from?

Every cruise passenger shall have in mind that booking a cruise into these polar parts of the world os still a risk although we saw no large ship accident in the last decades there. But climate and weather are getting harder (more intensive storms), so I hope I will be proven wrong by assuming that it is just a question of time.

MS Kong Harald (Hurtigruten) decided on a trip Kirkenes to Bergen last month (Dec. 2024) to skip 17 ports. A friend of mine was on board. The cruise started in emergency port Alta. No critique against Hurtigruten - it just shows how strong weather conditions can impact also the crews which are used to sail in these conditions for decades.

The intelligence of cruise ship lines is nearly only economically - and economies of scale increase the profit. Therefore size matters. Too less people would demand responsible but more expensive cruises.

A very simplistic point of view. UK Lines such as Ambassador run with around 1,400 passengers yet with fares the equal or very often less than the big International lines. And their vessels are fitted with technology which makes them among the top 10% of environmentally sensitive ships in the world. Possibly more environmentally sensitive than Hurtigruten.
Fred Olsen (a Norwegian company) also manage to run smaller vessels at a price much the same as the big international vessels. I don't know about their environmental credentials.

One immediate way to remove emissions would be to ban Hurtigruten from sailing into the Geraingerfjord- it is not part of the Historical Hurtigruten route, and brings Geiranger zero economic benefit (unlike cruise ships) as they just sail in and straight back out without stopping. The very worst type of cruise tourism from a company who have become thoroughly confused as to whether they are a freight company who takes passengers or a cruise company who takes freight, also Hurtigruten have become exorbitantly expensive as they get ever more lavish ships. It is interesting that the Midnatsol (only) is not doing that unnecessary diversion this year. Are her emissions too high.

So you require ships to sail further out to sea, where rescue will be even more difficult due to distance. In some ways sea room makes sense, in other ways it is an odd proposal.

In an environmental sense the next logical step is to only allow electric cars to go to the Geiranger fjord. Then Norway also needs to decide how to support the many people whose jobs depend on the cruise industry.

Having crossed Stad on one of the traditional Hurtigruten ships in conditions that even the captain began to feel sea sick, I can understand the reasons behind this. I seem to remember reading somewhere many years ago of a proposal to build an under sea tunnel to be used by ships to avoid crossing Stad. It wasn't April 1st. Does anyone know if anything further came of this?

Apparently the tender documents for the Stad Ship Tunnel were issued just before Christmas 2024 for tenders to be submitted this October and a theoretical 5 year construction period thereafter

https://www.kystverket.no/en/news/2024/the-construction-of-the-stad-ship-tunnel-has-been-put-out-to-tender/

One immediate way to remove emissions would be to ban Hurtigruten from sailing into the Geraingerfjord- it is not part of the Historical Hurtigruten route, and brings Geiranger zero economic benefit (unlike cruise ships) as they just sail in and straight back out without stopping.

I disagree to this view and especially the part that they are not stopping is wrong because they stay in Geiranger for around 45 minutes to disembark goods for Geiranger and passengers who will do bus tour excursions. In opposite to cruise ships they are not staying longer as necessary. In my opinion cruise ships shall avoid Geiranger and Flam totally. They are going into other scenic fjords wth less sensitive eco-systems than fjord ends deep in the inner country.

Furthermore the economic value of cruise passengers compared to car travelers is nearly zero for the ports except check-in or check-out ports. Ecologically are the worst case compared to car tourists (see emission comparison details).

That is not economic benefit at all to Geiranger.

Having brought up the timetable for this year there is a 20 minute stop. I'm sorry but I do not believe that call is for goods when the call is only for 3 months a year and although some people here call them postal boats it is a long time since they have fulfilled that function. Any sensible company will use the same transport mode all year.

That stop is to disembark passengers for a massively over priced bus trip to Molde costing £243. That trip ends with dinner in Molde and the buses are running empty in one direction or other. Not environmentally sensitive. Talk about Hurtigruten have become a cruise company. If I did that by scheduled bus the fare is 399 Krone. Nor do I want to be told where to eat. I want to choose.

If I get off in a port, Geiranger included, I might take a local excursion booked quayside. That is always cheaper because profits are not being siphoned off and is far more likely to be using local transport. Then I will be using the facilities in the port like the local shops.

And producing a chart which has one figure for all cruise ship emissions and one figure for all cars is being very simplistic. As explained above some cruise ships are far greener than others. Diesel cars, petrol cars and electric cars all have different figures, as do different makes and ages of the same vehicle. And in many parts of the world even electric cars are not a real solution as the electricity still has to be generated and distributed.

The main reason why the deadline for not allowing ships into the Fjords was extended is that the technology isn't there yet even on the still polluting Hurtigruten ships.
Norway was even fudging that by excluding domestic ferries because they are not yet all electric. They may be an essential part of the road network but still need to be green. Likewise this new regulation is a fudge as Hurtigruten fall within the size limits.
However there are still hundreds of passengers on a modern Hurtigruten ship to evacuate- more than were successfully evacuated from the Viking Sky. Ergo they are also unsafe in a Force 10 or greater.
The answer that has never been provided about the Viking Sky is why the extreme reluctance to use the ship's lifeboats? Given that lack of answer there is no way I would sail with Viking cruises.
Also due to the massive economic effects on Flam and Geiranger.