Clear The Air Ships Air Pollution Blog Rotating Header Image

Marine

Shanghai overtakes Singapore as world’s busiest container port

South China Morning Post — 18 June, 2010

China’s emergence as a global shipping power has seen Shanghai consolidate its position as the world’s busiest container port ahead of Singapore, while Shenzhen looks set to overtake Hong Kong as the third busiest in a matter of months.

Shanghai, which regained the lead as the world’s busiest container port in April, saw container throughput rise 22.6 per cent last month to 2.56 million 20-foot boxes, while Singapore handled 2.42 million, an increase of 15.2 per cent.

Shanghai’s container throughput first overtook Singapore in September last year and since then the lead has see-sawed between the two, with Singapore the busier in the first three months of the year.

Shanghai came out top again in April with throughput rising 21 per cent to 2.37 million 20-foot boxes, just ahead of Singapore’s 2.32 million, according to figures from the Shanghai International Port Group and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore.

“Shanghai’s volume in May was indeed very strong. It was not purely driven by the low base last year [due to the financial crisis],” said JP Morgan analyst Karen Li.

“According to Shanghai port management, the current pace of recovery should continue. So far, there is no impact on Chinese ports from the potential slowdown in the euro zone,” she said.

“The container and cargo throughput of Chinese ports will continue to do very well at double-digit growth for the rest of this year. Even with the pay rises in Chinese factories, I don’t see any change for the next six to nine months,” Willy Lin Sun-mo, chairman of the Hong Kong Shippers’ Council, said.

Over 90 per cent of Singapore’s throughput is transshipment, while Shanghai’s cargo shipments are driven by exports from manufacturing in its backyard, the Yangtze River Delta, Li said. “When the recovery came, the demand was for products Shanghai was strong at – electronics and textiles. The cargo is at its doorstep, so it’s easier for Shanghai to get the products. That’s why the growth is stronger in China than other Asian countries.”

Hong Kong port’s container throughput rose 15.2 per cent to 2.03 million 20-foot boxes in May, according to the Hong Kong Port Development Council, while Shenzhen’s container throughput grew twice as fast at 31.5 per cent to 1.94 million boxes, to close in on Hong Kong’s volumes, according to Shenzhen government figures.

“In the last few years, Hong Kong has been losing market share to mainland ports including Shenzhen and Guangzhou. This will continue as Hong Kong’s port charges are high,” Li said.

One reason the Hong Kong port still handles a substantial amount of cargo is its greater efficiency compared to mainland ports, but the efficiency of Shenzhen’s Yantian port now almost matches Hong Kong, Li added.

The trend of ports in Guangdong province gaining market share from Hong Kong will be gradual, because the ports of Shenzhen and Hong Kong share the same investors, namely Hutchison (SEHK: 0013) Port Holdings, China Merchants and Cosco Pacific (SEHK: 1199), who will manage the competition between them, she said.

Challenges in Reducing Pollution From Ships

ship-stackLast updated: May 2, 2010

Source: New York Times, via Sea Rates

When a pollution index hit a record level last month in Hong Kong, there were plenty of culprits to blame. Fingers were pointed, in descending order, at a sandstorm sweeping in from mainland China; at the factory-studded Chinese province of Guangdong just across the border; and at Hong Kong’s home-grown fumes, mainly from vehicles and power stations.

Remarkably little mention was made of emissions from shipping.

Which is strange. After all, Hong Kong sits alongside one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. And the fuel being burned by the scores of freighters heading to and from Hong Kong and the nearby Pearl River Delta every day is nasty stuff indeed. Bunker fuel is a viscous and highly polluting substance left over from refining oil. It has high nitrogen oxide contents and contains as much as 4.5 percent sulfur, making the exhausts especially noxious for those who inhale them.

True, in terms of carbon dioxide — which is at the center of public attention these days — ships are a comparatively efficient mode of commercial transport, with far fewer emissions per ton of goods per kilometer than heavy trucks or aircraft.

But with shipping volumes up about 50 percent in the past 20 years, and now accounting for about 90 percent of global trade, that is a lot of CO2 emissions: 3 percent of the global total, comparable to the level of a major national economy, according to the International Chamber of Shipping.

Perhaps even more worrying, though, is the other nasty stuff contained in bunker fuel, like nitrogen, sulfur and particulate matter — tiny particles that can penetrate deep into the lung when inhaled. Academic studies have estimated that 15 percent of global nitrogen oxides and between 5 and 8 percent of global sulfur oxide emissions are attributable to oceangoing ships. Health experts have long linked such pollution to respiratory illnesses, cardiopulmonary disorders and lung cancers, particularly among people who live near heavy ship traffic.

Given that about 70 percent of ship emissions occur within 400 kilometers, or about 250 miles, of land, it is no surprise that calls to reduce marine pollution have intensified.

Some parts of the world, like the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, including the English Channel, have for several years had so-called “emission control areas” in force, within which ships effectively have to switch to much cleaner fuel.

Only last month, the International Maritime Organization, which is charged with maintaining a framework for shipping and whose mandate includes environmental concerns, completed plans to apply a similar policy in a 230-mile buffer zone along the U.S. and Canadian coastlines by 2012, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says would save as many as 8,300 lives a year by 2020.

But such policies are unlikely to take effect in Hong Kong, the Pearl River Delta or indeed the other busy shipping lanes of Asia for quite some time.

Pearl River Delta ports, including the Kwai Chung container terminal in Hong Kong, which is one of the busiest port facilities in the world, handle about 12 percent of global container traffic, according to Mike Kilburn, environmental program manager at Civic Exchange, a public policy research institute in Hong Kong.

About 40 million people live close to those ports, but there are no controls on marine emissions in Hong Kong or anywhere else in the Pearl River Delta, he said — and “as a result, more people are subject to more marine pollution with less control than anywhere else on the planet.”

The problem — from the point of view of those who breathe it — is that bunker fuel is cheap, giving shippers a huge incentive to use it: Cleaner fuel can cost twice as much, depending on the quality. Moreover, the price of oil has risen again as the global economy has begun to recover, sending up fuel bills, which make up about 20 or 30 percent of shipping companies’ operating costs.

And the shipping business is not only fiercely competitive, it is also still reeling in the aftermath of the global economic crisis.

Shipping rates and volumes have improved as global trade has picked up, but they remain below precrisis levels. For routes between Asia and the United States, they remain close to historic lows. And about 9 percent of the global shipping fleet still remains idle, much more than during previous downturns, said Azura Shahrim, shipping analyst at HSBC in Hong Kong.

Despite that inauspicious economic backdrop, the shipping industry says it is broadly in favor of using cleaner fuel.

But shipping industry groups argue that before a switch to cleaner fuel can occur, there has to be a cross-border regulatory framework that forces all players to comply with the same requirements.

And regulation of that kind is extremely tricky to draw up. It is not merely a matter, for instance, of the Hong Kong authorities’ unilaterally dictating the use of cleaner fuel.

An “emission control area” of the kind that will soon take effect off North America’s coast, for example, has to be approved by the International Maritime Organization, the body that looks after international legislation on global shipping.

And countries applying to have such low-emissions areas off their coasts have to show that their shore-based industries, too, are reducing their emissions — all highly laborious stuff involving regulation and much monitoring of shore-based industry emissions, explained Arthur Bowring, managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners Association, one of the largest associations of its kind.

Another option, Mr. Bowring said, would be for China unilaterally to declare the Pearl River Delta a low-emissions zone within the narrower limits of its own territorial waters. That would avoid the lengthy approval processes that a wider international low-emissions zone would entail.

A potential drawback of that option is that shippers could then find it financially more attractive to go through Shanghai or other Chinese coastal ports — meaning the authorities there would, in turn, have to be included in the deliberations.

There is, however, a silver lining: The issue of marine emissions will gain greater prominence in Hong Kong as emissions from other sources, like power stations, are brought under control, said Mr. Kilburn of Civic Exchange. And the Hong Kong and Guangdong authorities have at least recognized the need to make the Pearl River Delta more environmentally friendly.

“That gives us some grounds for optimism, at least,” Mr. Kilburn said.

Skipper unveils world's biggest solar-powered boat due to visit Hong Kong

solar boatFirst published: February 27, 2010

Source: AFP via Google News

KIEL, Germany — A skipper hoping to become the first to sail round the world using solar power said his catamaran could carve a wake for pollution-free shipping as he unveiled the record-breaking yacht Thursday.

“This is a unique feeling to see in front of me today a boat which I so often dreamed about,” said Raphael Domjan as the covers came off the 18 million euro (24 million dollar) boat, the world’s biggest solar-powered vessel.

PlanetSolar, a 31- by 15-metre (100 by 50 foot) white catamaran, has been designed to reach a top speed of around 15 knots, equivalent to 25 kilometres (15 miles) per hour, and can hold up to 50 passengers.

It is topped by 500 square metres (5,380 square feet) of black solar panels, with a bright white cockpit sticking up in the centre.

Constructed at the Knierim Yacht Club in Kiel in northern Germany, its state-of-the-art design also means it will be able to slice smoothly through the waves even in choppy waters.
(more…)

Hong Kong Shipping Executive Pledges Funding for Diesel Emissions Reduction Research

Polluting shipFirst published: February 18, 2010

Source: USC – Viterbi School of Engineering

Hong Kong Shipping Executive Pledges Funding for Diesel Emissions Reduction Research

A Hong Kong shipping executive has pledged up to $4.1 million to fund a research program at the University of Southern California to reduce emissions and improve combustion efficiency in marine diesel engines.

Kenneth Koo of Tai Chong Cheang Steamship Co. (H.K.) Ltd (TCCHK) says collaboration between industry and academia is needed to substantially reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and harmful pollutants emitted by conventional large bore two-stroke single-acting marine diesel engines used by the world’s merchant shipping fleets.
(more…)

Kwai Chung is one of the sources of HK air pollution

SCMP

14th Oct, 2009

For years, the government shrugged off concerns about poor air quality as being all but out of its control. Factories in Guangdong, and weather patterns, were blamed for the grey pall hanging overhead. Study upon study, the latest involving the container port at Kwai Chung, have since found that the pollution is mostly our own doing. That it persists, and is in some instances getting worse despite cleaner industries across the border and closer environmental co-operation, confirms what we should have known – and been trying to tackle – all along.

Amid public pressure, authorities have taken tentative and small steps to make the air clearer and healthier. The strategy has been a bottom-up one: legislating for cleaner fuel for private cars, taxis and minibuses, but often leaving the obligations for the bigger polluters voluntary. Emission caps for the two electricity producers have been tightened. But they, together with bus companies, transport operators and ferry firms should be put under greater pressure to switch. The government, meanwhile, has seemingly turned a blind eye to shipping.

Emissions from our two power stations create the majority of the smog, yet the bulk of the electricity they generate still comes from the most polluting fuel, coal. More needs to be done to change this. Only a small proportion of their output is from natural gas, the choice of environmentally-conscious governments elsewhere.

While government measures have significantly lessened low-lying urban pollution, analysis by the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) last month of data from monitors found it continued to be alarmingly high at street level in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Of particular concern was the high prevalence of microscopic particulates that result from the burning of diesel; they are especially harmful to health. There can be no clearer evidence of a lack of attention to ensuring buses and trucks use cleaner fuel. Nor, given the finding, can the problem be blamed on cross-border winds.

A University of Science and Technology study last week found the same to be the case with emissions of sulphur dioxide from the container port at Kwai Chung. Contrary to assertions from authorities that high sulphur levels in the area had blown from the mainland, the research indicated it emanated from shipping and port operations. The health of as many as three million people had been put at risk, the study said.

Container ships use highly-toxic bunker fuel. Maritime industry data shows the biggest vessels each emit as much pollution as 50 million cars. International agreements permit sea-going craft to burn bunker fuel with up to 4.5 per cent sulphur content. Vehicles on Hong Kong roads use diesel containing 0.005 per cent sulphur.

Government proposals to clear the pollution from sea-going traffic do not mention container ships and the port. Ferries, pleasure craft and other small boats – which already use fuel with a sulphur content of 0.5 per cent – are being encouraged to use low-sulphur diesel. The lack of interest in port operations is down to the low volume of emissions. Such an approach ignores that the burning of bunker fuel is many times more dangerous to health.

International agreements are moving slowly. Fuel standards for ocean-going vessels will be changed to 3.5 per cent sulphur content by 2012. Port cities in Europe and North America, worried about public health, are forming partnerships to force ships entering their waters to use cleaner fuel. Hong Kong can no longer ignore the problem; it has to follow suit in the name of clean air and water.

Pollution mostly local, study finds

Cheung Chi-fai, SCMP

Sulphur dioxide pollution in Hong Kong is mostly generated in the city, particularly in the container port and by shipping, a leading atmospheric scientist has found.

Dr Alexis Lau Kai-hon, an associate professor at the University of Science and Technology’s Institute for the Environment, said the findings of a study suggested that pollutant criteria proposed in the government’s air quality review had to be tightened further or public health would continue to be at great risk.

Lau recently compared sulphur dioxide concentration data for winters and summers between 2007 and this year. He found that sulphur dioxide concentrations were higher in summer, when southerly winds from the ocean prevailed, than in winter, when northerlies blew from the mainland.

“It suggests the pollution source is local rather than regional,” he said.

Lau found some of the highest sulphur dioxide concentrations in and around the Kwai Chung container port area, indicating that cargo ships and port operations were a big source of pollution. He said they had huge health effects at ground level.

While power generation remained the single largest source of sulphur emissions in Hong Kong, accounting for nearly 90 per cent, Lau said that the shipping sector’s effects on health could be five times greater than that of power plants because of the port’s close proximity to more than three million residents. The medical community has long warned that exposure to high concentrations of sulphur emissions can impair respiratory functions and aggravate existing heart and lung diseases.

Lau said the emissions data studied also showed a remarkable difference in concentrations before and after the global economicdownturn, which began towards the end of last year.

Sulphur dioxide concentrations fell by an average of 25 per cent after the downturn began, when there was an 11 per cent drop in the number of cargo ships, Lau said. The first eight months this year saw 19,790 vessels calling at the port, compared with 22,340 in the same period last year.

Lau said the findings highlighted the urgent need to address air pollution from marine sources, as most ocean-going vessels were still using fuel oil with up to a 2.5 per cent sulphur content. That was 2,500 times higher than the sulphur content in diesel fuel used by road transport.

Lau said pollution by ships was a huge problem, and criteria proposed by the Environment Bureau under the air quality objectives review seemed far too loose to protect people’s health.

The proposed sulphur emissions objective, an average daily concentration of 125 micrograms per cubic metre of air – the lowest interim target allowed by the World Health Organisation – had already been met, Lau said. A more stringent standard of 50 micrograms per cubic metre of air should be used, he said. That would bolster moves to clean up pollution.

“Without a further tightening of the sulphur dioxide standard, there is little basis for further control of the pollutant in the marine sector even though we know the sulphur-laden fumes from marine sources are posing a significant health threat to the population,” Lau said.
Nineteen measures, ranging from using cleaner fuel for power generation to phasing out polluting vehicles, have been proposed by the bureau. None specifically tackle emissions from ocean-going ships.

The only ship-related measure was a proposal, without a clear time frame, to require local vessels, including ferries, to use low-sulphur diesel fuel.

According to a report last year by the Civic Exchange think tank, the pollution related to port activities and ocean-going vessels could also be addressed by designating Hong Kong and its neighbouring regions as sulphur-emission control areas.

A similar zone is in place in the Baltic Sea and North Sea, where ships are only allowed to burn fuel with a sulphur content of 1.5 per cent or less. But any proposal for such a designation for Hong Kong would have to be raised by Beijing at the International Maritime Organisation, which sets global fuel-use standards for ships.

The organisation has also endorsed a plan to limit sulphur content in cargo-ship fuel to just 0.5 per cent sulphur content by 2020, although the port of Los Angeles has already implemented that.

On Wednesday, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah told lawmakers that the government would raise the low-emission shipping zone issue with the mainland in discussions on post-2010 emission-reduction matters.

An existing agreement on emission-reduction issues will expire by the end of next year.

Arthur Bowring, managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association, said ship-fuel issues needed to be tackled from both global and local angles.

He said there should be local laws in Hong Kong and Guangdong to control ship fuel, and both places should endorse such laws simultaneously so that all ships entering the region had to comply.

Bowring said that it would neither be practical nor conducive to fair competition to unilaterally impose fuel restrictions in either Hong Kong or Shenzhen but not both together. But he said he was optimistic that a cross-border agreement would be ready in a few years.
“It will need strong government and political will to put it in place. With the right incentives, right regulations and funding, it can be done.”

Natural partnership

SCMP

17 Sep, 2009

Reducing highly toxic emissions from ships must be a key part of the government’s clean-air strategy. Right now, shipping emissions are regarded as a problem that can wait. Officials have not given this a higher priority because they take a total-quantity approach rather than a public health one. Total emissions from power plants and road vehicles are many times higher than that from ships. But this approach misses the high toxicity of bunker fuel. Data from the maritime industry shows that the 15 biggest ships in the world today may emit the same amount of pollution as all the cars in the world.

Imagine a large container ship coming into Kwai Chung terminal. It stays there for, say, a day to load and unload cargo. While the ship is docked, it is still burning bunker fuel to generate electricity. Under international agreements, oceangoing vessels can burn bunker fuel with up to 4.5 per cent sulphur content, although the average is about 3 per cent. This is extremely high compared to the 0.005 per cent sulphur content of ultra-low sulphur diesel that road vehicles burn in Hong Kong. Kwai Chung is close to the homes and workplaces of millions of people. Even light breezes can blow the emissions to heavily populated areas.

The issue, then, is straightforward. The government must multitask – while it prepares plans to drive down power and vehicular emissions, it must at the same time deal with ships. So far, officials have only proposed to deal with local vessels. These are the smaller vessels operating in local waters, such as pleasure boats, ferries, hydrofoils and barges. They are already burning much cleaner fuels, with 0.5 per cent sulphur content. The government is proposing that all local vessels should use ultra-low sulphur diesel, which will help. A refinement to this proposal is to set a limit on emissions and allow owners to use other means to achieve the same emission levels as ultra-low sulphur diesel, since other technology may be able to achieve the same results.

The problem remains that oceangoing vessels are not included in this proposal and they are the heavy polluters burning bunker fuel. Let’s face facts. The container ports of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou handle about 12 per cent of the global container traffic. This is an awful lot for a small body of water. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are, in fact, sister ports because of their proximity, and also because they share essentially the same investors and operators. And even if ships are heading for Shenzhen, many pass through Hong Kong waters and their emissions affect our residents.

In fact, all major port cities and cross-jurisdiction regions face the same problems. International maritime agreements on emissions have moved quite slowly. For example, oceangoing ships will only have to meet fuel standards with 3.5 per cent sulphur content by 2012, and perhaps 0.5 per cent by 2020. This is far too slow, so port authorities are taking the initiative to clean up marine emissions and related container-truck pollution.

The US ports of Seattle and Tacoma and their neighbouring Canadian port of Vancouver have formed an extensive partnership to maintain clean waterways and air quality. Its members include port operators, local environmental authorities and public health experts. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are also co-operating to find solutions that include using financial incentives for ships to burn cleaner fuel as they enter Californian waters. European ports are exploring similar initiatives.

Hong Kong and Shenzhen are ideal partners to devise green port policies. The public should insist that it becomes part of the government’s push to work with Guangdong to improve air quality, and also make it an important element of cross-border collaboration. The good news is that many ship owners, liners and terminal operators are ready to act because their ships and overseas operations have already been forced to clean up. They know the global trend. The authorities here need to demand action so there is a level playing field. In other words, discriminate against the laggards, not those who can lead.

Hong Kong’s port is an economic lifeline – and one of its worst sources of pollution, writes Christine Loh

Low-hanging fruit is ripe for picking. But it can only be harvested at the optimal time. And, so, the government must move ahead to deal with marine and port-related emissions now because emission levels are rising, yet many stakeholders are ready to perform at a higher environmental level. By taking decisive action in the near future, the government will win political kudos.

The authorities have a duty to act if they are serious about protecting public health. Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta have some of the busiest ports in the world. Between 2001 and 2006, Hong Kong’s container throughput increased by about 32 per cent, from 17.8 million to 23.5 million 20-foot equivalent units (teus), a measurement for containerised tonnage. Our neighbour, Shenzhen, has also seen massive increases, from about 5 million teus in 2001 to nearly 18.5 million teus in 2006.

Millions of people in the region live and work close to ports and are directly exposed to very harmful levels of shipping and port-related emissions. After all, ship emissions come from the burning of bunker fuel, which is highly toxic. While in total tonnage terms, marine emissions are much less than from power plants, bunker fuel is nevertheless very dirty and its emissions affect more than 3 million people in Hong Kong, according to a government-commissioned study. Despite the lower quantity, ship emissions have a large negative impact on people’s health.

Moreover, port activities include the operation of many types of equipment, such as cranes, as well as tens of thousands of barges and trucks moving goods round the clock. They all burn lower-quality diesel and thus contribute to Hong Kong’s and the delta’s poor air quality. There is no doubt that old, polluting lorries are a major contributor to this city’s roadside pollution, which is desperately high.

While long-term predictions are less precise, current government-sponsored estimates show that our city may handle a staggering 40 million teus by 2030. With Shenzhen’s ports also growing quickly – some believe they will grow even faster – there is, in fact, an urgent need to clean up, otherwise the rising tonnage of cargo will become an even bigger public health threat.

Our ship owners know Hong Kong can do better. This is because their ships sail around the world and, in European and North American ports, there have been much greater efforts in recent years to promote green port policies to reduce the public health impact on port cities. Their ships have to improve their environmental performance when they dock at those ports, for example, by using cleaner fuels and reducing speed.

So, ship owners know they can do the same when their ships sail into Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and it would mean lower emissions for the residents of this region.

There is an additional cost component to using cleaner fuel. But if all ships entering a port have to meet the same tighter emissions levels, it is a new, level playing field. The ship owners insist that voluntary measures don’t work because there will always be the temptation for some to save costs by continuing to use dirtier fuel, for example.

Cargo terminal operators in Hong Kong have also started to use cleaner fuels for their equipment as part of their corporate social responsibility programmes. Since they are in fact global port operators, these companies are also affected by international trends. Some of the larger companies that operate various types of harbour craft – tugs and ferries – are also looking at what emissions improvements they can make and are providing key staff with environmental management training. The most difficult stakeholder group is the lorry operators, many of whom feel they are in a sunset industry. But, even here, better driving skills can help with fuel efficiency, leading to lower costs at a time when energy prices are very high.

The government needs to be willing to convene ongoing dialogue with the stakeholders to press home green port policies and work with the marine and port operation sector to explore a range of clean-up options.

Europe needs Emission Control Areas

Acid News – 2 June 09

Over the last twenty years, fuel and emission standards for land-based transport have been dramatically strengthened over most of the world. But international shipping has for a long time resisted similar legislation, both as regards emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Eventually, in October last year, after some twenty years of talks but very little action, strict new limits for reducing sulphur emissions from ships were finally agreed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). But these important new standards are still many years away from practical implementation – the 0.5 per cent global sulphur limit will apply as from 2020 (or possibly 2025), and the 0.1 per cent sulphur limit for ships in designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs) will apply as from 2015. More importantly, the measures agreed so far in IMO for reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are totally inadequate – the Tier 2 standards that will apply to new ship engines as from 2011 will only reduce NOx emissions by about 16–22 per cent, as compared to the current Tier 1 standards.

The slow turnover of the shipping fleet combined with the high growth in shipping activities mean that the Tier 2 standards are not likely to result in any real reductions in total ship emissions even within the next 15–20 years. Every effort must therefore be made to markedly strengthen the weak global NOx emission standards, both for existing and new ships. Last year’s IMO agreement also included a Tier 3 NOx emission standard, which will be introduced in 2016 and requires an 80 per cent NOx reduction from the present Tier 1 level. But the Tier 3 standards apply solely in specific designated NOx Emission Control Areas, and are limited to new ships only. In late March, the United States and Canada jointly submitted a proposal to the IMO to designate most of their coastal waters, an area extending 370 kilometres from the coastline, as an emissions control area (ECA) for the control of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter emissions (see front page). All ships operating in the ECA will face stricter emission standards designed to reduce the threat they pose to human health and the environment. The ECA standards will cut sulphur in fuel by 98 per cent, particulate matter (PM) emissions by 85 per cent, and NOx emissions by 80 per cent as compared to the current global requirements. Clearly, the EU and its member states should follow the example of the United States and Canada and designate all sea areas around Europe (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North-East Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea) as “full” Emission Control Areas, i.e. covering all the major air pollutants (sulphur, PM and NOx). Currently only the Baltic Sea and the North Sea have ECA status, and this is limited to sulphur control.

To ensure an organized gradual phasein of low-sulphur fuel, to encourage the use of the best techniques, and to speed up the introduction of cleaner fuels and ships, IMO regulations need to be complemented by economic instruments, such as emission charges. These should be set so as to make it financially worthwhile – at least for ships that regularly frequent the areas where they apply – to use cleaner fuels or to invest in techniques needed to ensure a distinct reduction in emissions.

Christer Ågren

Air Pollution Endangers Lives of Six in 10 Americans

WASHINGTON, DC, April 29, 2009 (ENS)

Six out of every 10 Americans – 186.1 million people – live in areas where air pollution endangers lives, according to the 10th annual American Lung Association State of the Air report released today.

Some of the biggest sources of air pollution – dirty power plants, dirty diesel engines and ocean-going vessels – also worsen global warming, the Lung Association says in State of the Air 2009.

As America deals with the linked challenges of air pollution, global warming and energy, the Lung Association urges Congress, the U.S. EPA and individuals to choose solutions that help solve all three challenges together.

Nearly every major American city is still burdened by air pollution, and the air in many cities became dirtier since last year, the report finds, despite “substantial progress” made against air pollution in many areas of the country and more attention paid to the environment by America’s growing green movement.

“This should be a wakeup call. We know that air pollution is a major threat to human health,” said Stephen Nolan, American Lung Association National Board Chair. “When 60 percent of Americans are left breathing air dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, to shape how kids’ lungs develop, and to kill, air pollution remains a serious problem.”

State of the Air 2009 includes a national air quality report card that assigns A-F grades to communities across the country and details trends for 900 counties over the past decade.

The report ranks cities and counties most affected by the three most widespread types of pollution – ozone, or smog; annual particle pollution; and 24-hour particle pollution levels.

The report finds that air pollution hovers at unhealthy levels in almost every major city, threatening people’s ability to breathe and placing lives at risk.

“The more we learn, the more urgent it becomes for us to take decisive action to make our air healthier,” said Nolan.

Many cities, like Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Baltimore have made improvements in their air quality over the past decade.

Only one city, Fargo, North Dakota, ranked among the cleanest in all three air pollution categories.

Seventeen cities appeared on two of the three lists of cleanest cities: Billings, Montana; Bismarck and Sioux Falls, North Dakota; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Colorado Springs, Ft. Collins, and Pueblo, Colorado; Farmington and Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico; Honolulu, Hawaii; Lincoln, Nebraska; Midland-Odessa, Texas; Port St. Lucie, Florida; Redding, Salinas, and San Luis Obispo, California; and Tucson, Arizona.

The three cities most polluted by ozone are all in California – the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area; Bakersfield, a center of agriculture, petroleum extraction and refining, and manufacturing in the San Joaquin Valley; and Visalia-Porterville, a San Joaquin Valley agricultural community.

Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania tops the list of cities most polluted by 24 hour fine particle pollution, while the three California cities that top the most polluted ozone list are close behind in this category and also for year-round particle pollution.

Ozone

In March 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted a new, tighter standard for ozone pollution. The new standard showed that unhealthy ozone levels are more widespread and more severe than previously recognized.

Evaluating the most recent data against the new standard, the American Lung Association found that approximately 175.4 million Americans – 58 percent – live in counties where ozone monitors recorded too many days with unhealthy ozone levels, far more than the 92.5 million identified in the State of the Air 2008 report.

Sixteen cities making this year’s 25 most ozone-polluted list experienced worse smog problems than last year.

The Lung Association’s review found consistent improvements in ozone in some cities, such as Los Angeles, with its long-standing ozone problem.

But two cities, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Las Vegas, have higher ozone levels than 10 years ago.

Ozone is the most widespread form of air pollution. When inhaled, ozone irritates the lungs, resulting in something like a bad sunburn. The health effects of breathing ozone pollution can be immediate. Ozone can cause wheezing, coughing and asthma attacks. Breathing ozone pollution can even shorten lives.

“More than 175 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy smog levels – that’s 80 million more than we identified in last year’s report,” said Charles Connor, American Lung Association president and chief executive. “We at the American Lung Association believe that the new ozone standard is not yet strong enough to protect human health – an opinion nearly all scientific experts share.”

In March 2008, the EPA adopted a standard of .075 parts per million, ppm, after legal action by the American Lung Association forced the agency to complete a formal review. This standard is not as strict as the standard of .060 ppm recommended by the Lung Association.

The association, along with states, public health and environmental groups, has taken the EPA back to court in an attempt to force the agency to adopt the .060 ppm standard before its scheduled five-year review in 2013.

Particle Pollution

State of the Air 2009 grades counties for both 24-hour and year-round levels of particle pollution – a toxic mix of microscopic soot, diesel exhaust, chemicals, metals and aerosols.

“It is the most dangerous and deadly of the outdoor air pollutants that are widespread in America,” the Lung Association says in its report, warning that “breathing in particle pollution can increase the risk of early death, heart attacks, strokes and emergency room visits for asthma and cardiovascular disease.”

One in six people in the United States lives in an area with unhealthy year-round levels of fine particle pollution (termed annual average levels).

Nine cities in the list of the 25 most polluted by year-round particle pollution showed measurable improvement, including five cities that reported their best year-round levels since the Lung Association began tracking this pollutant: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Atlanta, York and Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

The annual average level of particle pollution worsened in a dozen cities, including Bakersfield and Los Angeles, California and Houston, Texas.

Roughly three in 10 Americans live in counties with unhealthful spikes of particle pollution which can last from hours to days (termed 24-hour levels).

Thirteen cities had more days, or more severe days, of spikes than in last year’s report. Eleven cities have improved continually since the 2007 report.

New data show that women in their 50’s may be particularly threatened by air pollution and that diesel truck drivers and dockworkers who are forced to breathe exhaust on the job may face a greater risk of developing lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

California researchers have tripled their estimate of the number of people that particle pollution kills each year in their state.

“The science is rock-solid. We now know that air pollution can impair the lung function of even the healthiest people,” said Norman Edelman, MD, American Lung Association chief medical officer. “Air pollution worsens asthma and is a direct cause of heart attacks, which makes people living with lung and heart disease especially vulnerable.”

Dr. Edelman suggests that people living in areas of high particle pollution “must recognize that this is the fact of their lives, and they must be more careful about other life factors – stop smoking, eat well, exercise.”

In addition, Dr. Edelman suggests, people who live with particle pollution “must take action help us and other organizations to change the EPA regulations. It’s personal, it’s affecting them and their neighbors.” In addition, he said, they can take local political action to change regulations such as engine idling, and clean up diesel-powered school buses.

Low income people and some racial and ethnic groups often face greater risk from pollutants. Pollution sources like factories and power plants may be closer to their homes, the Lung Association points out. Many live near areas with heavy highway traffic or have poor access to health care, which makes them even more vulnerable. Some racial and ethnic groups have a higher prevalence of diseases like asthma or diabetes, which compounds the ill effects of air pollution for these groups.

“We need to renew our commitment to providing healthy air for all our citizens – a commitment the United States made almost 40 years ago when Congress passed the Clean Air Act,” Connor said. “After four decades, we still have much work to do.”

“America needs to cut emissions from big polluters like coal-fired power plants and ocean-going vessels,” Connor said. “We need to fix old dirty diesel engines to make them cleaner and strengthen the ozone standards to better protect our health. We also need to improve the decaying infrastructure of air monitors. America must now enforce the laws that help us improve our nation’s air quality.”

CLEANEST U.S. CITIES

Cleanest U.S. Cities for Ozone Air Pollution *Cities below had equal scores.

  • Billings, Montana
  • Carson City, Nevada
  • Coeur D’Alene, Idaho
  • Fargo-Wahpeton, North Dakota-Minnesota
  • Honolulu, Hawaii
  • Laredo, Texas
  • Lincoln, Nebraska
  • Port St. Lucie-Sebastian-Vero Beach, Florida
  • Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Cleanest U.S. Cities for Short-term Particle Pollution (24 Hour PM2.5) *Cities below had equal scores.

  • Alexandria, Louisiana
  • Amarillo, Texas
  • Austin-Round Rock, Texas
  • Bismarck, North Dakota
  • Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville, Texas
  • Cheyenne, Wyoming
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado
  • Corpus Christi-Kingsville, Texas
  • Fargo-Wahpeton, North Dakota-Minnesota
  • Farmington, New Mexico
  • Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado
  • Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Longview-Marshall, Texas
  • Midland-Odessa, Texas
  • Oklahoma City-Shawnee, Oklahoma
  • Portland-Lewiston-South Portland, Maine
  • Pueblo, Colorado
  • Redding, California
  • Salinas, California
  • San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, California
  • Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, California
  • Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico
  • Sioux Falls, South Dakota
  • Tucson, Arizona

10 Cleanest U.S. Cities for Long-term Particle Pollution (Annual PM2.5)

  • Cheyenne, Wyoming
  • Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico
  • Honolulu, Hawaii
  • Great Falls, Montana (tied for 4th)
  • Flagstaff, Arizona (tied for 4th)
  • Farmington, New Mexico (tied for 6th)
  • Anchorage, Alaska (tied for 6th)
  • Tucson, Arizona
  • Bismarck, North Dakota (tied for 9th)
  • Salinas, California (tied for 9th)

MOST POLLUTED U.S. CITIES
10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Ozone

  • Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
  • Bakersfield, California
  • Visalia-Porterville, California
  • Fresno-Madera, California
  • Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, Texas
  • Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City, California-Nevada
  • Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
  • Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, N.C.-S.C.
  • Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona
  • El Centro, California

10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Short-term Particle Pollution (24 Hour PM2.5)

  • Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania
  • Fresno-Madera, California
  • Bakersfield, California
  • Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
  • Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Alabama
  • Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, Utah
  • Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City, California-Nevada
  • Logan, Utah
  • Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (tied for 9th)
  • Detroit-Warren-Flint, Michigan (tied for 9th)

10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution (Annual PM2.5)

  • Bakersfield, California
  • Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania
  • Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
  • Visalia-Porterville, California
  • Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Alabama
  • Hanford-Corcoran, California
  • Fresno-Madera, California
  • Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana
  • Detroit-Warren-Flint, Michigan
  • Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, Ohio

Visit www.lungusa.org to search local air quality grades by zip code.

Zim Shows Off Environmentally Friendly Ship

The Chronicle Herald.ca By TOM PETERS Business Reporter – 9 Apr 2009

The world’s shipping lines are under international pressure to help protect the oceans from pollution. Zim Container Line is one of several major carriers that is taking the challenge seriously.

Zim, a customer at the Port of Halifax since 1972, bought one of its newest vessels into Halifax on Wednesday as part of the inauguration of its service from Asia to the Mediterranean.

Zim San Francisco, a Panamax container ship with a capacity of slightly under 5,000 TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) and only two months out of the Daewoo Shipyard in South Korea, leaves little evidence of pollution in its wake.

“Our company sets environmental standards,” the ship’s chief officer, Timo Kopf, 28, said Wednesday.

“We don’t throw any garbage overboard when at sea, except food waste, which first goes through a grinder.”

The ship, owned by the CONTI Group of Germany and chartered by Zim, has an incinerator on board and what garbage can’t be burned, like tin cans, is bagged and discharged when the vessel reaches port.

The ship also has a bilge water separator that separates any waste oil from waste water that might be discharged into the ocean.

“We also have sludge tanks and discharge that material to contracted companies when we get to port,” he said.

Chief Officer Kopf said Zim follows international standards and has its own environmental targets for food waste disposal.

Zim San Francisco is one of 15 vessels in the Asia-Mediterranean service that calls at Halterm container terminal twice a week. The port rotation is Skekou, China; Hong Kong; Ningbo, China; Shanghai; Pusan, South Korea; Balboa, Spain; Panama Canal, Kingston, Jamaica; Savannah, Ga.; New York; Halifax; Tarragona, Spain; and Haifa, Israel.

The German-flagged vessel, with a crew of 21, burns about 110 tonnes of fuel a day at minimum speed and up to 115 tonnes at maximum speed. The ship can stay at sea for more than three weeks before refuelling.

( tpeters@herald.ca)