Clear The Air Ships Air Pollution Blog Rotating Header Image

Ship Air Pollution

Law on cleaner marine fuel a step forward in fight against air pollution

26 March 2015

Activists tend to remember landmark victories in the fight against air pollution. But most people would be surprised to hear that it is 25 years since the government took a policy decision which, according to researchers, made a difference to air quality overnight. That was to impose a cap on the sulphur content of industrial fuel used in factories. The year was 1990. Ever since, sadly, other pollution sources have undermined air quality. But a similar landmark victory may not be far off, according to a think tank that specialises in environmental issues. Simon Ng Ka-wing, chief research officer at Civic Exchange, says this is likely when it becomes mandatory for ocean-going vessels to use low-sulphur marine diesel fuel when berthing in Hong Kong, under a proposed law that activists hope will take effect as early as July. Although ship emissions account for only 18 per cent of sulphur dioxide in the city’s air, they penetrate residential areas easily.

As with the factories in 1990, Ng expects the policy to have a dramatic effect because sulphur emissions will be cut by almost 80 per cent immediately. This is the kind of boost to its environmental credentials the city needs, given the importance of good air quality in attracting the talented people and tourists so important to its economy. The latest data shows that measures such as phasing out dirty diesel vehicles and buses that fail even outdated European emission standards are having a welcome impact. But average concentrations of pollutants remain too high, especially for ozone.

The ultimate goal of tackling marine diesel emissions in Hong Kong is a recognised clean-fuel emissions control area (ECA) for the Pearl River Delta, like those in North America, the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. That would depend on participation of Guangdong ports and support from Beijing in the International Maritime Organisation. Meanwhile, if a mandatory cap were to have the predicted dramatic effect, it should prompt the government to redouble efforts to upgrade local bus and truck fleets to combat roadside air pollution.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1747352/law-cleaner-marine-fuel-step-forward-fight-against-air

Links

Pollutionwatch: Big ships, bigger stink

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/28/pollutionwatch-big-ships-bigger-stink

The Marco Polo, one of the world’s largest vessels, docks at a container terminal in Hamburg. Photograph: Patrick Lux/Getty Images

The Marco Polo, one of the world’s largest vessels, docks at a container terminal in Hamburg. Photograph: Patrick Lux/Getty Images

Nowadays, Christmas arrives by ship not sleigh. The labels of our new Christmas jumpers, novelty socks, toys and mobile phones reveal the global trade in manufactured goods and the huge distances they travel.

Shipping is more energy efficient than road or air transport, but a lack of controls on ship exhausts and the poor quality of marine fuel mean 15% of global nitrogen oxides and 8% of sulphur gaseous pollution come from ocean-going ships.

This matters because 80% of shipping is within 400km of land, and major sea corridors and ports are large pollution sources. In Hong Kong, the world’s fourth largest port, daily changes in ship pollution have been linked to heart attack frequency. Ship pollution can also be found in smaller port cities such as Cork, Gothenburg and Brisbane.

Marine fuel is mainly residues from refining road and aviation fuel, and therefore contains most of the impurities. Vanadium emitted from ship funnels can be found in the air throughout Europe – in Paris and London, for example. But the greatest impact of shipping pollution in Europe is felt in Denmark and the Netherlands.

Much of waters around the US and Europe are now pollution control zones for ships, requiring them to burn better quality fuel. This does help. Reduced sulphur in fuel from 2006 led to cleaner air in Dover and Rotterdam.

However, growth in shipping and increasingly stringent controls on land-based pollution sources mean ship pollution is set to grow as a proportion of our pollution exposure

Shenzhen in 200m yuan push for green shipping

Thursday, 25 September, 2014

Jing Yang

Mainland city plans to spend 200m yuan a year on cash rebates to encourage firms to switch to low-sulphur fuel while at berth to cut emissions

The Shenzhen government plans to spend 200 million yuan (HK$252.7 million) a year on cash rebates to encourage shipping lines to switch to low-sulphur fuel while at berth, following initiatives taken by Hong Kong, as both cities attempt to rein in vessel exhaust emissions.

The Shenzhen government will subsidise between 75 and 100 per cent of the extra costs incurred in the voluntary at-berth switch to fuel with a maximum 0.5 per cent sulphur content, which is more expensive than regular marine bunker that contains 3 to 3.5 per cent sulphur. The scheme will take effect next month and last for three years.

“We are learning from the experiences in Hong Kong, where companies have volunteered to switch to low-sulphur fuel and the government provides subsidies for extra costs incurred,” Dong Yanze, director of the Construction Management Office of Shenzhen municipality’s Transport Commission, said yesterday.

In 2011, 19 shipping firms came together in Hong Kong to voluntarily switch to low-sulphur fuel at berth, bearing the entire extra bunker costs – an average of US$2 million a year – themselves. Known as the Fair Winds Charter, the endeavour did not receive cash subsidies from the city’s government until September last year, when a three-year grant was rolled out that offset up to 50 per cent of the switch costs.

Bunker bills generally account for 20 to 30 per cent in the operational costs of shipping lines, which have been hit by heavy losses in a protracted industry slump.

The Fair Winds Charter also led to a legislative effort in Hong Kong. The Department of Justice is drafting a bill to mandate a switch to low-sulphur fuel for all ocean-going vessels docking at the city’s terminals, the first such legislation in Asia.

The government initially planned to table the bill to the Legislative Council before the summer recess, aiming for the legislation to come into effect early next year.

“There has been [at least a half-year] delay in the drafting of the legislation,” Undersecretary for the Environment Christine Loh Kung-wai said. “We hope the drafting will finish by the end of the year so that we could put it to Legco as soon as possible. We still want the legislation to come into effect within 2015.”

While mooring at ports, cargo ships contribute to 66 per cent of sulphur dioxide emissions in Shenzhen. In Hong Kong, the proportion is 78 per cent, government statistics show.

Shenzhen was pushing for a sulphur emission control area that would cover the Pearl River Delta by 2018, said Li Shuisheng, deputy director of Shenzhen’s Human Settlements and Environment Commission.

“We hope to set an example for other coastal ports in China and that our efforts will be acknowledged by the central government, eventually leading to nationwide policies,” he said.

An emission control area, which could cover either sulphur or nitrogen dioxide or both, is a designated area that must comply with emission caps set by the International Maritime Organisation under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The action, once approved by the maritime body, would be non-discretionary, with emission standards more stringent than in non-emission control areas.

There are currently three such areas in the world – in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and North America. Asia has lagged behind despite its status as a centre of global shipping traffic.

The steps leading up to the declaration of an emission control area are long and arduous. Hong Kong was collaborating with Shenzhen towards that aim, Loh said.

“2018 is a very aggressive date,” she said. “We are very supportive of the idea to set up [such an area]. But there is a lot of work involved.”

Twenty-three shipping lines signed a joint Green Shipping Shenzhen Declaration yesterday, pledging to contribute to cleaning up the air in the city. It remains unclear how many shipping lines will sign up for the scheme as implementation measures are still being formulated. They are expected to come out by October 1.

http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1599745/shenzhen-200m-yuan-push-green-shipping

CNN: Ship emissions blamed for worsening pollution in Hong Kong

by Grigory Kravtsov, reporting for CNN:

Smog is a common sight in Hong Kong, with the amount of polluted days increasing by 28 percent to 303 so far this year.

Hong Kongers would be quick to point the finger at Chinese factories across the border. Yet, research is increasingly indicating that the problem is much more localized, coming from emissions produced by shipping.

“What we know in Hong Kong is that up to 50% of pollution [locally produced] sources come from marine vessels,” said Gina McCarthy, administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Smog levels within the city of over 7 million reached hazardous levels earlier this week, with particles in one urban area, Sham Shui Po hitting a PM2.5, hitting 91.7 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Anything above 71 is classified as “very dangerous” according to the World Health Organization guidelines.

Maritime pollution in Hong Kong is blamed for the most sulfur dioxide-related deaths within the region. According to a recent report jointly compiled by the Civic Exchange and The University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong saw 385 deaths caused by the hazardous chemical, for which shipping is to blame.

The city lacks regulations in tackling maritime pollution, as there is no legislation or requirements for shipping companies to switch to cleaner fuel when entering Hong Kong waters.

(more…)

Lack of Emissions Control Area in HK waters will continue to leave Hong Kong blanketed in smog

Less than a week after favourable weather cleared the skies of Hong Kong, the city is covered again in particles. It has become a common refrain for city officials to sing of their achievements in switching out diesel engines from the roads, and after that for Legco members to debate to no end as to how (un)successful their measures have been in improving the city’s air quality.

It is also commonly known, albeit with less attention paid, that cargo ships – especially ocean-going vessels – are a major contributor to pollutants as they move through the waters of Hong Kong. In addition to Hong Kong’s own Kwai Chung terminal, ships docking at Shenzhen’s Yantian and Shekou terminals pass through channels east and west of Hong Kong respectively, meaning Hong Kong bears the brunt of the emissions whichever way the prevailing winds blow.

Thus far, Hong Kong’s policymakers have only implemented a weak policy – incentivising ships docking at Kwai Chung to switch to cleaner fuels when moving in Hong Kong, transitioning into a compulsory requirement by Sep 2014. Meanwhile, there are already complaints that this would ‘hurt competitiveness’ of the Kwai Chung terminal in comparison with Shenzhen’s terminals (of which Hong Kong’s Hutchison Whampoa, and the Wharf, are shareholders).

The situation can be greatly improved if Hong Kong officials can push for the implementation of an Emissions Control Area, which will effectively make the same clean fuel requirements for Shenzhen’s terminals. This may call for cross-border co-operation between policymakers in order for the policy to be strictly enforced, but if Hong Kong officials wish to display some real work done, there can be no better opportunity.

Clear The Air has prepared a brief document on this issue.

Shipping lines complain about expensive clean fuel requirements

Ocean-going vessels, burning bunker fuels with 2.75-4% sulphur content, is a major contributor of air pollutants to Hong Kong. Prevailing winds bring sulphur particles into the ‘urban canyons’ of Hong Kong, where the concentration of particles are increased, posing a huge health hazard to Hong Kong residents.

Shipping lines are now complaining that the requirements imposed by the Hong Kong government to use cleaner fuels will increase their cost of business, and demands that the government extends a subsidy scheme that incentivises the use of cleaner fuels (the scheme does not end until Sep 2015). Alarmist warnings about ‘competitiveness’ with Shenzhen are being sent out, aiming to panick and pressurize the authorities to provide more incentives for doing what is right, even though they can share the extra costs with their clients as per usual business practices.

Of note is that Hong Kong is ‘the only Asian city to impose such a requirement’. Hong Kong should not step backwards from the rare occasion of being the lead in an environmentally-friendly policy, with developing economies increasingly adopting environmental technologies and policies ahead of Hong Kong.

from Anita Lam of the SCMP:

Ships calling at Hong Kong will face higher costs when legislation requiring vessels to switch to cleaner marine fuel upon berthing is passed next year.

Some carriers may, as a result, switch to neighbouring ports in Shenzhen.

To prevent this, shipowners said, the government should consider extending a scheme that subsidises shipping lines – many of which are expected to suffer losses this year – for the extra cost of the clean fuel.

However, a government official said, an extension is unlikely.

(more…)

AirClim: Shipping air pollution costs €60 billion per year

From Christer Ågren of Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat:

Total health-related costs in Europe caused by air pollutant emissions from international shipping are expected to increase from €58 billion to €64 billion between 2000 and 2020.

The total health-related costs of air pollution in Europe are calculated to have been more than €800 billion per year at the pollution levels of year 2000. This figure is estimated to decrease to €537 billion in 2020, provided that EU countries reduce their emissions from land-based sources in line with what is needed to achieve the environmental targets of the EU’s 2005 Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, and provided that the sulphur emission standards for international shipping are complied with.

Air pollution is estimated to have been responsible for around 680,000 premature deaths in the whole of Europe in the year 2000, a figure that is expected to come down to approximately 450,000 in 2020.

Comparing the health impacts from shipping with those from land-based sources shows that in the year 2000 emissions from international shipping were responsible for an estimated seven per cent of the total health damage from air pollution in Europe, and that its share will increase to twelve per cent by 2020.

(flickr.com/ecstaticist/cc by-sa)

The number of annual premature deaths in Europe linked to air pollution from international shipping is estimated to increase from 49,500 to 53,400 between 2000 and 2020.

These figures come from a Danish study1 using the EVA (Economic Value of Air pollution) computer model. The research project aims to map the true costs of damage caused by air pollutant emissions from various sectors. Different scenarios assessing the human health impacts and associated external costs from different emission sectors have been investigated for the years 2000, 2007, 2011 and 2020 (see Table).

Table: Estimated total number of annual premature deaths in Europe caused by different emission sources

2000 2007 2011 2020
All sources 681,100 575,500 572,600 450,000
International shipping 49,500 48,300 46,000 53,400
Int. shipping in the North Sea and Baltic Sea 20,400 16,200 14,100 13,200

Air pollutant emissions from ships operating in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea were responsible for annual health damage in Europe valued at €22 billion at the emission levels of year 2000. By 2020, this figure is expected to come down to €14.1 billion, as a result of implementation of the stricter ship fuel sulphur standards agreed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2008 (see Box).

International ship emission regulations

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), under ANNEX VI of MARPOL 73/78 (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), has adopted controls on sulphur in marine fuels.

The global fuel sulphur limit is currently 3.50% and will be lowered to 0.50% by 2020 (or possibly 2025, subject to a review in 2018). In specially designated sulphur emission control areas (SECAs), the current limit is set at 1.00% sulphur. It will be tightened to 0.10% by 2015.

Through the revision of the EU’s sulphur-in-fuels directive (2012/33/EU), which was finalised last year, these sulphur standards are part of binding EU legislation.

In Europe there are currently only two existing SECAs: the Baltic Sea and the North Sea (including the English Channel). Most of the coastal waters – within 200 nautical miles of the coast – of the USA and Canada have been designated as “combined” ECAs for both SO2 and NOx.

It should be noted that exhaust gas cleaning systems (e.g. scrubbers) that achieve equivalent sulphur emission reductions may be used as an alternative to low-sulphur fuels to fulfil the sulphur requirements.

However, since these stricter fuel standards apply only in designated Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA), and the Baltic Sea and the North Sea so far are the only such areas in Europe, and ship traffic overall is expected to continue to increase, the total health-related costs in Europe of international ship traffic are expected to increase from €58.4 billion in the year 2000 to €64.1 billion in 2020.

In the intermediate years (2007 and 2011), smaller decreases in the health damage from ship pollution occurred as a result of stricter sulphur standards in the SECA area. The subsequent increase up to 2020 results from an overall projected increase in ship traffic worldwide.

It is noted by the authors that a similar study performed by the US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that by 2020 air pollution from shipping would still cause 21,000 annual premature deaths within the USA, with related health costs amounting to USD47–110 billion.

Specifically for Denmark, it is estimated that the total annual health-related air pollution damage amounted to €4.5 billion in year 2000. By 2020, this figure is expected to come down to €2.5 billion.

Air pollutant emissions from international shipping in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea are responsible for health damage in Denmark valued at more than €620 million per year (year 2000), decreasing to €360 million in 2020. The authors conclude that the SECA regulation that limits the sulphur content in ship fuel to a maximum of 0.1 per cent as from 2015, is expected to significantly reduce the external costs, and that “a similar regulation of international ship traffic in the whole world would have a significant positive effect on human health.”

It is however noted that the health impacts from ship emissions in the SECAs will remain significant after 2015. The reason being that the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from ship traffic are not regulated by the SECA standard, and in the scenario used, NOx emissions from international shipping are therefore expected to continue to increase more or less in line with the projected increase in shipping activities.

1 Assessment of past, present and future health-cost externalities of air pollution in Europe and the contribution from international ship traffic using the EVA model system (March 2013). By J. Brandt et al. Published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion 13, 6 March 2013.

3 Oct 2013

Clean Ships, Seas, Shores and Ports Conference

Clean Ships, Seas, Shores and Ports Conference

and Luncheon HKCEC – March 1

1000 – 1400hrs Meeting Room S424

Contact: marinfo@baird.com.a

Download PDF : CM_WEEK_4C_FP_655036310

New standards save lives

DOWNLOAD PDF :AN4-2011

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.