| Sulphur dioxide pollution has dropped slightly since the signing of the Fair Winds Charter, but the industry is still the city’s No 2 emitter, seminar told | ||
| Keith Wallis Nov 13, 2011 |
||
|
The Fair Winds Charter, a voluntary fuel-switching scheme introduced by shipping lines nearly a year ago, had improved local air quality, but the shipping sector was still the second-biggest emitter of sulphur dioxide in Hong Kong, environmental officials told a seminar yesterday. Despite the impact of ship pollution on public health, campaigners and government officials at the Civil Exchange event said it could take months if not years before tighter local and international legal controls on ship emissions were in place. Joanne Ooi, chief executive of the Clean Air Network, said people were not aware that exhaust from ships was “affecting a huge swathe of the public in some of the poorest districts” of the city. She was commenting after Simon Ng Ka-wing, visiting scholar at the Institute for the Environment at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said there were several hot spots for marine sulphur-dioxide emissions. Ng, who is leading a team working on a government study on ship emissions, said Kwai Chung and main shipping routes, including the East Lamma Channel, to Shenzhen’s Yantian and Shekou ports had high sulphur-dioxide concentrations. He said 79 per cent of the sulphur-dioxide emissions from ships in Hong Kong came from oceangoing vessels, while 21 per cent came from fast ferries serving Macau and Pearl River Delta cities and river-trade ships. Tony Lee Yu-tao, senior environmental protection officer with the Environmental Protection Department, said a “preliminary assessment reveals a slight improvement” in air quality since 18 shipping lines switched to using low-sulphur diesel in while berthed in Hong Kong. This improvement was achieved even though the number of oceangoing ships arriving at the Kwai Chung container terminal had increased, Lee said. There are about 300 ships, including oceangoing and river-trade vessels, ferries and government vessels, at any one time in Hong Kong. The carriers, which include the Tung family-controlled Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL), Cosco Container Lines, an offshoot of the mainland’s largest shipping company, and Danish giant Maersk, agreed to use low-sulphur diesel for two years from last January when they signed the Fair Winds Charter. Teddy Fung, managing director of OOCL’s Hong Kong branch, said switching to low-sulphur diesel had increased the firm’s fuel bill by US$1.4 million. Other container lines that signed the charter and switched fuels faced a similar increase, giving a cost advantage to firms that did not sign the charter. Environment Secretary Edward Yau Tang-wah said the maritime sector was second only to the power sector in the amount of sulphur dioxide that was pumped into the city’s atmosphere. Yau confirmed talks had started with mainland authorities to establish a control area for ship emissions in the Pearl River Delta, which was one of the key objectives by the shipping lines when they signed the charter. But Lee said the creation of an emissions-control area was a long-term goal that would require Beijing’s approval and submission to the International Maritime Bureau. Instead, Mike Kilburn, Civic Exchange’s head of environmental strategy, suggested a low-emission zone could be set up more quickly. |
||
Ship pollution still high despite pact
Action urged on ships’ carbon emissions
3 November 2011 Last updated at 01:51 GMT
BBC News
By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
Without curbs, emissions from ships will form a larger fraction of the global total in future
Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping should be included in the UK’s climate change budgets, the Committee on Climate Change has recommended.
Under the Climate Change Act, the UK is committed to cutting all its climate-changing emissions by 80% – based on 1990 levels – by 2050.
But international aviation and shipping emissions are not currently included.
If the government agrees, it will mean tighter targets for other sectors such as motoring and electricity generation.
“Shipping could account for up to 10% of emissions allowed under the 2050 target, and that says this is a material issue,” said Committee on Climate Change (CCC) chief executive David Kennedy.
The CCC’s report says there are many ways for shipping to curb its carbon footprint – by improving fuel efficiency, deploying kites or sails, or allocating vessels more efficiently.
Some companies are already developing such techniques.
Tight budgets
The first four carbon budgets, stretching to 2027, have already been agreed
The CCC has recommended – and the government has adopted – a series of carbon budgets setting down the maximum scale of greenhouse gas emissions that the UK can emit over successive five-year periods.
They are designed as staging posts on the way to the 2050 target.
If the government does agree to include shipping and maybe aviation in the budgets, then constraints on other sectors must become tighter.
“If you include shipping in the 2050 target – especially if you throw in aviation as well – that implies full decarbonisation of electricity, heat and surface vehicles,” said Mr Kennedy.
“And if the ambition is full decarbonisation [of those sectors], then we need to make good progress in the next two decades, otherwise we can’t achieve the 2050 target.”
The committee will put its formal recommendation on shipping and aviation to the government next year, and the government says that it will respond “in due course”. Under law, it must decide by the end of 2012.
Ins and outs
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
Any solution must… avoid potentially damaging an industry that is vital to the future prosperity of the United Kingdom”
End Quote David Balston UK Chamber of Shipping
The committee’s analysts spent three months attempting to calculate UK shipping emissions “from the bottom up”, scouring records of 150,000 shipping movements into and out of UK ports by vessels including cargo ships, tugs, fishing vessels, ferries and cruise liners.
It believes the UK should be responsible for half of all the emissions associated with ships entering or leaving national ports – the other half being borne by whichever countries lie at the other end of the journeys.
Having crunched the numbers, the committee concludes that the UK’s share is 12-16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) per year.
Globally, shipping emissions are growing by 3-4% per year, and could account for a quarter of all the world’s greenhouse gas output by 2050.
The International Maritime Organisation agreed earlier this year on a programme to progressively increase vessels’ fuel efficiency.
The CCC is basically saying the UK should lead an international effort to go further and faster down this track.
The UK Chamber of Shipping, which worked with the CCC on its analysis, welcomed the conclusion, but warned of potential impacts on competitiveness.
“Eco-ships”, such as Japanese line NYK’s 2030 concept, could cut emissions by 70%
“This work is hugely important,” said David Balston, the organisation’s director for safety and environment.
“We do stress, however, that any solution must be global rather than regional to avoid distorting world trade and potentially damaging an industry that is vital to the future prosperity of the United Kingdom.”
Mr Kennedy also suggested the priority was to end up with a global system of carrots and sticks for decarbonising shipping, and urged UK ministers to press for such a deal at and after the UN climate talks that begin in South Africa at the end of the month.
If international action proved impossible, the European Union would almost certainly introduce measure for traffic in and out of European ports, he said.
Environment group WWF, together with Oxfam, recently issued a report recommending that some kind of global shipping tax be used to raise some of the $100bn per year of climate-related cash that rich countries are committed to providing to the developing world by 2020.
“International shipping has, like aviation, been left out of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for too long, said Keith Allott, WWF-UK’s head of climate change.
“An international deal to address shipping could be a win-win – addressing a rapidly growing source of emissions and at the same time providing a valuable source of funding for tackling climate change in the developing world.”
BBC © 2011 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15554523?print=true
Shipping news updates
Measures to support cleaner shipping
On 21 September the European Commission adopted a staff working paper entitled Pollutant Emission Reduction From Maritime Transport and The Sustainable Waterborne Transport Toolbox. The document accompanies a legal proposal to revise an EU directive related to the sulphur content of marine fuels that aligns EU law with International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements.
According to the document, compliance shall be achieved on time while minimising any possible unwanted side effects. Therefore, a number of short-term accompanying measures are being considered to seek solutions for minimising the compliance costs. Among other things it points to existing frameworks such as the TEN-T and the Marco Polo programmes and the European Investment Bank’s policy and instruments in support of sustainable shipping
Moreover, the paper outlines the conditions under which member states may choose to grant investment aids, enabling companies to go beyond existing standards or assisting in the early adaptation ahead of the entry into force of the standards.
The document is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/ships_proposal.htm
Particle filters on inland ships
The Swiss General Navigation Company of Lake Zürich (ZSG) has now equipped all its 15 motor vessels with particulate filters, capable of removing up to 99 per cent of particulate matter (PM) emissions. Since August 2010, particle filters have been mandatory for all new ships and, wherever feasible and economically viable for the existing fleet. ZSG reports that the material costs for the equipment of its ships amounted to around CHF1.3 million, and that installation takes up to 20 working days per ship.
Source: AECC Newsletter, May-June 2011
Cruise line fined for breaching sulphur rules
A cruise ship operator has been fined EUR 30,000 for contravening European Union rules on the sulphur content of marine fuel. The 88,000 gross tonne Disney Magic was inspected this month while at berth in the Italian port of Naples, and it was found the ship was using a bunker fuel with a sulphur content in excess of an EU regulation that requires ships at berth to use fuel with a sulphur content of no more than 0.10 per cent, unless they are scheduled to be in port for less than two hours. Reports said the ship, owned by the US cruise operator Disney Cruise Line, was immediately ordered to stop burning the fuel. Naples is one of the regular ports of call for the 1998-built, Bahamas-flagged Disney Magic.
Source: Sustainable Shipping News, 22 September 2011
Call for a global shipping fuel tax
A report by Oxfam and WWF shows how it is possible to tackle the huge and growing greenhouse gas emissions from ships and raise billions of dollars to help developing countries tackle climate change, without unfairly hitting developing countries. It argues that a deal to apply a carbon price to international shipping should be at the heart of the agreement at the UN climate change conference in Durban, South Africa, later this year. It would also offer a solution to the deadlock on shipping emissions that has lasted more than a decade.
According to the proposal, applying a carbon price of US$25 per tonne to shipping fuel would help cut emissions while generating US$25 billion per year by 2020. The finance would be used both to compensate developing countries for marginally higher import costs that could result from the carbon price, and to provide more than US$10 billion per year to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
Out of the Bunker – Time for a fair deal on shipping emissions
Source: WWF/Oxfam press release, 8 September 2011
Energy efficiency standards for new ships
In July, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) regulation for new ships. The EEDI will require new ships to meet a minimum level of energy efficiency: ships built between 2015 and 2019 will need to improve their efficiency by 10 per cent, rising to 20 per cent between 2020 and 2024 and 30 per cent for ships delivered after 2024. The environmental group Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) welcomes the decision, but warns that it’s only the first step in what needs to be a far more expansive effort to address shipping’s climate impacts. Shipping accounts for around 3.3 per cent of man-made CO2 emissions worldwide and this figure is expected to rise to 6 per cent in 2020.
Source: Clean Shipping Coalition pressrelease, 15 July 2011
North American ECA has entered into force
Emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from ships in the North American Emission Control Area (ECA) will be subject to more stringent controls than the limits that apply globally, as a result of the entry into force as from 1 August 2011 of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). This means that there are currently three designated ECAs, the other two being sulphur oxide ECAs: the Baltic Sea area and the North Sea area.
The North American ECA will take effect 12 months after the amendments enter into force, giving the shipping industry one year before it has to comply with the ECA requirements. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the cost of implementing the ECA standards is estimated at US$3.2 billion, while the health-related benefits could be as much as US$110 billion in the US in 2020.
Shift in emission sources
Air pollutant emissions from international shipping continue to rise, while those from land-based sources in Europe keep on slowly shrinking.
Since 1980, total European emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) – the most significant acidifying pollutant and an important precursor to health-damaging secondary fine particles (PM2.5) – from land-based emission sources have fallen by more than 80 per cent, from around 53 million tonnes in 1980 to 9.1 million tonnes in 2009.
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ammonia have also gone down, although to a lesser extent. VOCs have more than halved since 1980, while NOx and ammonia emissions have dropped by 35 and 39 per cent, respectively.
Since the late 1990s, emissions of primary fine particles (PM2.5) have been attracting increasing attention, mainly because of their negative impacts on health. However, these emissions are not as well documented as those of other air pollutants, and many countries lack emissions data for the 1990s. Between 2000 and 2009 it is estimated that emissions of PM2.5 from land-based sources have fallen by a quarter, from 2.9 to 2.2 million tonnes.
Emissions from international shipping in European waters show a steady increase. Since 1980, ship emissions of SO2 have gone up from 1.7 to 2.4 million tonnes (a 41 per cent increase), and those of NOx from 2.4 to 3.9 million tonnes (61 per cent).
The data in Table 1 is taken from figures reported by countries themselves to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, and was compiled by the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP). The Convention’s EMEP keeps track of the ways in which emissions from one country affect the environment in others. The EMEP report also provides an overview of calculations for source-receptor relationships (including transboundary movements between countries), covering acidifying, eutrophying, photo-oxidant, and particle pollution.
For most European countries the biggest share of depositions of sulphur and nitrogen emanate from outside their own territory, and an increasing share of the depositions originate from international shipping.
Table2: European emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (as NO2), VOCs, ammonia, and PM2.5 (kilotonnes). Data for 2000 and 2009 is from the 2011 EMEP report, while data for 1980 and 1990 is from earlier EMEP reports. Russia in the table refers only to the western parts of the Russian Federation.
For 2009 it was estimated that ship emissions were responsible for ten per cent or more of the total depositions of both sulphur and oxidised nitrogen compounds in more than half of the EU’s 27 member countries (see Table 2).
Table 2: European countries that have the highest proportion of air pollutant depositions of sulphur and oxidised nitrogen.
In some countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom, ship emissions already make up approximately one fifth or more of total pollutant depositions.
Christer Ågren
The Gothenburg Protocol
The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) dates back to 1979 and covers 51 parties in Europe and North America. It is extended by eight protocols that specify emission reduction commitments and identify specific abatement measures to be taken. Cooperation under the convention includes development of policies and strategies to cut emissions of air pollutants through exchanges of information, consultation, research and monitoring.
The Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone was signed in 1999 and entered into force in 2005. It sets binding national emission ceilings for 2010 for four pollutants (SO2, NOx, VOCs and NH3), contains emission limit values for a number of specific emission source categories such as large combustion plants and road vehicles, and requires the use of best available techniques.
For more information: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/
Sulphur emissions from shipping to be slashed
EU ship fuel sulphur standards are to be aligned with international standards, meaning that the global limit should come down to 0.5 per cent in 2020, and the stricter limit applied in sulphur emission control areas is to be further lowered to 0.1 per cent in 2015.
On 15 July the European Commission tabled a proposal for stricter control of harmful sulphur emissions from international shipping. The proposal incorporates global standards that were unanimously agreed three years ago by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) into EU law.
Environment Commissioner Janez Poto?nik said: “This proposal is an important step forward in reducing air emissions from the fast-growing maritime transport sector. It will help resolve the persistent air quality problems that continue to affect millions of Europeans.”
With nearly half of Europe’s population living in areas where EU air quality objectives are still not met, air pollution is one of the main environmental worries facing citizens.
European emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from land-based sources have decreased significantly over the past 20-30 years. Without further action, ship emissions around Europe could exceed the total of EU land-based emissions by 2020, according to current trends (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Projected SO2 and NOx emissions for 2020 from EU land-based sources and from international shipping in European sea areas in the absence of additional control measures (kilotonnes).
Ships traditionally use heavy fuel oil with a sulphur content of up to 4.5 per cent for propulsion (although the global average ship fuel sulphur content is around 2.7 per cent), compared with an EU limit of 0.001 per cent for road fuels.
The proposed legislation revises an existing EU directive on the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and incorporates the 2008 IMO standards into EU law to ensure their proper and harmonised enforcement by all EU member states. It will also improve the effectiveness of the IMO standards as they would be monitored and enforced under the EU regime, which is more effective than the international system.
Under the proposal, the maximum permissible sulphur content of marine fuels used in designated Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA), namely the Baltic Sea and the North Sea including the English Channel, will fall from the previous level of 1.5 per cent to 0.1 per cent, as of 1 January 2015. In other sea areas, a sulphur limit of 0.5 per cent will apply as from 1 January 2020, as compared to the previous maximum level of 4.5 per cent (see Fig. 2).
Figure 2: International standards for the maximum allowed sulphur content of marine fuels (per cent).
By extending the stricter 0.1 per cent sulphur standard to passenger ships outside of SECAs from 2020, the proposal goes beyond what is required by the IMO.
As an alternative to using low-sulphur fuels, ships will be allowed to use equivalent technologies such as exhaust gas cleaning systems or alternative fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG).
According to the Commission, this equivalence option will significantly lower compliance costs (by 50-88 per cent) and help promote innovative solutions.
The expected cost to the shipping industry of the new standards is between €2.6 billion and 11 billion per year in 2020, but these costs are far outweighed by public health savings of up to €34 billion/year. In addition, there are significant benefits related to environmental improvements, such as reduced acidification damage to ecosystems.
The lower bound of costs is based on ships fitting exhaust cleaning techniques (scrubbers), while the upper bound assumes a fuel switch to lower-sulphur distillates.
According to the Commission’s Impact Assessment, the health benefits associated with full implementation of the IMO’s 2008 standards are at least between €3 and €13 for every €1 spent, and the benefits are even greater for the SECAs, at least between €5 and €25 for every €1 spent.
The results of a public consultation showed that the overwhelming majority of respondents wanted more European sea areas to be designated as SECAs. Green groups want it for the much needed health and environmental benefits, and several industry groups – especially Nordic ones – want it on the grounds that an EU-wide SECA would address intra-sectoral competition issues.
While the Commission concludes that such an extension of the SECA coverage is likely to offer net benefits and address competitiveness concerns, it does not have the competence to propose this to the IMO – any such proposals must come from member states bordering the sea area in question. The same applies to designation of nitrogen oxides (NOx) Emission Control Areas. (There are currently no NOx ECAs in Europe, but the whole coastline around the USA and Canada – out to 200 nautical miles – has been designated as a combined SO2/NOx ECA.)
There have also been calls to introduce ship emissions standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) into EU law. The Commission’s response is that this could be considered in the future, and that it will continue to support member states in developing proposals for additional ECAs and emission limit values for submission to the IMO.
Experience with the implementation of existing legislation has shown that there is a need for a stronger monitoring and enforcement regime. In response to this, the proposal includes a more unified reporting and verification procedure, and sampling provisions aligned with international standards.
Fuel quality impacts not only the environment but is also important for ship safety, and the Commission concludes that “ultimately there may be a role for establishing mandatory fuel quality standards for marine fuels placed on the market in the EU”, as this would help guarantee that the fuel actually conforms to the recognised international standards.
Responding to concerns from some industry groups about the expected increase in shipping costs, Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas said: “Transposing into EU law the standards unanimously agreed in the IMO would be a step towards further improving the sustainability of waterborne transport. I am very glad that the proposal includes a variety of short and medium-term accompanying measures to help the sector face this challenge”.
The Commission’s Impact Assessment suggests that the European Commission and member states use and adapt existing public support instruments to assist industry in the transition towards the new standards, especially the SECA limit. This could include financial support to invest in new technologies such as exhaust gas cleaning systems and support wider supply and uptake of LNG as a fuel for ships.
The Commission have made it clear, however, that a delay in the 2015 SECA limit – as has been suggested by some industry groups – is not an option, neither at EU level nor attempting to push for a delay at the IMO.
Air pollutant emissions from ships have been estimated to cause 50,000 premature deaths a year in Europe, as well respiratory illnesses, aggravation of heart disease, and acidification of sensitive ecosystems with subsequent damage to biological diversity.
Not surprisingly, environmental organisations welcome the Commission’s proposal: “With many ships using fuel over 3,500 times dirtier than car fuel we are pleased to finally see EU action on air pollution from ships,” said Bill Hemmings from Transport & Environment.
However, the environmental organisations say that more should be done, and are calling on EU legislators to extend the stricter SECA sulphur standard of 0.1 per cent to all European seas.
With the current proposal this limit will apply only to the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, while ships operating in the Mediterranean (which accounts for more than half of European ship emissions), in the North-eastern Atlantic and in the Black Sea will be exempt from this standard. Moreover, the same strict standard (0.1%) should also apply to all cruise and passenger ships as from 2015.
Nitrogen oxides emissions from ships are also great a concern, say the environmental organisations, but there are still no EU standards or EU measures in place for controlling their release.
Christer Ågren
The Commission proposal can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/ships_directive.htm
Download PDF : AcidNewsAN3-2011
Port of LA begins seawater scrubber testing
3 Oct. 2011
Testing will be conducted on the Horizon Hawk
The Port of Los Angeles along with students from the California State University of Long Beach (CSULB), Horizon Shipping Lines and Rolls Royce Marine, have begun testing a new seawater scrubber system for shipping vessels.
According to reports, the seawater scrubber system will be monitored over the next three years and aims to reduce emissions of shipping vessels by as much as 85% by 2013.
Seawater scrubbers are pollution control devices that use liquid to wash unwanted pollutants from a vessels exhaust stream.
“The main goal for our project is to improve our local air quality,” said Hamid Rahai, professor at CSULB and co-principal investigator overseeing the project.
“The driving force behind this project is that we provide technology that meets the California Air Resources Board requirements. That way we can actually reduce the pollution in the area and at the same time develop a technology.”
California regulations require that ships within 24 nautical miles of land must use low sulphur fuels which are cleaner and more refined than tradition marine fuels.
The Port of LA is testing a variety of technologies to determine which is best suited to reach their goal of reducing air pollution. This will be the second type of technology that the port is testing.
According to reports, the scrubber system has the potential to save millions of dollars in fuel by allowing ships to use lower grade fuel at all times, while still meeting emission requirements.
“One of the major things we’re going to do is sample the discharge water to make sure it meets International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements,” said Rahai.
“Actually, there’s not that much baseline data available, so this will be a significant step to provide the baseline data in terms of what kind of discharge water we have and how it’s going to impact the ecosystem.”
Rahai added that the next step in the project will be to determine how successful the scrubber system is and what kind of policies will be implemented to require shippers to adapt the technology.
The team has sailed on a 12-hour trip on board the Horizon Hawk and will travel from Los Angeles to Oakland.
Testing will also be carried out on sailings trips to Guam and Shanghai.
Samantha Cacnio, Vancouver News Desk, 3rd October 2011 21:31 GMT
Comments? Email editor@bunkerworld.com.
Pollution from cargo ships drops in wake of new California rules
point in the journey from factory to store shelves, as much as 90% of the world’s shipped goods spends time on board a ship. For places like Los Angeles and Long Beach, the good news about this supply chain reality is that the biggest seaports handle the most cargo and get the greatest number of generally well paying jobs.
The bad news is also sizeable. Cargo ships at sea burn what can only be described as the — in the words of one research chemist — “bottom of the barrel” grade of fuel, also known as bunker.
“Bottom of the barrel is literally what bunker fuel is. It’s what the refineries have left after all of the cleaner burning fuels — aviation, gasoline, diesel — has been produced. It’s the sludge at the bottom where all of the bad stuff concentrates, all of the sulfur and the heavy-metal compounds,” said chemist Dan Lack, who works with with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.
But Lack and his associates have some data that might literally help those who live near California’s major seaports breathe a little easier: When cargo ships slow down and switch to a cleaner-burning fuel as they approach shore, the reduction in pollution levels is startling.
Their study of a Maersk cargo container ship operating under California’s 2009 near-shore, low-sulfur fuels regulation and the state’s voluntary slowdown policy found that emissions of several health-damaging pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, fell dramatically. The ship was the Margrethe Maersk.
Sulfur dioxide levels fell 91%. Sulfur dioxide emissions can lead to the formation of particulate matter in the atmosphere that poses serious public health concerns. Particulate matter pollution, which can damage people’s lungs and hearts, dropped 90%.
Lack said the study was important because it involved a case in which a regulation wasn’t ignored after it was enacted.
“It’s important to know that the imposed regulations have the expected impacts. The regulators want to know, the shipping companies want to know, and so do the people,” Lack said.
ALSO:
California joins suit against Inland Empire project
Terminal operators at ports agree to cut diesel emissions
— Ronald D. White
Photo: The container ship Margrethe Maersk steams toward California in May 2010. Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Port of Antwerp joins clean shipping project
The Port of Antwerp is participating in the Clean North Sea Shipping (CNSS) project
The Port of Antwerp has announced that it is participating in a clean shipping project that aims to cut down on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from vessels operating in the North Sea region of Europe.
The Clean North Sea Shipping (CNSS) project incorporates 18 partners from six countries, and is looking to raise awareness, share knowledge and convince influential stakeholders to take action and accountability relating to the environment.
Stakeholders include regional and European politicians, ports, shipping companies and cargo owners.
As part of the project, a new website gathering information on clean shipping technology has been launched by CNSS, covering both current and future legislation and technology, as well as economic and environmental benefits for the shipping industry and port authorities.
The website serves as a guide for existing nearby and long-term technological solutions to reduce carbon dioxides (CO2), sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in order to promote the development of a sustainable maritime transport system, with the “ultimate challenge” seen as developing and implementing zero emission technologies.
Maritime shipping is estimated to represent approximately 3% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, with maritime CO2 emissions expected to increase by two to three times by 2050 if no action is taken.
The initiative is not the only one being implemented within the region.
Last month, the North Sea Foundation informed Sustainable Shipping that it is getting ready to introduce the Clean Shipping Project’s environmental index tool to Germany.
The Clean Shipping Index (CSI) is a transparent tool that can be used by cargo owners to evaluate the environmental performance of their providers of sea transport.
Adam Currie, Vancouver News Desk, 30th September 2011 17:12 GMT
Comments? Email editor@bunkerworld.com.
Danger At Sea: Ships Draw Fire For Rising Role In Air Pollution — As Global Trade Grows, So Does the Spewing Of Noxious Emissions
The Wall Street Journal
English
(Copyright (c) 2007, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)As air pollution rises on the global political agenda, pressure is mounting on a largely hidden and proliferating source of dangerous emissions: the shipping industry.
The corpuscles of the global economy, ships carry more than 90% of the world’s merchandise by volume, and the tonnage of cargo sent by ships has tripled since 1970. Yet the fuel propelling them is cheap and dirty and produces an especially noxious exhaust.
Ships release more sulfur dioxide, a sooty pollutant associated with acid rain, than all of the world’s cars, trucks and buses combined, according to a March study by the International Council on Clean Transportation. That study also found that ships produced an estimated 27% of the world’s smog-causing nitrogen-oxide emissions in 2005. Only six countries in the world emitted more greenhouse gases — which trap heat in the atmosphere, warming the globe — than was produced collectively in 2001 by all ships larger than 100 tons, according to the study and United Nations statistics.
The global shipping industry is mired in an internal struggle over how to cope with its emissions problem, and no simple strategies have emerged for regulating the open seas.
But demands for solutions are intensifying. Assertive governments and a few ports that wield substantial commercial power are proving that local action can reverberate internationally. Since Jan. 1, the state of California has required ships sailing within 24 miles of its shores to use cleaner-burning fuels in their auxiliary engines. Similar to a 2005 measure governing Europe’s Baltic Sea region, the California law restricts access to America’s two largest ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach. Ships that don’t comply can be fined or impounded.
The prospect of authorities around the world adopting different standards for fuel and emissions worries many in the shipping industry. For commercial reasons, most ship owners and operators prefer burning less expensive, if dirtier, fuel when sailing outside a protected zone. Yet the procedures for switching back and forth between different types of fuel are complicated and potentially hazardous.
So a few of shipping’s largest players are making an unprecedented proposal for a single, strict limit on sulfur emissions in all oceans.
“The general population of the world would have to pay an extra one or two cents for their beer, but you’d solve the [sulfur] emissions problem,” says Pradeep Chawla, an executive of Hong Kong-based Anglo-Eastern Ship Management Ltd.
Yet the ravenous appetite of consumers for imported goods is growing so fast that marginal cuts in emissions would likely make no difference. Even a 30% decrease in carbon emissions from ships could be offset by the expanding size of the world’s fleet, says Russell Long, vice president of environmental group Friends of the Earth, a respected authority on the subject.
A U.N. study concluded that a 10% reduction in sailing speeds could cut ships’ carbon-dioxide output by 23%. But slower speeds would likely prompt shipping lines to deploy more ships to satisfy their customers. “By adding vessels, you’d burn more fuel and generate more pollution, and the benefit of going slower might be canceled out,” says Stanley Shen, a spokesman for Orient Overseas (International) Ltd., a shipping concern based in Hong Kong.
One big culprit is the industry’s favorite fuel. Most ships rely on residual fuel oil, also known as bunker fuel, to power their huge engines. Bunker fuel is a tar-like sludge left over from the refining of petroleum. It often contains toxic heavy metals such as lead and vanadium and is collected from the bottoms of the distillation towers in which refineries process crude. Raw, unheated bunker fuel has the composition and consistency of asphalt.
“You can walk on it,” says Claus Jensen, the fleet manager at Torm, a shipping company based in Copenhagen.
It also is cheap. A recent spot price for intermediate-grade bunker fuel traded in Singapore averaged $505.50 a metric ton, less than two-thirds the rate of marine gas oil, a distillate similar to what diesel trucks use.
“Ship owners have had a very cheap fuel that’s packed with energy, and the refiners have had an outlet for their waste product,” says Ian Adams, secretary-general of the International Bunker Industry Association, a group of firms that supply and trade bunker fuel. “Ship owners and refiners have had a perfect relationship.”
That synergy has come at a cost. This month, a peer-reviewed study in the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science & Technology estimated that underregulated air pollution from ships is causing 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung-cancer deaths annually, mostly along trade routes in Asia and Europe.
At current rates of growth, oceangoing ships will generate 53% of the particulates, 46% of the nitrogen oxides and more than 94% of the sulfur oxides emitted by all forms of transportation in the U.S. by 2030, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates. That compares with levels for the same pollutants in 2001 of 17%, 12% and 49%, respectively, according to the EPA.
A 400-yard ship named the Evelyn Maersk represents one effort to address the problem. Owned by Danish shipping giant A.P. Moeller-Maersk AS, the vessel guzzles 10% less fuel than it otherwise would thanks to an innovative boiler system that converts heat from its main engine into power that helps turn its propeller shaft. Like many ships, the Evelyn Maersk purifies its bunker fuel in a superheated labyrinth of filters, tanks and centrifuges packed into a sweltering room next to the main engine.
Even so, every full day that it cruises at sea, this sky-blue leviathan spews roughly 10 tons of nitrogen oxides plus other airborne contaminants. By comparison, all the road vehicles in London churn out 11 tons of nitrogen oxides every three hours, according to an estimate by conservation group Greenpeace International.
The U.N. agency that regulates shipping, the International Maritime Organization, has a membership of 167 fractious national governments, and its Marine Environment Protection Committee has been slow to make policy. Part of the problem is that shipping representatives, oil companies and environmental groups alike lobby to influence committee decisions.
In addition, splits within the shipping industry itself can slow progress; ship owners, for example, have different priorities than firms that charter vessels for short periods.
When the committee gathered in London in July, its working group on air pollution spent much of a three-day session discussing procedural details, including the punctuation in its final report, according to one of the group’s participants.
The IMO’s strongest move against air pollution was the adoption in 2005 of a 4.5% limit on the amount of sulfur allowable in marine fuel. That measure took 17 years for IMO members to debate and ratify, and by then the average sulfur content in marine oil had already decreased to half the 4.5% level.
IMO spokesman Lee Adamson concedes that the agency has accomplished little so far to curb air pollution but predicts it will agree as early as next April to toughen standards. The IMO “is working to a timetable that’s been developed and agreed by its 167 member governments,” he says, adding that they have “looked at the [emissions] issue in all its complexities and understood its multifaceted nature.”
In December, fuel emissions from the shipping and aviation industries will be on the agenda when world leaders meet in Bali, Indonesia, to begin haggling over a climate-change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty aimed at curbing global greenhouse-gas emissions.
In the U.S., the EPA says it is developing new rules on ship emissions, including one that would apply some of the same standards to marine engines that it enforces already for train locomotives. The agency says it also has urged the IMO to tighten international controls, believing that a global consensus is the best way forward.
Others say the EPA is moving too slowly. California Sen. Barbara Boxer has proposed a bill along with fellow California Democrat Dianne Feinstein that would require ships within 200 miles of U.S. shores to slash the sulfur content of their fuel to a scant 0.1% by 2010. In October, Friends of the Earth weighed in with a lawsuit against the EPA seeking a similar low-sulfur coastal zone. EPA officials say they are considering such a zone in conjunction with Canadian authorities.
As it tends to be on environmental issues, California is out front. In early 2006, the commissions of both the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports held a series of public meetings to address ship-related pollution. Area residents who blamed their cancers and their children’s asthma on smog from the ports showed up in force. “In the first meetings, they would come out and say, ‘You guys are murderers,'” recalls S. David Freeman, president of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners.
Martha Cota, a parenting instructor in Long Beach, lived for years with her family just 15 blocks from the city port. She and two of her four children are asthmatics. Exhaust from ships and container trucks afflicts them, and Ms. Cota says her own breathing problems vary according to the level of port-related activity. “It gets worse when the traffic is bad — the wheezing, the pain in my chest,” she says in Spanish through an interpreter.
A 2006 California Air Resources Board study found that the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports generated more than one-fifth of all the diesel-particulate matter in Southern California in 2002. The smog from ships, trucks and cranes at the ports caused an estimated 29 premature deaths, 750 asthma attacks and 6,600 lost work days that year, the report said.
In June 2006, the two ports jointly announced a $2 billion plan to slash harbor emissions by 50% over five years by targeting ships and the trucks that shunt freight to and from them. On Jan. 1, the Air Resources Board barred the use of dirty fuels within 24 miles of state shores. In about 60 random inspections of ships this year, officials have found only four violations.
Elsewhere, the cities of Seattle and Tacoma, Wash., and Vancouver, British Columbia, have agreed to ambitious targets to reduce air pollution from ships entering their ports by 2010. Sweden, Germany and several other countries along Europe’s Baltic Sea turned it into a special zone where ships must cap the sulfur content of their fuel at 1.5%. In August, the European Commission expanded the 1.5% umbrella to include the North Sea and English Channel.
The imposition of local restrictions creates a dilemma for ship owners and managers. Many ships now carry different grades of fuel, switching between them as required at various points in a single journey. This practice, however, can be dangerous.
If a ship tries to switch between fuels that are incompatible — a common risk — waxes in bunker fuel can separate out like “curdles in milk” and clog fuel filters, says Martin Cresswell, director and fleet general manager at China Navigation Co., a shipping line headquartered in London. Lighter components in incompatible fuels can turn into gas and cause a “vapor lock” that stalls the engine. Mr. Cresswell’s nightmare is a big ship adrift without power amid the towering swells of a Force 10 storm at the crowded entrance to the English Channel.
The risks and impracticality of switching fuels have persuaded two big shipping groups to seek a radical solution. Both the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, or Intertanko, which represents 70% of the world’s independent tanker fleet, and the Hong Kong Shipowners Association want the IMO to require ships to give up bunker fuel and use only distillates containing no more than 1% sulfur — far below the current 4.5% IMO standard.
The International Bunker Industry Association calls any proposal to replace bunker with distillates impractical. Oil companies say that if ships burned only distilled fuel, refineries would need to process roughly 12 million additional barrels of crude oil daily — more than the entire output of Saudi Arabia.
But Intertanko argues that if the IMO set a deadline for ships to adopt distillates, then refiners would have an incentive to invest in new capacity.
Other ideas, meanwhile, draw on ancient seamanship. Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics of Oslo has designed a concept ship that would produce zero emissions by harnessing power from the sun, waves and wind.
SkySails of Hamburg, Germany, is already marketing “towing kite propulsion systems” — large parasails — that it claims can reduce a ship’s fuel costs by as much as 35%. The first commercial cargo ship to be equipped with SkySails parasails will enter service in December.
(See related letters: “Letters to the Editor: Ah, A Whiff of Maybe Not So Fresh Sea Air” — WSJ December 1, 2007)
http://www.djreprints.com/link/DJRFactiva.html?FACTIVA=wjco20071127000091
http://www.lbaca.org/PolicyFormation/docs/News%20and%20Information%20from%20Factiva.html
Shipping’s new rules ‘to clear the air’
South China Morning Post – 25 July 2011
New international rules on maritime industry’s energy efficiency will help owners cut costs and save on fuel, according to carbon lobby group
The shipping sector could become cleaner than the aviation industry following the approval by the UN shipping agency of a new energy efficiency design index and other measures aimed at improving ships’ environmental performance, according to an NGO.
The new rules, adopted by the International Maritime Organisation earlier this month, could also save the shipping industry US$5 billion in fuel costs and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 million tonnes a year on new ships by 2020, said Peter Boyd, chief operating officer of the Carbon War Room, an NGO set up by a group including British billionaire Richard Branson.
Boyd said the IMO’s new rules would lead to fuel savings of US$50 billion a year and an annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of more than 220 million tonnes if the standards were applied to the existing fleet of 60,000 ships.
Boyd was commenting after the IMO approved regulations to implement efficiency ratings for ships over 400 gross tonnes, which are expected to enter into force on January 1, 2013. The measure, which will apply to ships ordered after a specific date, was approved overwhelmingly by 48 countries that voted at the IMO’s marine environment protection committee about 10 days ago.
China was one of only five countries that voted against the measure. Consequently, while mainland shipyards are likely to build more energy-efficient ships for foreign owners, there will be no pressure on those shipyards to comply when building ships to be registered in China for mainland owners such as China Ocean Shipping (Group).
Clauses in the pact allow countries to delay implementation for up to four to six years after the commencement date of the rules. As a result, there is some uncertainty over how quickly the energy-efficiency design index and the associated energy efficiency management plan will be implemented.
Under the IMO regulations shipowners will have to meet the new efficiency ratings for each type of vessel they order. Dry cargo bulk carriers will have a different rating than tankers or container ships.
The IMO also leaves the choice of technologies used in a specific ship design to the maritime industry. This could include changes to the hull design or propulsion system which are already being incorporated by some shipowners, including Hong Kong operators.
Asked if shipping companies would seek early compliance with the ratings or take advantage of the potential delay given to some countries, Arthur Bowring, managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association, said: “It really depends on the cost of compliance. Shipbuilders might try to ask for a premium [on the cost of a new ship] to implement early because it is not yet required by regulation.”
But Bowring said the industry was “suffering an overcapacity of shipbuilding and so the cost might well be absorbed, at least partially”.
“Whether flag states will take advantage of the four-year delay could well be a political decision to object to the process rather than anything else,” Bowring said. He also thought it was “actually in the owner’s interest to have the energy efficiency design index for his new buildings, in that it should make the ship more attractive as a sale candidate later on.”
Tim Huxley, chief executive of Wah Kwong Maritime Holdings, which operates a fleet of tankers and dry cargo ships, said it was too soon to assess the impact of the regulations on its operations, “although it will obviously have an impact on any new ships we might build in the future. The interesting part is going to be how quickly the shipbuilding and engine manufacturers respond.”
One Hong Kong shipowner said vessels were designed to have a lifespan of 25 to 27 years, but the impact of the IMO regulations meant that some ships being delivered now could already be obsolete.
Jan Rindbo, chief operating officer of Pacific Basin Shipping (SEHK: 2343, announcements, news) , said: “We are supportive of the creation of sensible but effective industry-wide measures to reduce emissions, and for such measures to be the jurisdiction of the IMO.”
ECA Singapore
From: Serene LIU (MPA) [mailto:Serene_LIU@mpa.gov.sg]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 17:28
To: dynamco@netvigator.com
Subject: [ MPA’s reply ] FW: ECA Singapore
Hi James,
Pls see MPA’s reply to your query below. Kindly attribute to MPA spokesperson. Thank you.
As a responsible member of the international maritime community, Singapore has been working closely with IMO and other countries to address the environmental impact of shipping. We recognise that shipping is an international business and we strongly support international measures implemented through the IMO and enforce these rigorously in Singapore. However, we also recognise that some companies, on their own initiative, do more than that mandated by the IMO in terms of going green.
To encourage companies who are ready or thinking about undertaking environmentally-friendly shipping practices which are above and beyond what is mandated by the IMO, MPA launched the Maritime Singapore Green Initiative. It is a comprehensive initiative with three programmes – the Green Ship Programme, the Green Port Programme and the Green Technology Programme.
MPA is very glad to work in close partnership with the industry on addressing the environmental challenges facing shipping. MPA received positive response on the participation in the Maritime Singapore Green Initiative. A total of 12 key organisations from across Maritime Singapore also signed the inaugural Maritime Singapore Green Pledge to pledge their commitment to promote and support clean and green shipping in Singapore.
The Green Port Programme, Green Ship Programme and Green Technology Programme will be effective from 1 July 2011. Full details on the registration and procedures will be published on our MPA corporate website.
Serene Liu ▪ Asst Manager (Corporate Comms) ▪ Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) ▪ DID: (65) 63751789 ▪ Fax: (65) 62768927 ▪ www.mpa.gov.sg
Our Vision ▪ A leading maritime agency driving Singapore’s global maritime aspirations
Our Mission ▪ To develop and promote Singapore as a premier global hub port and an international maritime centre, and to advance and safeguard Singapore’s strategic maritime interests
From: James Middleton [mailto:dynamco@netvigator.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 June, 2011 4:05 PM
To: Susan S C ONG (MPA)
Subject: ECA Singapore
Dear Madam
Can you pls advise what is the current status of declaring an Emissions Control Area for shipping within Singapore waters ?
Kind regards
James Middleton
Chairman