Vancouver, Canada - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should rule that shipping emissions significantly contribute to climate change and pose a threat to public health and welfare, according to a new report from the advocacy group Oceana. The report also asks for the International Maritime Organization to act to curb global warming pollution from shipping.

The report arrives as Oceana and a coalition of environmental groups are moving to sue EPA over its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ships and airplanes. They were joined by a coalition of states and New York City. The groups say EPA is stalling on regulating global warming, calling the delay "unreasonable."

Oceangoing vessels are major contributors to global warming, the report says. If global shipping were a country, it would be the sixth largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. In addition, notes the report, global warming pollution from shipping is virtually unregulated.

Heat-trapping pollutants like carbon dioxide, black carbon, nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide are significant factors in climate change, which Oceana says could lead to worse droughts, stronger storms, flooding of low-lying areas by rising sea levels, many species’ extinction and disruption in the global production of food.

Carbon dioxide also is a major factor in ocean acidification. Ships released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2007, according to the International Maritime Organization.

Meanwhile, the shipping industry has grown an average of 5 percent a year over the last 30 years, the report says.

The International Maritime Organization predicts that if measures are not taken to reduce shipping pollution, CO2 emissions could rise to 1.48 billion metric tons by 2020.

Possible solutions

Oceana advocated several ways to cut ship emissions.

• Lowering ships’ speed would reduce emissions and save fuel. Slowing ships’ speed by 10 percent by 2010 would cut emissions by 23.3 percent, the International Maritime Organization says.
  
  
• A switch to cleaner fuels and improving fuel efficiency also would help the emissions problem, the report notes. Fuels like marine diesel oil and marine gas oil contain much less sulfur than residual oil, which is used by most oceangoing ships.
  
  
• Technological improvements to ships like improved hull designs also could be helpful.

Additionally, reducing the amount of black carbon that ships emit could buy the industry more time to reduce its CO2 emissions, the study says.

While the EPA acknowledges that ship-generated pollution is a concern, it has not issued stringent rules to control it.  Elsewhere action is being taken. California has adopted the world’s toughest pollution rules for oceangoing vessels in an effort to improve the health of coastal residents. The move opens a new front in a long battle with the international shipping industry. The rules, which take effect in 2009, would require ships within 24 nautical miles of California to burn low-sulfur diesel instead of the tar-like sludge known as bunker fuel. About 2,000 vessels would be affected, including container ships, oil tankers and cruise ships.

Environmentalists and community groups praised the rules as a huge victory for clean air and public health. Candice Kim of the Coalition for Clean Air stated "Ten Californians die every day due to air pollution from ports and freight transportation."

Predictably the shipping industry opposes the limits, arguing that California lacks jurisdiction to regulate beyond the 3-mile limit of state waters, and that low-sulfur fuel is in short supply, particularly in Asian ports.

California lost a court case last year that halted the state’s previous effort to control shipping pollution by regulating engine emissions. State regulators believe a fuel regulation will stand up to a court challenge.

The new California rules would be implemented in two phases. In 2009, shippers would be required to use diesel oil with a sulphur limit of 0.5%. In 2012 that would be reduced to 0.1%, a level that would cut soot emissions by 83%. By contrast, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) allows fuels that have 4.5% sulphur. IMO negotiators are expected to consider new limits at a meeting in October, but they would not take effect until 2015 or later.

Port authorities from around the world gathered in Rotterdam recently to adopt a plan to cut CO2 emissions from the activities of some 100,000 large ships sailing global waters. Alongside scientists, lawmakers and businessmen, officials from more than 50 ports in 35 countries looked at regulatory and technological ways of shrinking the maritime industry’s contribution to global warming.

The potential exists to reduce the global fleet’s CO2 emissions by 17.6 percent by 2010 and 28.2 percent by 2020, ’but this will not be enough to offset the projected fleet growth,’ said Ogunlade Davidson, co-chairman of the United Nations’ Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change.

Davidson told the gathering that technical alterations, including the use of hydrodynamics in propellers, could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 30 percent on new ships and 20 percent on older ones. Renewable fuels, speed reduction and fleet maintenance also had a role to play.

About 80 ports have been invited to sign a World Ports Climate Declaration once completed, a draft of which called for CO2 reduction measures, but did not mention fixed caps.

The mood within the highly competitive international shipping industry to adopt costly emission reduction measures is not conducive to change.  A recent Transport Intelligence global survey of 450 respondents from the logistics, manufacturing and retail sectors found that while 73% made "environmental compliance" part of their tender documents, less than half (46%) make any provision for any extra costs that may result.

As the report states: "This will no doubt be a source of annoyance for many logistics companies, who will see the environmental measures they are forced to adopt as another cost burden pushed on to them by their clients.

---

For More Information: http://www.oceana.org