Green Right Now Blog

By Harriet Blake
  March 10, 2008

In 1989 the Exxon Valdez spilled 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound slathering wildlife and the untouched rocky shores with an inky, sticky coating of oil. The event created a powerful visual image of the sort of damage ocean ships can cause. A similar environmental disaster occurred in 2007, when 58,000 gallons of bunker fuel were spilled into San Francisco Bay after a container ship collided with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in thick fog. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency.

But what you may not realize is that the air pollution generated by these ships, while less obvious, is something that's at least as onerous, if not more so. Most tankers and freight ships are polluting the air regularly, compared with the random few that actually spill their contents.

Experts, advocates and researchers are all urgently looking at ways to reduce the air pollution caused by ships, which is worsening as our global economy demands a constant exchange of goods from faraway places. Compared to the air pollution from cars and trucks, which is more stringently controlled and remains relatively flat, the pollution from ships is expected to more than double by the year 2030, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Marine vessels are already a significant source of air pollution in the United States and their relative contribution is rapidly growing," the EPA reported to the U.S. Senate in February.
The report states that ocean ships' emissions in the U.S. alone measure about 13 percent of the nitrous oxide (N2O); 17 percent of the particulate matter and 50 percent of the sulfur oxide spewed into the air.

Of those, only the nitrous oxide is considered a true greenhouse gas because it becomes trapped by the earth's atmophere and contributes to global warming. But the particulate matter and sulfur dioxide contribute to the dirty air that exacerbates asthma and other respiratory conditions.

The EPA anticipates that by 2030 these air pollution from ships will rise, comprising 46 percent of the nitrous oxide emitted; 52 percent of the particulate matter; and 95 percent of the sulfur oxide.

These emissions are a different composition from those of cars and coal plants, which are large emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2), the major greenhouse gas. But the N2O from ships makes them a significant culprit in the mix of polluters contributing global warming. (For more on greenhouse gas emissions see the EPA's fact sheet.)

The pollution percentages from ships are rising fast as more produce and manufactured goods are being shipped globally, said John Kaltenstein, program manager (Clean Vessels Program) for Friends of the Earth, which was among the participants at the conference on ship pollution in Los Angeles in Feb. 25-27.

The Faster Freight-Cleaner Air Conference asked the key question: How can fuel emissions from ocean-going vessels be reduced?

People in the business are looking at several ways, starting with a possible shift to cleaner fuels.

One of the culprits in maritime pollution is the residual fuel oil or "bunker fuel" used in ocean-going vessels. Bunker fuel, explains Captain Bill Williams of Copenhagen-based Maersk Shipping, is what's leftover after oil has been refined. It's cheap and until recently has been an efficient method of making use of the oil refining byproduct. However, bunker fuel is very high in sulfur dioxide, a dirty pollutant that is part of acid rain, as well as toxic metals such as lead.

Williams, who also was a participant at the conference, notes that his shipping firm Maersk has voluntarily shifted to low-sulfur fuels to combat the emissions issue.

Ocean vessel emissions, says Rupal Patel, director of Communities for Clean Ports, are the No. 1 cause of cancer in port communities. As this country's busiest port communities, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are particularly affected.

Patel notes that in Long Beach alone taxpayers pay $19 billion for health costs caused by emissions from ocean-going vessels. The American Chemical Society's journal Environmental Science & Technology says that these emissions have caused 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths each year.

In addition, says Ms. Patel, who also attended the conference, childhood asthma affects 20 percent of children in these port cities; while it only affects eight percent nationwide.

"We don't believe it's a coincidence that these medical issues are appearing here," she says.

The International Council on Clean Transportation recently noted that sulfur dioxide emissions from world shipping are higher than those from all of the globe's cars, trucks and buses combined. In addition, the shipping industry's nitrogen oxide emissions count for 27 percent of the world's total smog.

The biggest obstacle to reductions, says Ms. Patel, is the pressure from the shipping industry. The International Bunker Industry Association is a case in point. They are skeptical about changes in the use of bunker fuel, saying that switching to low sulfur fuels is costly.

In October of 2008, the U.N. agency that regulates shipping, the International Maritime Organization, will convene. Both environmentalists and the shipping industry hope to reach some agreement on global emission reductions.

"Everyone wants to see strong regulations on the international level," says Mr. Kaltenstein. "We need to rein these emissions in before they get worse."

Ms. Patel agrees. "Once emission controls become standard worldwide – at least in the U.S. – market forces will adjust. If strong regulations are in place, the demand for the low-sulfur fuel would increase and the costs would go down."

"Now that global warming is a hot topic and the health of residents is at stake, the pressure on the shipping industry is growing," she says, adding that she hopes the U.S. will take the lead in the types of fuel used. "We can make a big difference."

Solving pollution on the high seas, however, may not prove easy.

Due to the slow response by the White House to toughen international standards for big ships, California senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, along with U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Ca.), have co-sponsored the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007. The bill, which was introduced last May, requires the federal government to limit sulfur emissions from offshore vessels within 200 miles of U.S. coasts in order to reduce health-threatening soot and smog. Sen. Boxer said in a speech last month that this bill "would also significantly reduce emissions from both new and existing engines beginning in 2012 by requiring the use of the most advanced technologies."

In addition, she said, it would save 700 lives a year in Southern California, as well as many lives nationally. "I believe that it is our moral duty to protect the health of our children, people with asthma, and all the people of ship air pollution. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We must protect the health of families in port communities across the nation."

While this bill is pending in Congress, a federal appeals court ruled Feb. 27 that California, which already has a law in place regarding sulfur emissions, must receive approval from the federal government before limiting sulfur emissions from ocean-going ships that enter the state's waters.

The initial ruling would have required ships to use low-sulfur fuel instead of bunker fuel within 24 miles of the California coast. The restrictions actually took effect in January of 2007 but were blocked in August by a federal judge. The judge ruled that California needed approval from the EPA before proceeding with its clean-air rules.

An appeals court allowed the limits to go back into effect in October, but a three-judge panel ruled in February that the low-sulfur requirements need to be approved by the EPA.
The decision sets back California's plans to fight one of the area's largest causes of smog.
In response, Karen Caesar, a spokesperson with the California Air Resources Board, said last Monday that the board's legal staff is evaluating the decision and hopes to come up with a plan of action in the next few weeks. "The board cannot enforce the limits at this time, but some shipping companies have taken it upon themselves to use lower sulfur fuel," she said.

(Copyright © 2009 | Distributed by Noofangle Media)