We need tougher emissions on ships, not cars

"450X_FTW" (mistermic)
06/24/2015 at 14:25 • Filed to: None

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

From the article:

The regulation of auto emissions appears to be getting more stringent by the day. For example, California is !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! for its roads, and the Feds are bringing !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . At the same time, European governments !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! on diesel fuel because of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . There might be bigger fish to fry in cleaning up the world, though. According to a confidential study by maritime industry insiders obtained by The Guardian , a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . With !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the next major emissions battleground might move from the highways to the sea.

These ships are behemoths and carry a significant portion of the world’s goods. However, they also aren’t subject to the stringent standards as vehicles on land. Running on bunker fuel, the largest diesel engines in these vessels can produce up to 5,732 tons of sulfur oxide gases a year, according to The Guardian . For the whole shipping industry, that equates to about nine percent of the global annual emissions of that pollutant and a further 18-30 percent of the nitrogen oxide each year. To put things in perspective, 15 of the world’s biggest ships emit as much as 760 million cars, The Guardian reports.

The result of all of this pollution !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , including !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The Guardian references a study in the US that estimates 60,000 deaths a year in the country and $ !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! billion in annual health costs from things like lung disease can be attributed cargo-ship emissions. Research from Denmark provides further support with projections of 1,000 fatalities yearly and $7.8 billion in health effects.

The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , but the US is reacting by setting up a 230-mile buffer for the biggest polluters along the East Coast, according to The Guardian . The International Maritime Organisation and the European Union are considering tightening cargo ship emissions, as well.

DISCUSSION (21)

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 14:28

Good luck regulating a ship already flying a flag of convenience to avoid regulations.

450X_FTW > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/24/2015 at 14:30

Other countries just won’t give a shit. China is at Euro 4 auto emissions, not like they enforce it at all

Nibby > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 14:30

crowmolly > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 14:37

I don’t really know what the government of, say, Barbados is going to do about it.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 14:40

And passenger ferries in the United States.

And can we hear from some Oppos in the airline industry on emissions at altitude? I’m curious, not trying to stir s&*t.

450X_FTW > crowmolly
06/24/2015 at 14:44

Meaning what? That they’ll just laugh at someone trying to impose emission laws?

Aaron M - MasoFiST > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 14:54

Many US ports already mandate cleaner fuel than the bunkers ships typically use. The ships will fill one bunker with the more expensive clean fuel for in port, and use the cheap crap the other 90% of the time. Regulating shipborne commerce is extremely difficult.

crowmolly > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 14:59

Shipping and container companies are registered all over the place, and in many cases it’s in places with lax governments and lax regulations. I don’t know what the governments of some of these islands could do, other than invalidate their registration but who knows what’s involved with that, how much $ is paid out to the country, etc.

I don’t know how this would be enforced. You *might* be able to put auditors or reps on the boats in order to check emissions (otherwise disallow them to dock in certain destinations) but who knows?

HammerheadFistpunch > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 15:08

A Freakin Men.

uofime-2 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/24/2015 at 15:19

Do you know where they buy the fuel, the nasty stuff, if you could regulate the fuel, that might work. Of course then they’ll sell fuel in international waters or something

HammerheadFistpunch > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 15:21

To elaborate on my previous comment, everytime someone gives me crap for raping the earth by driving I point them to the fact that an adjustment on your thermostat and buying less stuff will go a lot further than me driving less. The big problems are not cars anymore, the big problems are HVAC and Ships.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > uofime-2
06/24/2015 at 15:21

Every nation with oil refineries sells bunker fuel. Honestly, my guess is that ships get cheap fuel somewhere like Shreveport, LA, which has both a lot of refineries and no port regulations (unlike New York and California).

450X_FTW > HammerheadFistpunch
06/24/2015 at 15:25

I tell them want to help the environment? Stop buying new cars all the time. The amount of energy and resources need to created millions of cars every year is ridiculous. Unfourtanetly so much of our economy is dependent upon the automotive industry and the country would probably implode if people didn’t buy a new car until they needed one rather than wanted one.

uofime-2 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/24/2015 at 15:28

Then maybe regulating the fuel could work, or like I feared just make them get bigger tanks and buy it in countries that don’t care.

Considering the amount of money in that and the fear of them going elsewhere the amount of lobbying against such regulation would likely be immense though.

HammerheadFistpunch > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/24/2015 at 15:34

its the same story in Alaska, where you have to run gas turbines instead of the heavy marine diesels because of emissions and noise. its far less power, but enough to maintain a nice slow cruise and all the ships power.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > uofime-2
06/24/2015 at 15:41

Considering the refinery capacity and shipping volume in China, I don’t think the US alone can do anything. Not to mention that commercial emissions regulations are much less popular than personal ones...your average Republican would have a coronary, and the current (relatively gentle) EPA power plant rule is a good preview of the sort of vicious politicking this would create.

DrJohannVegas > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/24/2015 at 15:41

Yep. One only needs to look at the waves of attempts to regulate intentional oil waste discharge from tankers to see how tricky it is.

uofime-2 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/24/2015 at 15:51

Both parties really have reason to oppose it.The Democrats because it will hurt the poor as the cost of goods increases and the Republicans will oppose the increased regulation.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 15:55

They are cruising at slower speeds to save gas. They have tested huge kites as well to boost.

AfromanGTO > 450X_FTW
06/24/2015 at 15:58

This would make so much sense, and in the long run increase profits for the shipping companies as well. Those huge things use a lot a fuel, and even a 1-2% increase in fuel economy would cut cost.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > uofime-2
06/24/2015 at 16:05

This is certainly true. Also worth noting is that sulfur emissions, for all the health effects, are both local and short-lived. Requiring SO2 scrubbers on power plants made a significant health and quality of life improvement for those living around coal power plants (at least those who weren’t grandfathered in), while low-sulfur bunker fuel would do very little to local environmental quality except in ports...and the ports which are highly affected already passed laws. Other regulations are all about CO2, and the marginal CO2 cost of shipping goods is actually very, very low compared to trucks and even trains.