Shipping's Dirty Secret
By Marc Lajoie
The Age of Shipping
Container ships move around 90% of the world’s cargo. If the tag on your shirt doesn’t match the place where you live, chances are it came to you via container ship. These enormous ocean-going vessels, the largest of which are longer than the Empire State Building is tall, are the cheapest and most environmentally friendly way we have to ship massive amounts of cargo. Without container ships, the globalized economy wouldn’t exist. Meanwhile the amount of cargo we’re shipping across the world has tripled since 2000.
And that may be a problem. Though container ships are cleaner than planes or trucks for transporting cargo, they’re not clean. They cause environmental damage, and emit gases that lead to disability and death in ports and coastal areas — especially in Asia.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations body charged with regulating the shipping industry, has made progress in pushing for more efficient and less polluting ships. The newest container ships emit less pollutants per kilogram of cargo shipped (when fully loaded) than ever before, but the improvements are far from enough to offset the increase in shipping. IMO research shows pollutants will continue to increase for the foreseeable future unless something is done.
As shipping reaches unprecedented levels worldwide, the open question is whether the IMO and the international community have the will to contain the environmental fallout.
CARGO BOOM
Larger ships are shipping more cargo each year, especially in Asia.
All values are in TEU (twenty foot equivalent units) = number of standard 6×2.4×2.6 meter containers.
The evolution of container ships
Container port traffic by region, in millions of TEU
SHIPPING AND YOUR HEALTH
If you live in a major Asian port city, or near the coast, you may not realize how much of the pollution you breathe is from the shipping industry.
The large container ships that are a feature of Asia’s coastal scenery send out plumes of deadly particulate pollution, including acid-rain-causing sulfur oxides. Particulate matter (PM) — especially fine particulate matter measuring less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) — is particularly harmful to human health, causing lung cancer and other cardiopulmonary problems. It’s also responsible for most of the haze that blots out skylines in most major Asian cities.
Ships also send out nitrogen oxides which become ozone in the atmosphere. Ozone also causes lung cancer and cardiopulmonary problems.
(We’ll focus on particulates because there’s more research available, but keep in mind when we estimate the number of deaths below we’re ignoring the contribution of ozone.)
If you live in Hong Kong, the world’s 5th busiest port, approximately 42% of PM2.5 emissions you inhaled in 2013 came from the maritime sector, according to the Hong Kong government’s pollution inventory. And that proportion has been on the rise for a decade as road transport and electrical generation have cleaned up their emissions. Maritime activities are also the largest source of sulfur and nitrogen oxide.
Dr. James Corbett of the University of Delaware, a leading authority on shipping emissions, calculated in a 2007 study that shipping emissions are responsible for 60,000 premature deaths per year worldwide. These deaths are concentrated in East Asia, South Asia and Europe. His study also predicted a 40% rise in deaths attributable to shipping pollution between then and 2012. And according to Dr. Corbett, the death toll is likely still rising: “As population increases and as there’s an increase in port activity because of growth in trade, we would expect mortality rates to increase over time in some degree of proportionality.”
Hong Kong PM2.5 contribution by sector
Container ships usually burn cheap, high-sulfur residual fuel oil. This fuel can contain 3,500 times more sulfur than the diesel allowed for cars in Japan, South Korea, and in the Chinese mainland after stricter limits come into force in 2017. Refineries sell these dirty tar-like fuels which are the leftovers of the oil refining process as a profitable side business.
Because of health concerns, the IMO has set up several emission control areas (ECAs) to protect people living in coastal areas. ECAs are buffer areas around countries’ coastlines where ships must switch to cleaner low-sulfur fuels (e.g. distillates or liquified natural gas) that emit less particulate matter. Ships can also install “scrubbers” which remove pollutants emitted from dirtier fuels after combustion.
ECAs are created at the request of the affected countries. They cover most of the U.S. and Canadian coastlines, the English channel, and the Northern and Baltic Seas, protecting the populations of North America and Europe from the dirtiest emissions.
The problem? The world’s 10 busiest ports are all in Asia.
The World's Busiest Ports in 2015
| Rank | Port | Container volume (millions of TEU) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shanghai, China | |
| 2 | Singapore | |
| 3 | Shenzhen, China | |
| 4 | Ningbo-Zhoushan, China | |
| 5 | Hong Kong, S.A.R., China | |
| 6 | Busan, South Korea | |
| 7 | Qingdao, China | |
| 8 | Jebel Ali, Dubai, United Arab Emirates | |
| 9 | Guangzhou Harbor, China | |
| 10 | Tianjin, China |
BABY STEPS
For Hong Kong residents, there’s some good news: the government made a first move to limit fuel sulfur content starting in 2015. Ships must switch to 0.5% sulfur fuel — five times less restrictive than European and North American ECAs which mandate 0.1% sulfur content. Unlike ECAs, sulfur limits apply only to ships when berthed, not when in transit.
Still, according to Simon Ng, Chief Research Officer of local think tank Hong Kong Civic Exchange, “It’s a positive breakthrough because the government’s never done anything to regulate ship emission in Hong Kong and also in Asia, […] it’s an important first step.”
In January this year, the Chinese mainland also launched its own emission control zones outside of the IMO framework, surrounding some of its largest ports in the Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Sea. For the moment, these emission control zones rely on voluntary participation, but fuel sulfur limits will become stricter with time, and an 0.5% fuel sulfur limit will become mandatory for all ships in these zones in 2019.
Currently no other Asian country has adopted mandatory limits, and the IMO confirmed they have not received any formal requests for ECAs from any other countries.
(See the North American ECA request to see what one looks like. Warning: It’s long.)
The International Chamber of Shipping, the sector’s principal trade association, said in an email, “provided that the coastal states concerned follow the IMO process (i.e proving scientifically a compelling need, we have no objection to more ECAs.”
Mr. Ng hopes that the recent movement in China will have a knock-on effect in other Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, as well as Malaysia and Indonesia. “Now that China has got its plan, and Hong Kong of course already had regulation, so I think there will be a trigger impact to the neighbouring areas as well.”
Marine fuels are classified by their viscosity. Pictured are a low-sulfur distillate (left, low viscosity) and a high-sulfur residual fuel oil (right, high viscosity).
SEA CHANGE – a global cap on sulfur
The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee had its 69th meeting at the end of April, in the first test of the IMO’s resolve to tackle greenhouse gas emissions since the Paris talks. It was unlikely that an emissions reduction target would be decided, but there were expectations participants would agree to a roadmap for eventually establishing a “fair share” target for the industry.
In an email, IMO Communications Officer Natasha Brown confirmed increased public pressure to act: “You could surmise that the exclusion of international shipping (and aviation) from the final text of the Paris Agreement could be seen as increasing the pressure on IMO to act on GHG [greenhouse gases].”
Since the Paris talks, the IMO has sworn in a new Secretary General, South Korea’s Ki-tack Lim. “I see the promotion of sustainable shipping and sustainable maritime development as one of the major priorities of my tenure,” said Mr. Lim in his opening statement to the committee.
In the months following COP 21, Pacific nations, including the Solomon Islands and the Marshall Islands, expanded their coalition calling for action and now includes much of Europe, Mexico, Liberia and industry groups. The International Chamber of Shipping, an influential industry group, accepted the need for “decarbonization” of the industry for the first time. The majority of member states and industry were pushing for action.
“For the first time ever in this building you had Annex I countries, you had industry, and on top of that you had the major flag states […] all lined up,” said Mr. Hemmings of Transport & Environment, who was present at the meeting.
The IMO’s meeting coincided with the signing of the Paris Agreement on Earth Day. Despite high hopes negotiations collapsed due to a significant minority, composed of BRICS countries led by China as well as the Cook Islands. The IMO’s new Secretary General was unable to keep the discussion from being tabled until next October’s meeting.
Environmentalist groups were quick to respond: “The IMO has fallen flat on its face in the first test of its determination to tackle greenhouse gas emissions after Paris, unable even to agree to develop a work plan for reducing ship emissions,” said John Maggs, Senior Policy Advisor at NGO Seas At Risk.
Dr. Yubing Shi, a specialist in maritime law at China’s Xiamen University, explains that developing BRICS countries’ shipping industries may not yet have the technology and expertise to easily adapt to stricter standards, and fear losing access to global ports as a result of noncompliance. “That’s why China and also BRICS countries, those large developing countries, they don’t hope the IMO will respond very quickly to the action that was achieved at the Paris Agreement,” he said.
China and other BRICS countries may also prefer that market-based initiatives be handled at the U.N. level, instead of exclusively at the IMO. The IMO applies rules equally to all ships, but the U.N.’s climate change framework recognizes a different responsibility for developing and developed countries. “The two approaches have totally different implications for BRICS countries,” said Dr. Shi.
At the meeting, the IMO did approve a mandatory measure calling for ships to report their fuel consumption and emissions. It was also confirmed the Ballast Water Convention, which will oblige ships to treat their ballast water to avoid transporting invasive species, now has the support of 49 states representing 34.79% of the world’s merchant tonnage — 35% is required for adoption.
We’re gearing up for the battle
—Bill Hemmings, Director of Aviation and Shipping at NGO Transport and Environment
SHIPPING AND YOUR WORLD
Your world and ecosystem are impacted by shipping pollution in subtle ways that are harder to quantify than human health. These effects are global and cross-border, making action dependent on different countries agreeing and acting in concert. Tackling these issues requires deep study of aquatic ecosystems, water chemistry, and climate trends that takes years to execute. Often, the cost of acting is high. Environmentalists argue the price of inaction is even higher.
COP 21 OUT
The 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP 21), the 21st conference of parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, successfully advanced climate negotations and reaffirmed the international community’s goal to limit global temperatures to 1.5-2.0 degrees Celcius over the pre-industrial average. Participants pledged to reduce planet-warming carbon emissions, but notably absent from the agreement was any mention of the shipping industry or the aviation industry, whose contributions to global carbon emissions are growing.
Before the conference, IMO Secretary General Koji Sekimizu released a statement discouraging world leaders from adopting a global cap on emissions of carbon dioxide or fiscal measures like a levy on fuel, despite agreeing the industry had to reduce emissions. “But who should decide on such measures and where should this be done? […] I believe IMO is the only place to take this debate forward [emphasis his],” said Mr. Sekimizu.
While the industry currently produces only around 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, roughly the amount of Germany or Japan, the IMO’s own research shows that the industry’s emissions could be more than three times as high by 2050.
Sekimizu also argued that whatever world leaders decided, “they must first carefully consider the impact of those decisions in light of the enormous contribution that shipping makes to the world economy [emphasis his].”
The IMO Secretary General’s apparent unwillingness to consider global carbon reductions was controversial because climate change treaties starting with the Kyoto Protocol have excluded shipping emissions from member states’ targets, instead charging the IMO with the responsibility to limit emissions.
According to Mr. Hemmings of Transport & Environment, “The task was left to the IMO […] to sort out, and they’ve been running around in circles for the last fifteen years or more.”
The Marshall Islands, a low-lying country which has suffered a recent string of natural disasters attributed to climate change, led a coalition of South Pacific nations pleading for tough measures on shipping emissions at COP 21. In a statement, the Marshall Island’s foreign minister called Secretary General Sekimizu’s attitude a “danger to the planet”.
The IMO was given the satirical Fossil of the Day award by the Climate Action Network, a grouping of 950 non-governmental organizations from over 100 countries.
While early versions of the document included references to the expected contribution of shipping and aviation, they were scrubbed from the final text. It is unlikely the Paris Agreement will achieve the goal of keeping the rise in global temperatures below two degrees Celcius above pre-industrial levels if shipping and aviation emissions continue on their current trajectory.
POWER PLAY
Power Players
The IMO has fallen flat on its face in the first test of its determination to tackle greenhouse gas emissions after Paris.
—John Maggs, Senior Policy Advisor at NGO Seas At Risk
A NEW HOPE
The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee had its 69th meeting at the end of April, in the first test of the IMO’s resolve to tackle greenhouse gas emissions since the Paris talks. It was unlikely that an emissions reduction target would be decided, but there were expectations participants would agree to a roadmap for eventually establishing a “fair share” target for the industry.
In an email, IMO Communications Officer Natasha Brown confirmed increased public pressure to act: “You could surmise that the exclusion of international shipping (and aviation) from the final text of the Paris Agreement could be seen as increasing the pressure on IMO to act on GHG [greenhouse gases].”
Since the Paris talks, the IMO has sworn in a new Secretary General, South Korea’s Ki-tack Lim. “I see the promotion of sustainable shipping and sustainable maritime development as one of the major priorities of my tenure,” said Mr. Lim in his opening statement to the committee.
In the months following COP 21, Pacific nations, including the Solomon Islands and the Marshall Islands, expanded their coalition calling for action and now includes much of Europe, Mexico, Liberia and industry groups. The International Chamber of Shipping, an influential industry group, accepted the need for “decarbonization” of the industry for the first time. The majority of member states and industry were pushing for action.
“For the first time ever in this building you had Annex I countries, you had industry, and on top of that you had the major flag states […] all lined up,” said Mr. Hemmings of Transport & Environment, who was present at the meeting.
The IMO’s meeting coincided with the signing of the Paris Agreement on Earth Day. Despite high hopes negotiations collapsed due to a significant minority, composed of BRICS countries led by China as well as the Cook Islands. The IMO’s new Secretary General was unable to keep the discussion from being tabled until next October’s meeting.
Environmentalist groups were quick to respond: “The IMO has fallen flat on its face in the first test of its determination to tackle greenhouse gas emissions after Paris, unable even to agree to develop a work plan for reducing ship emissions,” said John Maggs, Senior Policy Advisor at NGO Seas At Risk.
Dr. Yubing Shi, a specialist in maritime law at China’s Xiamen University, explains that developing BRICS countries’ shipping industries may not yet have the technology and expertise to easily adapt to stricter standards, and fear losing access to global ports as a result of noncompliance. “That’s why China and also BRICS countries, those large developing countries, they don’t hope the IMO will respond very quickly to the action that was achieved at the Paris Agreement,” he said.
China and other BRICS countries may also prefer that market-based initiatives be handled at the U.N. level, instead of exclusively at the IMO. The IMO applies rules equally to all ships, but the U.N.’s climate change framework recognizes a different responsibility for developing and developed countries. “The two approaches have totally different implications for BRICS countries,” said Dr. Shi.
At the meeting, the IMO did approve a mandatory measure calling for ships to report their fuel consumption and emissions. It was also confirmed the Ballast Water Convention, which will oblige ships to treat their ballast water to avoid transporting invasive species, now has the support of 49 states representing 34.79% of the world’s merchant tonnage — 35% is required for adoption.
SHIPPING AND YOU
If shipping is to become more sustainable, governments and international organizations will need to be a part of the solution. But what about you? If shipping pollution, and the impact on port and coastal communities is an issue that is important to you, what are your options to participate in the conversation?
YOUR SAY
The progress the IMO has made in increasing shipping efficiency should not be ignored. It has never been cleaner or more efficient to transport a kilogram of cargo.
Many environmental groups believe negotiations are too slow-moving, but there are significant political and technological hurdles to overcome before concrete action can be taken.
The good news? The aftermath of the Paris Climate Conference shows that the IMO, industry, and individual governments can be moved by public pressure. If you want to be a part of the conversation, that’s a good place to start.
YOUR LIFESTYLE
The global economy, international trade, shipping and general prosperity have historically marched in lock step. Climate change and environmental pressures risk breaking that link. Environmentalists argue that a circular economy based on recycling, reuse, and local sourcing is the only way to ensure further economic development does not come at the expense of prosperity. Bhutan Tuladhar, U.N.-Habitat’s Regional Technical Advisor for South Asia, practices what he preaches. In this video he invites us to his home in Kathmandu to see the simple measures he uses to reduce his family’s impact on the environment and the need for shipping goods around the world.
YOUR DOLLAR
A busy shopping street in Shanghai. JOHANNES EISELE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
There is currently no global database of ship emissions where you can look up which companies and ships are using cleaner fuels. Because no one knows who’s emitting what, companies can’t offer greener shipping to their clients and consumers can’t vote with their purchases. And since comparison shopping of shippers is impossible, there is a lack of incentive for shipowners to adopt greener technologies.
But that’s about to change.
The European Union has adopted a regulation obliging ships to disclose their fuel consumption and emissions. Ships using European ports will have to prepare annual reports of their emissions. This data will be publically available starting in 2019. This has motivated a similar (though less stringent) measure at the most recent meeting of the IMO. In the near future consumers may be able to make an informed choice about how they want their goods shipped.