Rapped over global warming, industry wrestles with ways to lower emissions. [SINGAPORE] The shipping industry is starting to sweat over global warming after it was revealed recently that it is guilty of producing twice as much harmful emissions as the aviation sector.Global shipping accounts for 5-7 per cent of total global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and 15-30 per cent of all nitrogen oxide (NOx) being belched into the atmosphere. This, when fuel usage in shipping is only about 2-4 per cent of world fossil fuels.The culprit is the quality of “dirty” bunker fuel used by vessels.Two recent studies, one by oil major BP and another by the European Union (EU),suggest shipping emissions could rise by as much as 75 per cent in the next 20 years as world trade growth demands more shipping services. Currently, shipping carries 90 per cent of global trade.A third study by the DP Group estimated that the shipping industry will emit at least 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 every year by 2011, eclipsing the declining emissions of the aviation industry which currently emits 600 million tonnes of CO2 per year.But this must be put into perspective, argues the managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association, Arthur Bowring. “Sea cargo is a necessity, air cargo is a luxury,” he told BT in a phone interview.“Without shipping, half the world would starve, half would freeze and the rest would both starve and freeze,” he said.Mr Bowring’s organisation became an unlikely environmental champion two years ago, when it proposed a one per cent global sulphur emission cap. The issue now is how to lower the emissions, how soon and what is a reasonable level.Historically, according to Mr Bowring, the industry is “dragged kicking and screaming into the regulatory arena and then reluctantly changes its practices”.But this time around it appears to be different, partly because it wasabundantly clear that the first steps to regulate the industry’s emissions by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) were already woefully out of date by the time they came into effect last year and this year.These moves placed a 4.5 per cent global cap on the amount of sulphur in a ship’s fuel and special SOx (sulphur oxide) Emission Control Areas (Seca) where the cap was only 1.5 per cent.The Baltic Sea Seca became operational in May this year and the second – North Sea and English Channel – will come into effect this November.But to put these levels into perspective, the EU, for instance, limits the sulphur content in automotive fuel to 15 parts per million, or 0.0015 per cent.Also the global average for sulphur content in bunker fuel is only 2.8 per cent.The problem is that the fuel used by ships is essentially the leftovers from the crude oil-refining process after gasoline and the distillate fuel oils like diesel are extracted. This leftover is known as “residual fuel”.It was largely seen as a win-win situation until recently, because shipowners get cheaper fuel and the oil majors get rid of their rubbish.Current residual bunker fuel – of which nearly 200 million tonnes is used each year – is the dirtiest fuel in use and emits high levels of not just SOx and NOx, but also volatile organic compounds and particulate matter – all harmful to both human health and the environment.“We burn crap in our ships,” acknowledges Mr Bowring who describes the residual fuel as being “only one step up from the asphalt you put on roads”. While a number of proposals have been tossed into the ring, they basically revolve around two broad camps. Continuing to use residual fuel but lowering the sulphur content either duringrefining or on board the ship using scrubbers and other technology; orswitching completely away from residual to cleaner distillate fuel like diesel.But vested interests at every turn have made this a complicated debate.What will become of the “leftovers” now used as bunker fuel? Are shipowners willing to pay higher fuel costs associated with distillate fuel, now almost double that of residual fuel?Studies have suggested, however, that if the entire shipping industry switched over to distillate fuel, the cost would only be 15-25 per cent more than current residual fuel costs. Still, are consumers prepared to pay more? “The bunker fuel supply industry has many stakeholders who do not view emissions regulations the same way,” according to Douglas Raitt, global FOBAS manager at Lloyd’s Register.The refining industry has estimated that US$130 billion would need to be invested to facilitate a switch to distillate fuel.The refiners have also suggested this switch could result in the creation of an extra 120 million tonnes of CO2.“In effect, this would suggest that we would be decreasing sulphur emissions at the expense of increasing greenhouse gasses,” said Mr Raitt. “If true, is that a solution we want to support?” But he is nonetheless encouraged by the debate which is slowly moving towards a consensus.As a major refining hub, shipping and bunkering port and the sixth-largest shipping registry in the world, Singapore has much at stake in this debate. The Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore is part of an IMO study group formed to complete, “on an urgent basis, a comprehensive and in-depth assessment of each proposal”, it said in response to BT queries.
My reflections:
What is global warming caused by? Yes, the emissions of harmful gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere, destroying the ozone layer. In this article, it can be seen that actually about 6% of the carbon dioxide and 16% of nitrogen oxide that destroys the atmosphere is actually produced by global shipping.
Global shipping is a huge business which delivers goods around the world. As said by Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association, Arthur Bowring, global shipping cannot be stopped as if it is, “half the world would freeze, half the world would starve, and the rest will both freeze and starve.” This shows how important global shipping is to the global village now.
As one would be wondering, what is the real root of the problem? The real reason why global shipping can produce so much harmful gases is due to the usage of bunker oil. Bunker oil, is the waste after refining oil, a type of oil that is of even lower quality than diesel. This oil emits high levels of harmful gases and is at the same time harmful to organic materials. This is however still in used because oil-refineries considers it as waste and shipping companies can buy is at very cheap prices. This is an important matter as if this type of oil continues being used by ships, the atmosphere would be continuously filled with harmful gases.
In the articles, two solutions were given, first to persuade shipping companies to change to using cleaner distillated oil, or secondly using technology to decrease the amount of harmful gases produced by the residual fuel.
This fact can be used by scientist to find a way to deal with this “waste oil” and at the same time find ways to refine oil in a cheaper way. In this way, shipping companies would not be reluctant in changing to using diesel. Also, it would be useful if people can come up with easy technologies to cut down on the amount of harmful gases released.
From the point of shipping companies, changing the type of oil used would require a certain sum of money and it would be inconvenient. Being businessmen, it is possible that they care for their profits more than the environment. To the environmentalists and the general public, it would be great if the amount of harmful gases can be cut down as this would greatly help in the health and climate problems.
Although it can understood that it would be troublesome for all shipping companies to change to cleaner fuel, they should take into account the amount of damage they are causing the Earth to suffer. Being people living on Earth, if we do not take care of our planet, who else would? From the point of the public, we would greatly appreciate if there is an effort to reduce global warming. Despite being just one out of six billion people, we should do our best to save Earth.
(495 words)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment