The EPA announced this week that it is moving closer to a new global agreement to lessen ship pollution within 200 miles of American shores.
The U.S., along with Canada, has asked the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to create an emissions control area around the countries’ coastlines. Under the new proposal, U.S. and foreign-flagged ships will be required to use cleaner fuel and more effective pollution controls for their engines.
“This is an important and long overdue step in our efforts to protect the air and water along our shores and the health of the people in our coastal communities,” says EPA chief Lisa P. Jackson.
Once this is put into effect, the proposal should significantly improve air quality in port communities, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The battle for better standards in regard to large diesel-fueled, ocean-going ships has been going on for years. Rich Kassel, director of the NRDC’s Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, says he personally has been involved in diesel-related vehicles since the mid ’90s.
“I started with a local campaign to clean up New York City buses, which hit close to home since I used to ride a bicycle to work down Fifth Avenue,” he says. “Little did I know that 17 years later, that campaign would lead to a national regulatory program for first, buses, then farm engines and eventually locomotives and marine vessels.”
The EPA proposal follows an international agreement made last year that adopted new emissions standards for these ships. The agreement stated that nations can petition the IMO to create “Emission Control Areas” off their coasts. In these areas, large ships would have to use fuel that is made up of 98 percent less sulfur than the current global cap. They would also have to install pollution-cutting equipment to reduce nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, particulate matter by 85 percent and sulfur oxides by 95 percent – compared to current emission levels.
Kassel applauds the EPA’s proposal.
“Dirty diesel pollution from ships is a serious, but solvable, problem. EPA’s proposal is an important step towards curbing ship pollution on our coasts,” he says. “Taking the sulphur out of diesel fuel is like taking the lead out of gasoline. It opens the door to cleaner air.”
The proposal is especially important to the people who live along the coasts, he says. “Port communities around the nation have waited for years to see coordinated federal action to reduce ship pollution in their backyards. Cleaner ships will mean cleaner air for anybody who lives downwind from our ports.”
EPA’s Jackson says the stricter standards could save as many as 8,300 American and Canadian lives annually by 2020.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a longtime advocate for stronger pollution standards for ships and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, says, “We have known for a long time that our families that live around ports have a higher rate of respiratory illness, including cancer. EPA’s announcement is music to my ears because it means the United States is stepping forward to take a strong leadership role on clean air around ports.”
In 2007, Boxer and fellow California senator Dianne Feinstein co-sponsored the Marine Vessel Emission Act. It was designed to create leverage for a global agreement on ship pollution. The act didn’t become law, but did send a message to the global community that the U.S. would move forward on its own even if other countries didn’t join in.
The Boxer-Feinstein act also gave momentum to the shipping industry to unite under one set of standards, so that there wouldn’t be a patchwork of laws governing their business.
“Some countries like Denmark, the United States and Canada can move faster with cleaning up emissions,” says Kassel, “but at least now, they all have to do so in the same way.”
“[This week’s proposal] states that the United States and Canada will act together to remove sulfur from diesel fuel by 2015. By taking it out, this opens the door to new technology which will reduce emissions by 80 to 90 percent,” says Kassel.
“And it won’t take until 2015,” he says. “We’ll see cleaner vessels much sooner. It’s not like a light switch. Ships will start to get retrofitted soon, especially in places like Long Beach, Ca.” Many of the California coastal communities have been clamoring for pollution controls on ships due to the health issues they have experienced.
Interestingly enough, as cars, buses and trucks have gotten cleaner, ship pollution has increased, says Kassel.
The reason? Container shipping is growing, he says. “We’ve seen a trend that manufacturing and goods production has moved offshore. Consumption goes up with economic growth ,” says Kassel, who says despite the current economic downturn, long term trends haven’t really changed.
Take for example, a T-shirt that is made in Asia, he says. “Today it would probably go by boat to California, then by train or truck to New York. After 2015, when the Panama Canal is deepened, the T-shirt would stay on the ship all the way to New York. “
“We expect to see larger ships in the future, but not more ships,” says Kassel. “From a climate perspective, this is better. The most efficient way to transport a box is to keep it on one ship. But from a health perspective, it’s not better due to pollution.”
This is why, he explains, “it’s so important to get this program in place.”
“This is doable,” Kassel says. “We’re not talking about installing solar panels and windmills on ships. We’re talking about tested technology that’s already in place on land, and in some cases on sea.” Copenhagen-based Maersk Shipping is already using low-sulfur fuel.
These changes are feasible and cost-effective,” says Kassel, “but, they won’t happen without a law in place.”
Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media