EPA Petitioned to Limited CO2 Emissions from Ships
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 10. 4.07
As TreeHugger has noted here and here, transport by ship is not exactly CO2 free. According to the New York Times, the 90,000 ocean-going container ships, tankers and cruise ships emit more CO2 than all but the six largest polluting nations, equal to the amount emitted by all of the cars in the USA.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown, with environmental group Earthjustice, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Oceana, have asked the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt standards for carbon dioxide. ''If the U.S. is to do its part in reducing the threat of global climate disruption, then EPA must limit the global warming emissions from ships that enter the ports of the United States,'' Brown said.
The EPA has asked the UN to set international emissions standards, ''Pollution knows no political or geographical boundaries, and the EPA's current proposal to harmonize emissions standards at ports worldwide would deliver cleaner air to all Americans,''
EPA spokeswoman Jessica Emond said, continuing the EPA's current stance of regulating nothing and knowing that there is no way that an international agreement could be reached, since it would require higher grade, more expensive fuels, and who is going to pay for that? ::New York Times
While quite a lot of current ships may indeed emit a lot of CO2 (and god knows what else), they're still a lot more efficient than planes will ever be. Sure, they need to make an effort, and sure, some technological advances would greatly benefit the shipping industry. But fact is, I'd rather get something shipped in than flown in. And that goes for my own personal travel as well.
Being as there are next to none of these vessels that are owned or operated by American companies anymore, how do you enforce something like this?
If they cant navigate in American waters, there would be an end to most of the products we need and use since we dont make much of what we need anymore.
So, this is an odd question that just popped in to my head. Let’s say the entire world decides to follow the Kyoto treaty. Would a country that harbors flags of convenience be liable for their ships emissions? Just thing of poor Liberia and friends...
-Lego
If you believe that CO2 is a major agent of climate change, then it just makes sense to go after the biggest sources of CO2 first -- doesn't it?
What do you suppose they are? Guess what, ocean-going vessels are not anywhere near the top sources of CO2. If you go by CO2 emitted per ton-mile, they are way down on the list.
Just by the rough calculation of the difference in cost of airfreight and ocean freight (I import violins, so I have experienced that difference), ocean freight is about 100 times more efficient per unit weight. The only reason there is any significant CO2 coming from ocean shipping is because about 98% of the world's freight moves that way.
But back to the original question... until the coal mine fires of Asia are extinguished, it's a waste of time to try to limit any other source of CO2, because it won't matter enough to notice.
I know that a couple of summers ago Maersk started using the low-sulfur grade diesel and catalytic converters on ships servicing some of the California ports.
A small step considering how huge of a polluter container ships are . . . can you image the largest diesel engine you've ever seen and it doesn't have a cat on it?
There's a lot we can do to improve on this. My car has a cat, why doesn't your boat?