SHIPPING POLLUTION "FAR MORE DAMAGING THAN FLYING"

by The Anglo American | October 12, 2007 at 03:08 pm

984 views | 2 Recommendations | 0 comments

In Europe the talk is all about carbon footprint – taking responsibility for ones own pollution. It is fashionable to talk about carbon offset – where air miles are balanced by giving something back to nature. So while their Co2 creating Range Rovers and Aston Martins may pollute their driveways, in every sense, they have windmills on the roof that contribute to the national electrical grid, and they plant trees in Scotland. All in the interest of being holier-than-thou! One-upmanship is now green. How 70 million people on a small Island off the side of Europe think it will make a difference to world global warming is not explained. Equally, little thought is given to the massive dumping of Chinese electrical goods in the UK made from coal powered, power stations – coming on line by one a day. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />But you have to admire the focus on the individual - to do something and make a difference – a sentiment that I would identify as being American. But the US government is using the heavy hand of legislation, a sentiment that is far more British in the Brown/Blair years, by setting mileage targets on the guys in Detroit.

But, for all this, are they just spinning their wheels and blowing in the wind……?

New research suggests that the impact of shipping on climate change has been seriously underestimated and that the industry is currently churning out greenhouse gases at nearly twice the rate of aviation.

Shipping, although traditionally thought of as environmentally friendly, is growing so fast that the pollution it creates is at least 50 per cent higher than previously thought. Maritime emissions are also set to leap by 75 per cent by 2020.

The International Maritime Organisation, the UN body set up to regulate shipping, has set up a working group due to report this year. Research seen by the group suggests previous calculations, which put the total at about 600 million tonnes per year, are signifi-cantly short. The true figure is set to be more than one billion tonnes, according to a confidential report produced for the IMO by Intertanko, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners.

In comparison, aviation produces an estimated 650 million tonnes.

With land-based polluters already heavily regulated, the shipping industry could provide the most cost-effective way to reduce climate change gases.

For the last 50 years nearly every motor engined ship has been powered by diesel engines which have proved to be much more cost effective than the steam-powered turbines used before them which belched out carbon, like a p as the boilers were powered by coal. But diesels do little for the envronment either....

Since the 1970s, the bulk of commercial vessels have run on heavy "bunker" fuel, a by-product of the oil refining process for higher grade fuels. One industry insider described it as "the crap that comes out the other end that's half way to being asphalt". It has potentially lethal side effects such as the release of sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphuric acid.

grt refers to weight in tonnes. The Titanic looks like a featherweight in this group.

Recent studies in the US and the Netherlands showed pollutants from ships contribute half of the smog-related sulphur dioxide in Los Angeles. In Rotterdam, North Sea shipping lanes run within 25 miles of the shore, spewing pollution that can travel up to 1,000 miles.

"If you want to improve air quality on land, you will have a larger effect from spending one euro at sea than you will have spending one euro on land," said Pieter Hammingh, from the Dutch environment agency.

Is this the future?

Link to other articles by The Anglo American