An Inconvenient Truth
Headquartered in Norway with offices in Belgium, Russia, Ukraine and USA. The Bellona Foundation is a not-for-profit NGO that aims to combat climate challenges by “identifying and implementing sustainable environmental solutions”
During a recent press conference at SMM 2016, Hamburg, Jan Kjetil Paulsen, Bellona’s Senior Adviser Shipping spoke about why IMO originally introduced the 0.5%S limit and why it must be implemented in 2020.
Delays will hit where it hurts most
He queried if delegates at MEPC 70 would stick with 2020 for introduction of the 0.5%S limit or if various interest groups would dig up sufficient arguments to convince the delegates that postponement to 2025 was the right thing to do.
“I feel sure that questions related to sufficient supply capacity, quality issues and tremendous price fluctuations will be put forward in the discussions advocating for a delay”. “We should, remember why IMO decided on the 0.5% sulphur limit in the first place. It was because of human health and the risk of thousands of premature deaths due to air pollution”.
Mr Paulsen recalled that before Emission Control Areas were implemented it was estimated that shipping caused 50,000 premature deaths in Europe every year, then cited ECA’s as significantly improving the consequences for human health, with dramatic reductions in SO2 levels measured on Denmark’s coast for example.
“A further delay in introduction of a 0.5% global sulphur cap will first of all have a negative impact for the coastal waters with no ECA’s. These waters also happen to be in the proximity of some of the most densely populated regions of the world. A further delay of the sulphur cap will therefore hit where it hurts the most”.
Adapt to survive
Mr Paulsen recognised that various segments of the industry had been preparing for the low-sulphur transition, with the need to reduce climate-changing emissions adding to the impetus, and that alternative technologies and fuels had been developed, verified and put into operation.
“The health and environmental consequences of continuing status quo are well known and understood. Alternative technologies, fuel qualities or after treatment systems like exhaust scrubbers are available to reduce climate emissions and environmental impact.
“Even if low-emission alternatives like LNG, methanol and bio-fuels will be unable to replace the majority of fossil fuels in the nearest future, a further delay of the 0.5% sulphur limit will reduce some of the motivation and business drive for new technologies, thus also reducing the motivation for developing more climate-friendly alternatives for the shipping industry.
“Yes, there might be stresses on the fuel supply chains. There will be technical issues, and the prices might surge for shorter or longer periods. Most measures to improve environmental standards and practices come at a cost. A cost that eventually will be off-loaded to the consumers i.e. you and me!
“Any economic activity will sooner or later run into an inconvenient truth which might be seen as a threat to existing business models. The answer has always been to change and adapt, or be out of business!”
A salutary reminder indeed to the shipping industry and its regulators. A reminder that EGCSA agrees with.
