by Nick Savvides
Cutting emissions of black carbon in the Arctic is seen as essential to protecting rapidly melting polar ice, but progress has so far been slow. Could change be around the corner?
Environmental protesters project slogans calling for a switch to clean shipping fuels in Falmouth Harbour, UK, March 2020. Photo: Gav Goulder/In Pictures via Getty Images
Black carbon has become a hot topic for the shipping industry and environmentalists. Produced in large amounts from the combustion of residual fuels, such as heavy fuel oils (HFOs), the Sshort-lived pollutant has a particularly strong impact on the polar regions, not only absorbing Sunlight and converting it into heat when suspended in the air, but also falling onto ice and snow, and lowering their albedo.
In June 2021, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) announced a partial ban on using and transporting HFOs in the Arctic that came into effect last year. But loopholes mean that until the end of the decade it will apply to less than a third of ships carrying the fuel and just 16% of those usingit.
The IMO is considering further action, including Introducing a new fuel category of “polar fuels’ suitable for use in the Arctic. At the twelfth session of the IMO’s pollution prevention response (PPR) subcommittee In January, green groups called for the IMO to mandate the use of those cleaner-burning distillate fuels.
“Switching to distillate fuels in the Arctic region will reduce black carbon emissions by 50-80%; says Elena Tracy, a senior advisor at the World Wildlife Fund’s global arctic programme, which has observer status at the IMO. Tracy argues that distillate marine gas oil (MGO) could be a “quick fix”, until the roll-out of truly clean fuels. Installing diesel particulate filters could push emission cuts up beyond 90%, she adds.
IMO member states, including Norway, also raised concerns about the impact of an oil spill in the frigid Arctic waters. HFO must be heated in order to remain liquid, meaning that it solidifies if it enters the ocean, making any clean-up operation much harder.
As a result, the IMO subcommittee agreed to look at various sub-types of MGO, in particular DMA and DMZ, that have “pour points’ of at least 0º Celsius, and will report back next year.
IMO role
The decisionis part of a shift within the IMO from being primarily a safety regulator to adding environmental regulation to its agenda. Discussions over BC bring that shift in emphasis into sharp focus.
IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez is keen to articulate the UN’s support for cleaner oceans and its support towards reducing aerosols, including BC, over the past 15 years.
“We operate in the oceans, we regulate the ships, but we’re also very much aware of the impact shipping has on the oceans,” Dominguez explains.
“To demonstrate the steps we’re taking in decarbonisation, which of course is also part of the work that we’re carrying out on black carbon as well as other areas, IMO is very conscious of the need for environmental protection, including plastic pollution, underwater radiated noise and invasive species,” he adds.
Industry doubts
In a famousiy slow-moving sector, addressing BC has been a long time coming. But some Shipowners and IMO member states remain unconvinced by the direction of travel.
Following the introduction of emission control areas for sulphur dioxide stretching from Canada to Norway, the use of scrubber technology is seen by some as the principle fix for BC, rather thana shift to cleaner fuels.
Scrubbers filter sulphur dioxide from exhaust gases produced from burning HFO. Ship owners can recoup the installation costs by continuing to use the cheaper, dirty fuel over the cleaner, but more expensive MGO.
Mike Kaczmarek, a former vice-president of Carnival Cruise, now chalrman of the Clean Shipping Alliance (CSA), an industry alliance, makes the case for the use of scrubbers.
“Our understandingis that a scrubber [for sulphur dioxide] also reduces between 60 and 90% of the particulates, including black carbon,” he says. The CSA argues that, nevertheless, few if any operators in the Arctic now use HFO, with most vessels operating on MGO.
MGO is the preferred fuel of most observers, at least for the immediate future, because it reduces the levels of particulates the most, at least until alternatives are developed, according to WWF’s Tracy.
Kaczmarek seeks to downplay the climate impact of BC. “The impact of shipping, or any other source generating particulates in the Arctic, hasn’t really been observed and until some controlled testing is done and some observation over time is done it’s difficult to draw any hard conclusions;’ said the CSA chairman.
However, Eirik Nyhus, director for the environment at maritime classification society DNV, says the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognises that BC does have an impact on polar ice meit.
While there are “uncertainties inherent with respect to aerosols”, there is no reason to doubt the assessment of the IPCC and IMO, which has been working on the issue of BC for 15 years. “I think my reading of the scienceis that it [the effects of BC] are pretty clear,” Nyhus says.
Also clearis that the growth of shipping in the Arctic – in part enabled by climate change – has driven up BC emissions in recent years.
A study by the influential International Council of Clean Transportation, published in May, reported that emissions within the IMO Arctic increased from 193 tonnes in 2015 to 413 tonnes in 2021. In the wider geographic Arctic, emissions had nearly doubled by 2021 to 1,500 tonnes.
With 2,315 of the 3,171 vessels operatingin the geographic Arctic heading to or from EU ports, Europe will play a major role in the success of efforts to cut emissions – particularly given there is no guarantee that key states such as Russia and the US will comply with IMO rules.
Originally published at: https://www.endseurope.com/article/1925161/efforts-cut-black-carbon-emissions-mean-shipping