Watching the latest news from the ocean shipping world has got me thinking. I’m struck by the stark inequality between regulations applied to the commercial aviation sector and those applied to the world of ocean shipping.
What provoked this chain of thought was the ongoing news of ever larger containerships being ordered. The world’s largest container ship operator Maersk, made headlines not long ago for introducing the largest boxship in history – the Maersk McKinney Moller which is capable of carrying 18,200 TEU of which it has 20 on order! And recently it emerged that China Shipping Container Lines (CSCL) has ordered five, 400 metre long, 19,000 TEU vessels. Just but two examples of massive containership orders on the books.
Arguably, the shipping industry has a rather chequered reputation on the environment front – from routine discharges of oily bilge and ballast water, dumping of non-biodegradable solid waste; accidental spills of oil, toxins or fuel; and ecological harm due to the introduction of invasive species transported in ballast water, to name only a few. And then there is the issue of the absurd anti-trust immunity that the shipping industry somehow still manages to get away with – oh boy, let’s not even go there!
But the real focus here is emissions. The problem is the fact that these giants use the worst fuel known to mankind – in fact, it’s not even real fuel! It’s simply the waste byproduct of petrochemical refining and is essentially liquid asphalt! It also contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulphur compared to diesel fuel, clearly a far cry from Jet A-1 aviation fuel.
Quite simply it is the cheapest, most polluting fuel available and the world’s 90,000+ ships chew through an astonishing 7.3 million barrels of it each and every day. One of these giant 18,000+ containerships chews through 16 tonnes of this polluting goop in just one hour at sea.
Current estimates put aviation and shipping at around 2.1 per cent and 3.2 per cent respectively of global CO2 emissions as at the mid-2000s, although the shipping industry itself admits the number for its industry is on the low side. But here’s the rub: The aviation industry not only has set itself firm reduction targets, but has constantly pursued newer, ever more efficient technology and continues to pursue alternative fuel options. And then of course there is the regulatory angle with the industry pushing for global regulations through the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) before the European Union imposes its unilateral carbon trading scheme.
And what is the situation on the ocean side of the equation? The equivalent body to ICAO, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), released a report in 2007 saying a 10 per cent reduction in fuel burning was possible on existing ships and 30-40 per cent possible for new ships, but the technology is mostly unused, as the regulations are largely voluntary.
The point to all of this is that the aviation industry appears to be unfairly singled out when a far greater emissions threat exists from a rapidly growing shipping sector – far greater growth than aviation – in which both self-regulation and official regulation are not just lax, but practically non-existent. It’s time the ocean shipping industry took responsibility for its share of climate change-inducing emissions and takes concrete steps to lower emissions. Working towards an alternative fuel source would be a major step – although lengthy and not without severe cost implications – in the right direction.
