Cruise lines balk at pollution proposal
The IMO’s Maritime Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) is meeting this week in London to discuss a variety of topics related to environmental protection in the maritime environment. The centerpiece of the meeting is the reduction of greenhouse gases from international shipping. The committee is expected to adopt a set of amendments to the MARPOL international convention that would formally establish a North American Emission Control Area in which emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from ships would be subject to more stringent controls than the limits that currently apply globally. This area would extend approximately 200 nautical miles offshore from the coastal baselines of the U.S. and Canada.
All of this stems from a 2009 joint proposal to the IMO from the U.S. and Canada to create the control areas in the coastal regions of both countries.
Chart depicting the proposed North American Emission Control Area (EPA)
The U.S. EPA published the table below to quantify the value and benefit of establishing the proposed Emission Control Area, in relation to the health of U.S. and Canadian residents.
| Estimated PM2.5- and Ozone-Related Human Health Impacts Associated with Ship Emissions in the U.S. and Canada | ||
|---|---|---|
| Health Effect | 2020 Annual Ship-Related Incidence |
2020 Annual Reduction in Ship-Related Incidence with an ECAa |
| Premature Mortalityb | 8,100 – 21,000 | 5,500 – 14,000 |
| Chronic Bronchitis | 5,500 | 3,900 |
| Hospital Admissionsc | 11,000 | 4,800 |
| Emergency Room Visits | 6,700 | 3,800 |
| Acute Bronchitis | 13,000 | 9,300 |
| Acute Respiratory Symptoms | 8,900,000 | 4,900,000 |
| Total U.S.-Related Monetized Benefits | $47 – 110 billionb,d | |
a Based on ship emission inventory reductions due to switching from 2.7% sulphur residual fuel to 0.1% sulphur distillate fuel and an overall fleet NOx reduction in the ECA of 23%, in2020, from Tier II levels. In the long term, a 75% reduction in NOx emissions from Tier II levels would be expected in the ECA.
b Includes both PM2.5- and ozone-related estimates of premature mortality. The range is based on the high- and low-end estimate of incidence derived from several alternative studies used to estimate PM2.5- and ozone-related premature mortality in the U.S.
c Includes estimates of both cardiovascular- and respiratory-related hospital admissions.
d The monetized benefits, presented in year 2006 dollars, are for the U.S. only, and reflect the use of a 3 percent discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and nonfatal heart attacks.
Despite the published benefits of the proposed regulations, this amendment will likely have far reaching impacts within the maritime world. The proposal is already drawing some harsh criticism from the cruise industry. It is also expected to draw criticism from a variety of areas within the maritime industry due to concerns over the safety of current propulsion systems and the prolonged use of low sulphur diesel fuel in engines designed to use primarily heavy fuel oil.
Reuters posted the following article concerning the Cruise Industry’s opposition to the proposed North American Emission Control Area.
By Jane Sutton
MIAMI, March 21 (Reuters) – Cruise companies are balking at a proposal to create a low-emissions buffer zone around the United States and Canada, saying it sets arbitrary boundaries based on faulty science that overstates the health benefits.
The proposed Emissions Control Area would extend 200 nautical miles, which is 230 statute miles (370 km), around the coast of the two nations and set stringent new limits on air pollution from ocean-going ships beginning in 2015.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the U.N. agency that sets regulations for ships operating internationally, is expected to adopt the proposal at its weeklong meeting that begins on Monday in London.
Cruise executives at an industry meeting in Miami said the plan would force them to switch to low-sulfur fuels that would dramatically drive up costs.
“Our estimate is that in today’s market it’s probably 40 percent more expensive,” said Michael Crye, executive vice president of technical and regulatory affairs for the Cruise Lines International Association, known as CLIA.
It “essentially means all the current fuel that we burn cannot be burned within 200 miles,” Stein Kruse, chief executive of Holland America Line, told the Cruise Shipping Miami conference.
Proponents, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, say the plan would clear the air around polluted port cities and save up to 8,300 lives a year in the United States and Canada. It would limit emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, pollutants that are linked to asthma and cance
The Environmental Defense Fund activist group cheered the plan, saying “the dangerous air pollution from these floating smokestacks is a serious health threat to tens of millions of Americans who live and work in port cities.”
But cruise executives say there is no reason to extend the boundary that far out to sea because the pollutants do not travel even a quarter of that distance, and that a more precisely tailored boundary would suffice.
They said the IMO research ignored the effects of prevailing winds, which push emissions ashore in some problem areas such as California, but push them away in other areas.
“Putting it out to 200 miles is completely arbitrary,” said Kruse, whose line is part of Carnival Corp (CCL.N). “The reality is that the problem exists in a few very, very large cities.”
Read the entire article HERE.
If adopted at the MEPC meeting in London, the proposed Emission Control Area could enter into force as early as August 2012.
Read More
A detailed preview of the 60th Session of the MEPC session can be found HERE.
EPA Fact Sheet on the proposed North American Emission Control Area can be found HERE.
