A coalition of environmental groups is demanding answers from the oil refining and shipping industries after it emerged that new blends of marine fuels designed to reduce acid rain-causing sulphur emissions have instead increased emissions of “super pollutant” black carbon, a key climate change driver.
According to a German study presented to the International Maritime Organization, some of the new blends of low sulphur fuels developed and marketed by oil companies to comply with UN-mandated air pollution standards in the marine shipping that came into effect on January 1 will actually lead to a surge in the emissions of black carbon.
The study submitted by Germany and Finland to the IMO’s upcoming meeting in February found that these new very low sulphur oil (VLSFO) blends contain high levels of aromatic compounds which, when combusted, could result in up to 85-per-cent increase in emissions of black carbon when compared with heavier fuel oil and distillate fuels used by the shipping industry.
Black carbon is a short lived “climate forcer,” second only to carbon dioxide (CO2) and is of particular concern in the Arctic, according to documents submitted to the IMO by Canada. When the soot-like substance gets deposited on snow and sea ice, it ends up absorbing more sun light, enhancing atmospheric and surface warming impacts.
“There are serious questions to be answered about how these blended super pollutant ‘Frankenstein’ fuels ever came to market,” said in a statement John Maggs of Seas at Risk, a European marine protection NGO.
“It beggars belief that amidst a global climate crisis, the marine fuel industry could develop these VLSFOs without knowing their effect on black carbon emissions and the climate, particularly in the Arctic especially as the IMO has spent almost a decade considering how to reduce black carbon emissions from shipping.”
The IMO has introduced the 0.5 per cent sulphur content cap in marine fuel with the aim of reducing harmful sulphur emissions from ships by 77 per cent by 2025.
This means that the shipping industry can no longer use heavy fuel oil, also known as bunker oil, the cheapest and the dirtiest marine fuel oil said, which normally contained up 3.5 per cent of sulphur, said Andrew Dumbrille, a World Wildlife Fund Canada specialist in sustainable shipping.
The expectation was that the IMO’s low sulphur cap would encourage the shipping industry to transition to the less polluting distillate fuels, Dumbrille said.
But instead the shipping and the oil refining industries set about developing new blends of heavy fuel oil that contain less sulphur but are far more polluting than HFO when it comes to black carbon emissions, Dumbrille said.
These new blends are more expensive than bunker oil but still cheaper than distillate fuels such as marine diesel, Dumbrille said.
The shipping industry’s use of these new blends of low sulphur oil is driven by the desire to save money at the expense of the environment, he added.
IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim said "I believe it is testimony to the diligence and dedication of IMO, its Member States, the shipping industry, the fuel supply industry and other relevant industries that such a major rule change is being implemented successfully without significant disruption to maritime transport and those that depend on it."
He added, "The next important target is fast approaching, when carrying non-compliant fuel oil on board ships becomes prohibited on 1 March 2020. I urge all shipowners, operators and masters to comply with the carriage ban, where applicable, when it comes into effect. IMO will remain vigilant and ready to respond and provide any support. I would like to thank, sincerely, IMO Member Governments, the shipping industry and all stakeholders, including shippers and the fuel oil supply industry, for their efforts so far and to ask for further cooperation to ensure IMO 2020 is implemented properly." ■