Arctic 'Dirty Fuel' Ban For Ships Comes Into Force 59
Starting July 1st, ships in Arctic waters are banned from using Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), a relatively cheap tar-like oil that's widely used in shipping around the world, especially tankers. According to the BBC, it's the "dirtiest and most climate-damaging fuel for ships." Still, campaigners believe numerous loopholes will allow most ships to continue using the fuel until 2029, limiting the ban's immediate effectiveness. The BBC reports: Produced from the waste left over in oil refining, HFO poses a huge threat to the oceans in general but to the Arctic in particular. This sludge-like fuel is almost impossible to clean up if a spill occurs. In colder waters, experts say, the fuel does not break down but sinks in lumps that linger in sediments, threatening fragile ecosystems. In climate terms, this oil is seen as particularly dangerous, not just producing large amounts of planet-warming gas when burned, but also spewing out sooty particles called black carbon. [...] The oil was banned from use or transport in the Antarctic in 2011. Environmentalists have been pushing to expand that restriction to northern waters for years, finally persuading the countries that participate in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to enact a ban back in 2021. [...]
According to the regulations, ships that have a "protected fuel tank" will be exempt from the ban. Countries that border the Arctic will also be able to exempt their own ships from the ban in their own territorial waters. One of the major players in the region is Russia, which has over 800 ships operating in northern waters. They are not implementing the new IMO regulation. These waiver exemptions will last until 2029 -- their impact is likely to be significant, with the International Council on Clean Transportation estimating that about 74% of ships that use HFO will be able to continue to do so. Some observers believe that increased efforts to extract oil in the Arctic could see a rise in the amount of HFO in use in these waters, instead of a decrease.
According to the regulations, ships that have a "protected fuel tank" will be exempt from the ban. Countries that border the Arctic will also be able to exempt their own ships from the ban in their own territorial waters. One of the major players in the region is Russia, which has over 800 ships operating in northern waters. They are not implementing the new IMO regulation. These waiver exemptions will last until 2029 -- their impact is likely to be significant, with the International Council on Clean Transportation estimating that about 74% of ships that use HFO will be able to continue to do so. Some observers believe that increased efforts to extract oil in the Arctic could see a rise in the amount of HFO in use in these waters, instead of a decrease.
Re: (Score:3)
Almost exactly what I came here to post. Who is going to enforce this in international waters?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine a bunch of world leaders standing in a circle jerk going "Not MY problem!"
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately currently Ukraine lacks any port on waters connected with Arctic, so the US would need to give them some aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines or such.
Re: Does this ban concern the ruzzkie polluter? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Almost exactly what I came here to post. Who is going to enforce this in international waters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's that coming into port thing - it's pretty obvious when a ship is using for shit fuel, And since so many are coming to deliver goods to the US, and are in US waters, there's the catch. An Irish ship using that shit was recently fined forusing it in US waters.
Re: (Score:2)
How stupid do you have to be to post that? Tell us all about how many Russian ships are docking in Alaska.
How about all the ships that carry Panamanian flags, or those of various African or other tax havens?
But muh freedumbs!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Burning fuel is obsolete. Not yet for ships, but this time will come.
Re: (Score:2)
Then buy from Temu, I hears they ship by air, so won't pollute any waters. /s
Re: (Score:2)
And the CO2 is acidifying the oceans. Maybe you've heard of them, base of food chain and all that?
Re: (Score:2)
Other shipping fuels produce just as much CO2, just less particulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Other shipping fuels produce just as much CO2, just less particulate.
Notice how they didn't mention the sulfate injection this fuel causes. Probably want to avoid triggering the people who think that an acid rain future is what will save the earth. It won't, but many people have ideas that just don't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Was thinking the same thing actually. Heavy fuel oil creates more particulate pollution which actually has a cooling effect...
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, especially when the particulate matter (blackish soot) falls on the white ice, abruptly improving its ability to reflect sunlight and stay cool, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone hasn't been paying attention:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
High sulfur oil (Score:1)
Did you notice that the ban on high sulfur oil has actually contributed to ocean warming? Because the smog from those ships was slowing it down. Who knew that pollution could be (temporarily) good?
Re: (Score:3)
All fuel oils produce planet-warming gas (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
* It's filthy when it burns, producing a lot of particulate pollution (soot), which darkens snow cover and accelerates melting.
* A fuel leak, or total loss of a vessel, would be catastrophic. HFO at near-freezing temperatures has the consistency of tar and, unlike in the Gulf of Mexico, will not break down or be consumed by bacteria in any reasonable timeframe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I said those points are valid. But lumping in an irrelevant argument feels like gish galloping. If you have a strong argument, you don't need to complicate it with easily refuted talking points.
Perhaps just an understanding that as a fuel, this is nasty stuff, and shouldn't be used. And there are so many reasons for that. Tossing another on the heap is just exposing how nasty it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the same or similar fuel that Russia's only carrier uses?
After all it's famous for the smoke it produces.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a somewhat specious reason for banning HFO. Sure, the other concerns are valid, but this claim will always be true regardless of what fuel oil the ship burns.
Different fossil fuels have different "emission factors", meaning more or less energy per CO2 molecule released. HFO (AKA Residual Fuel Oil No. 6), has a slightly higher emission factor than other petroleum fuels. It looks to me like HFO emits about 2% more CO2 per BTU than distillate fuel oils.
See https://www.epa.gov/sites/defa... [epa.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's statistically meaningless. If we increased the average automobile MPG by 2%, no one would claim we are "saving the planet."
"Saving the planet" is a stupid phrase regardless. The planet will be fine no matter what we do; minimizing climate change is about saving humans. And I disagree that a 2% reduction in emissions from shipping isn't worth doing. Every bit of consistent, systematic, widespread reduction helps.
But your claim was that the type of fuel makes no difference at all to carbon emissions, which is simply not true. That argument is not as strong as the other two, but it's not without merit and I see no reason it s
Thanks, Russia... (Score:3)
...not just producing large amounts of planet-warming gas when burned, but also spewing out sooty particles called black carbon
About a month ago, I read an article where environmentalists were complaining that the general reduction in bunker oil (HFO) was claimed to be a cause of global warming, because fewer particulates were blocking sunlight. You just can't win with these guys.
That said, it really is a filthy fuel to use. Eliminating it would be a good thing.
One of the major players in the region is Russia, which has over 800 ships operating in northern waters. They are not implementing the new IMO regulation.
Of course they aren't. Russia isn't really a civilized nation anymore, if they ever were.
Re: (Score:2)
About a month ago, I read an article where environmentalists were complaining that the general reduction in bunker oil (HFO) was claimed to be a cause of global warming, because fewer particulates were blocking sunlight. You just can't win with these guys.
Someone's dumping dog shit and toxic waste in your living room. The toxic waste is overpowering the stench of the shit (and killing some of the bacteria). When someone stops with the toxic waste, you can smell the shit again.
You're basically saying that th
Re: (Score:2)
...not just producing large amounts of planet-warming gas when burned, but also spewing out sooty particles called black carbon
About a month ago, I read an article where environmentalists were complaining that the general reduction in bunker oil (HFO) was claimed to be a cause of global warming, because fewer particulates were blocking sunlight. You just can't win with these guys.
That said, it really is a filthy fuel to use. Eliminating it would be a good thing.
What was the article? The environmental scientists I know roll their eyes when stupid people try to suggest that a thousand years of acid rain that will temporarily reflect energy, while raining out and destroying forests, killing wildlife, and acidifying the oceans and making lifeforms there extinct.
Then of course, after bunker fuel becomes rare enough that we can't burn enough of it any more, all of the extra CO2 it put in the atmosphere will really heat the earth up after the rains remove the last of t
Re: (Score:1)
About a month ago, I read an article where environmentalists were complaining that the general reduction in bunker oil (HFO) was claimed to be a cause of global warming, because fewer particulates were blocking sunlight. You just can't win with these guys.
That said, it really is a filthy fuel to use. Eliminating it would be a good thing.
What was the article? ...
How about Science*? If I remember correctly, NASA provided the data.
summary in title --
"Pollution cuts have diminished “ship track” clouds, adding to global warming"
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
*The pub, not the somewhat ephemeral concept.
Re: (Score:2)
About a month ago, I read an article where environmentalists were complaining that the general reduction in bunker oil (HFO) was claimed to be a cause of global warming, because fewer particulates were blocking sunlight. You just can't win with these guys.
That said, it really is a filthy fuel to use. Eliminating it would be a good thing.
What was the article? ...
How about Science*? If I remember correctly, NASA provided the data.
summary in title -- "Pollution cuts have diminished “ship track” clouds, adding to global warming"
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
*The pub, not the somewhat ephemeral concept.
Yeah, but now explain your idea that "you can't win with these guys"
It is an undeniable fact that sulfate aerosols are an anti-greenhouse gas, and their presence in the atmosphere reflects energy away from the earth.
That was not some made up thing, or just discovered. The surprise was how quickly the reaction was to the diminishment of the clouds. Now that might have been unexpected, but a little hindsight will tell us that the water cycle which washes the sulfate aerosols out of the atmosphere is
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because making decisions based on "sounds like" is much easier than using science.
I am the one talking chemistry (Score:1)
Sure, because making decisions based on "sounds like" is much easier than using science.
I am using the science, knowing how non-reactive materials like this are at low temperatures and in water.
You appear to be the one using your feelings of fear to judge the situation, not objective facts of material properties.
Please explain scientifically why you think this is an issue, and I will help correct you based on the chemistry involved.
Dropping an inert rock into any ecosystem is not going to cause much harm.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you aren't doing science. You are doing science speculation. If you make a claim you need to back it up with citations, not speculation based on a summary you read. It's not that hard to do a Google scholar search on the ecological effects of heavy fuel oils in the arctic, and you'll find nobody believes in the particular scenario you spun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Okay, here's my summary: In hotter waters, dumped oil (HFO is close enough to crude...) is basically a flash in the pan - it does a lot of damage quickly, but then tends to be broken up and eaten by the bacteria relatively quickly.
In cold waters, said bacteria either doesn't live or works very slowly. Think of how catalytic conversions tend to be exponential as temperature rises, up until the catalysts (proteins for bacteria) are destroyed.
So, the oil tends to stick around - continuously doing thin
Wrong again, even just considering summary. (Score:1)
So, the oil tends to stick around - continuously doing things like blocking access to the ocean floor, poisoning wildlife, etc..
Wrong, read even just the summary. The point of the whole thing is that in cold water that form of oil is basically just a rock.
Why are you afraid of an inert rock on the bottom of the ocean? It's not harming any wildlife. It's not doing anything. That is again the point of how that particular fuel behaves in cold waters. Not Gasoline. Not average barrels of crude oil SPECIFI
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm sorry that you can't follow basic facts, and instead look into the mirror to accuse others what you yourself is guilty of. You're just bowing out because you know you can't back it up.
Because the article doesn't call it "inert rock". It says:
In colder waters, experts say, the fuel does not break down but sinks in lumps that linger in sediments, threatening fragile ecosystems.
Clumps and "linger in sediments" doesn't imply "inert rock" that presumably doesn't actually mix with anything - it actually mixes into the sediments.
Who enforces it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with bans on international waters there is not a good way to enforce it. Looks good on paper in reality business as usual
It's a ban in US waters. A lot of ships have as an integral part of their business model, bringing imports into US waters, and taking exports out.
So as long as they never enter US waters - and it is incredibly easy to see who is burning bunker oil, then if you really want to burn shitty fuel, you are free to not enter US waters, and burn whatever you want.
And that's the weird thing - the US is not policing the earth - only what happens in it's sovereign waters. Why this became a US worldcop crime is k
Half of all ocean shipping just moves fossil fuel. (Score:2)
If we stopped shipping fossil fuel (coal, LNG, oil) by ocean freighters, we would cut global emissions of ocean shipping by half.
Then we could keep buying cheap stuff from China.
Re: (Score:1)
If we stopped shipping fossil fuel (coal, LNG, oil) by ocean freighters, we would cut global emissions of ocean shipping by half.
I see more than one way to stop shipping fossil fuels. One way is shifting energy use from fossil fuels to some alternative energy. Another way is nations produce more fossil fuels within their borders than having them imported. A third option is importing fuels by means other than ships. This can mean movement by rail, truck, or aircraft. We proved it possible to ship large quantities of coal by aircraft during the blockade of Berlin of 1948/1949 but that would be far from ideal.
People have been worki
More idiotic virtue signalling (Score:1)
People all over the world will read this and think something wonderful and planet-hugging is happening...
It just ain't so.
1. There's really no such thing as "international law" - it's really more of a wink-and-nudge set of diplomatic niceties countries agree to as long as it does not negatively affect them too much. There is no global authority with courts and judges and jails and police to enforce such laws (if they existed as formal documents passed by legislatures and signed into effect by an executive).
exhaust scrubbers? &unintentional consequences (Score:1)
out of curiosity, why not let them use the HFO, and force the scrubbing of exhausts to remove the damaging compounds?
I'd assume it's cheaper to scrub the exhaust versus replace the whole ship or reroute all transit to a longer route burning more fuel, increasing the environmental impact.