David Hughes, Business Times 2 Jan 08;
ABOUT a year ago, this column ventured the opinion that 'green' issues would be an increasingly important factor in shipping in 2007. It hardly took the powers of a clairvoyant to predict that.
And indeed, environmental issues have been prominent. The talk has largely been about emissions, though the year ended with a demonstration of what effect an old-fashioned, big crude oil spill can have on the environment and the politicians.
As South Korean officials have demonstrated, it is not only EU officials who need to be seen to be 'doing something' when the sticky stuff hits the beaches and fishing-based economies start to fall over.
The Hebei Spirit was involved in a particularly unlucky accident - you don't get much more unlucky than being hit while at anchor. Owners of single-hull tankers could rue the day a tow wire parted at the wrong moment, as South Korea now looks set to take a tough line on phasing out this class of ship.
But really, most of the arguments over tankers and oil pollution are finished. That is yesterday's battlefield. Today's is sulphur in fuel - and thus sulphur dioxide or SOX - in the atmosphere. But the big one is going to be about carbon dioxide or CO2.
The sulphur debate is now entering the end-game. A comprehensive study commissioned by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has been completed. The 'informal cross government/industry scientific group of experts' set up in July 2007 by the IMO secretary-general was tasked with reviewing the impact on the environment, human health and the shipping and petroleum industries, of applying any of the fuel options proposed to reduce SOX and particulate matter generated by shipping.
The study was basically prompted by the fierce debate that followed a proposal by tanker owners' group Intertanko to replace residual oil with distillate as the bunker for the entire world fleet.
The study was also asked to look at the consequential impact these fuel options could have on other emissions, including CO2 emissions from ships and refineries.
The group's report will be presented to IMO's subcommittee on bulk liquids and gases next month and to its marine environment protection committee in March/April.
At the moment, the recommendations of the study group are a remarkably well kept secret. After some leaks in the initial stages of the study, all involved have been exceedingly tight lipped about the group's progress. Even the most persistent journalists have found themselves up against a wall of silence.
So we will have to wait a couple of months before we know the next step on sulphur. I, however, would not lay odds on the Intertanko proposal being accepted in its original, uncompromising form. And if I had any shares in the manufacturers of emission abatement technology or 'scrubbers', I would not be selling them just yet. Incidentally, Singapore was among the countries that nominated experts to take part in the study.
Once the sulphur issue has been sorted, and that would probably be this year, the really difficult battles will start. For all sorts of reasons, CO2 is a much more difficult issue for the shipping industry. For a start, the philosophical approach of the Kyoto/Bali accord and discussions is very different from that of IMO. Kyoto acknowledges differences between the economic development of countries and makes allowances. IMO does not. It makes rules and expects everybody to keep to them.
There is also going to be massive debate over whether shipping is with the good guys or bad guys on CO2. Various figures have been produced but the overwhelming consensus is that shipping is by far the most CO2-efficient form of transport - push-bikes and trishaws probably excluded.
Logically, the best way to reduce global emissions from transport would be to move cargo and passengers from aeroplanes, lorries and trains to ships. There would be big reductions in CO2 that would be only modestly offset by increased production of ships.
In fact, shipping has already been put somewhat on the back foot by claims like 'shipping produces more CO2 than aviation' (it might do, just, but it carries something like 90 per cent of all international freight).
Over the next year, the shipping industry is going to have to become much more adept at putting its case on CO2 emissions. But that is not going to be easy. In this region, it is going to have to get used to the fact that while logs used to be the cargo that attracted the attention of the environmentalists, the new target will be palm oil tankers. To the extent that shipping is carrying palm oil, it will be seen as the enemy of the rainforests and, by implication, complicit in global warming.
There are going to be some difficult debates, but it is important that shipping fights its corner. In that context, it's good that the Asian Shipowners Forum now has a permanent secretariat. Green issues will dominate its 'in' tray.
