Time is running out for the IMO to take climate action. While waiting for it to come to its senses, ambitious states should put aside any squeamishness about national and regional action that targets foreign ships and start designing measures that can be applied to all ships visiting their ports
Civil society groups have lambasted the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for failing to take action on the Arctic climate crisis, after plans to reduce black carbon emissions from shipping in the Arctic were bumped off the agenda of its Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting (MEPC 76), which ended today.
Scrubbers turn an air pollution problem into an ocean pollution problem. How does that work?
“The disaster that I am living is a disaster that is personal to me, but it is also personal to each and everyone of us and especially to the planet. We in the Arctic are convinced that the Arctic is clearly in crisis and the change is happening rapidly, beyond comparison in human history or in our indigenous knowledge.”
If shipping was a country it would be the 6th biggest emitter of CO2.
The IMO’s Arctic HFO Regulation will not protect the Arctic for nearly a decade.
Waivers will undermine the International Maritime Organization’s Arctic heavy fuel oil ban.
An online event to mark World Ocean Day and, ahead of the International Maritime Organization’s MEPC 76 meeting.
Devices installed onboard ships to reduce sulfur oxide emissions, allowing ships to burn dirty, less-expensive fuels, like heavy fuel oil. Pollutants scrubbed from the engine exhaust gas are redirected into the ocean where they can potentially harm wildlife and people.
This document comments on the outcome of PPR 8 on Black Carbon (BC) and on two options to reduce ship BC emissions other than an immediate switch to distillates in the Arctic – through universal marine engine standards and limiting the aromatic content in marine fuels – and identifies some possible challenges that will need to be addressed