IMO emission control

The hot topic at the One Planet conference in Paris is how to reduce emission from shipping activities.
IMO has been trying to come up with solutions for years, but there are many hurdles to jump before the Paris Accord targets set by various shipping nations can be met:

One question is if US will actually withdraw from the Paris Accords in 2020 and if so, how will they square that with being member of IMO and MARPOL?

These shipping emissions requirements are unnecessary bullshit.

Compared to the emissions from power plants, industry, and automobiles, residences, not to mention volcanos, termite mounds, gas and oil seeps, and other natural emissions, the emissions from shipping are trivial.

Shipping emissions are also mostly widely spread out, so not major contributors to city smog.

I hope the US refuses to subject US domestic shipping to this IMO nonsense.


Facts and numbers to back up your claims?

1 Like

It’s not just particle emission that is being addressed in the Paris accords ans the IMO proposals, by CO2, SOX, NOX and other substances that affect both the global weather and local conditions.

To look at short term monetary gains for a single country, company or individual is VERY short sighted.
Your action (or lack of it) affects us all and is not limited to the nearest few days of smog in a localized area.

You may think it is bullshit, but the rest of the world (and a lot of Americans) don’t think so.

BTW It is not only emission from ships that is a problem for the air and the sea.
Plastic, PBCs, Heavy metals and other substances being introduced into the environment from numerous sources, incl. from ships, are as much of a problem:

Overpopulation is the number one environmental problem on planet earth. In comparison, all the other environmental problems are trivial symptoms of overpopulation. We should be focusing our time, money and efforts on population control.

Ignoring overpopulation and getting distracted by ship emissions is just pissing into the wind.

Clearcutting and burning in the Amazon is a much much bigger problem than ship emissions. The Amazon is the lungs of the planet. The stripping of land and the use of wood for open fires for cooking in the overpopulated third world is a much much much bigger problem. Every day in the overpopulated third world they have to walk a little further and strip more land for cooking wood.

I don’t have the figures at hand, but vast majority of the emissions in the US come from cars. The vast majority of the oil going to the sea in the US also comes from cars. Industry, infrastructure, and homes are next. One active volcano in Alaska puts out more emissions on a big day, than all the US ships in a year. Ship emissions are a trivial waste of time and money for us to focus on.


Shipping emission hit harder in Europe as lots of vessels close to the populations
It rains black in Singapore and the powerstations run on gas

Yes overpopulation is a problem for more things than pollution from cooking fires in the third world. In fact that may be the smallest problem.

Population concentration in big cities creates both local and global problems and the increased affluence of that population have a much bigger effect.

BTW; Each African, Chinese or Indian produce a lot less pollution than each American or European, but they are catching up.

When rain forest is cleared to produce beef for Big Macs in newly rich countries it have a double, if not triple effect;

  • Reduced forest cover reduces the CO2 absorption, even if the area is grass covered.
  • Cattles produce large amounts of methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
  • Runoff from grassing land pollute rivers, lakes and the sea with phosphate causing algae blooms and reef bleaching.

When the forest is cut and land cleared by burning, especially in areas with peat and/or brown coal, the immediate effect on local pollution and climate is drastical, but once replanted with Palm Oil the long term effect is less, except on the fauna and flora.

We can do little with natural oil seepage or volcanoes, but we can do something with man made pollution.

With a thousand ships within port limits at any time, all using their diesel generators for power supply and bearing in mind the small area that is Singapore territorial waters, the closeness of even more ships at anchor in adjacent Malaysian and Indonesian waters, plus the large number of ships passing through Singapore Strait every day, it is inevitable that there will be an effect on the local particle pollution.

When you add in the density of cars and the large number of refineries and petrochemical industry, it is amazing that the PSI Index stays in the good range most days. (Burning season in Indonesia exempted)

But the problem is not just particle pollution that affect local areas of high shipping traffic. The big picture the emission of greenhouse gasses that affects the world climate over time. That is what is being debated in Paris and at IMO, as well as particle, SOX and NOX emissions.ate

I’ve added a bit also.

Wonderful. Now we can stop wasting time worrying about trivial ship emissions, and let someone else focus on bovine methane recovery methods. This sounds like an application for cutting edge Norwegian technology.


Problem solved in Norway. (See the Anti-Jones Act thread)