In 2008, after twenty years of talks but very little action, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) finally agreed on sulphur standards that will significantly reduce the well-documented adverse health and environmental impacts of shipping.
The decision was unanimously adopted by 95 Parties to the IMO, including the 22 EU member states present, and it became legally binding when it entered into force on 1 July 2010.
In order to incorporate new IMO standards into EU law and to ensure their proper and harmonised enforcement by all EU member states, the European Commission proposed on 15 July 2011 legislation to revise the existing directive on the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels.
A group of European industry and shipowner organisations has strongly criticised the Commission's proposal, however, especially the 0.1 per cent sulphur standard that shall apply in designated Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), namely the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, from 2015.
Usually industry favours international agreements, especially when it comes to sectors of a global nature, such as shipping and aviation. This is due partly to a perceived need for harmonisation, but also because it normally takes decades to settle such agreements and the standards arrived at are often set at very low levels of ambition.
From this perspective, it would be logical for industry to embrace the IMO standards, rather than criticise them, and to welcome the Commission's proposal to ensure a harmonised enforcement. But instead these industry groups are calling on EU policy-makers to postpone or even ignore the IMO agreement.
Attempts to weaken the global IMO agreement would be in vain and would surely also seriously undermine the credibility of the EU and the member states in IMO and in any other international treaties. In July 2010, the European Commission's President Barroso rather politely stated to the complaining industry group that he "does not believe it is a realistic option to call into question the agreement that has been reached at international level."
The nature of shipping as an international business has been used as an excuse or manoeuvre to delay environmental action for too long, and it is not acceptable for the shipping industry to keep on transferring the cost of its pollution to society at large.
Several studies, including the Commission's cost-benefit analysis for the proposed directive, have demonstrated that reducing ship emissions would be cost-effective in itself, as well as economically profitable for society. Just implementing the SECA standard is estimated to save some 12,000 lives per year in 2015, rising to 16,000 lives per year in 2020. Clearly, as an absolute minimum, the IMO regulations must be fully implemented.
To ensure an organised gradual phase-in of low-sulphur fuels, to encourage the use of the best techniques, and to speed up the introduction of cleaner fuels and ships, the mandatory environmental standards need to be complemented by economic instruments, such as emission charges.
Moreover, the EU and its member states should follow the example of the United States and Canada and designate all sea areas around Europe (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North-East Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea) as "full" Emission Control Areas, i.e. covering all the major air pollutants (sulphur, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides).
Christer Ågren
Previous claims that reducing CO2 emissions would make new cars unaffordable are shown to be unfounded in a new report by Transport and Environment. Quite the opposite, cars have actually become cheaper while becoming more carbon-efficient.
The social cost of carbon – or marginal damage caused by an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions – has been estimated by a US government working group at US$21 in 2010. This is not a large number. It seems to suggest that we don't need to do much about climate change.
Economic analysis of the costs of air pollution damage to the United States shows that coal-fired power generation is under-regulated and incredibly costly.
Macro-economic factors have been the biggest influence on changes in greenhouse gas emissions in the EU over the past two decades. To achieve the needed reduction of 80-95 per cent by 2050 impact from policy must increase.
Between 80 and 90 per cent of the EU urban population is exposed to levels of harmful particulate matter (PM) exceeding the air quality guideline set by the World Health Organization, and more than 95 per cent is exposed to ozone exceeding this level.
GHG emissions from transport in the EU have increased by 27 per cent since 1990. Modest efficiency gains have been outpaced by growing demand.
In recent years the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has started to show signs of instability: ice shelves the size of European countries have broken off from coastal areas and glaciers have begun to accelerate into the ocean.
An insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system, is what we can expect if there is no radical change in the direction of policy, warned the International Energy Agency (IEA) when it launched the annual World Energy Outlook in November.
Questions and answers about the Kyoto Protocol by Climate Action Network Europe
The references documents for best available technique (BAT) for large combustion plants are under review. New issues like oil shale, firing of high-sulphur coal and greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and sulphur hexafluoride will be considered.