Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) applauds the historic request by the U.S. government to protect millions of Americans from deadly global shipping pollution generated by large ocean-going ships. During a noon news conference today at Port Newark, New Jersey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced that the U.S. government applied to designate U.S. coastal waters as "Emission Control Areas" under international law.
An Emission Control Area, or ECA, would provide the strongest clean air standards available under international law. It would dramatically improve fuel quality and reduce smog-forming oxides of nitrogen for all ocean-going ships in the exclusive economic zone of the United States, an area that typically extends about 200 nautical miles from the coast. In 2002, ocean-going ships were responsible for about 7,300 tons of smog-forming oxides of nitrogen (NOx) pollution at the New York/New Jersey ports, comparable to the NOx emissions from 7.8 million of today's cars.
"Ships are floating smokestacks that deliver soot and smog straight to the heart of our most crowded coastal cities, home to 87 million Americans," said Andy Darrell, vice president of Living Cities at EDF, who attended today's announcement. "With emissions control areas, these tens of millions of Americans will see ship pollution drop by as much as 96 percent by 2015."
Earlier today, EDF released a new report showing that the container ships, tankers and other large sea-going vessels that dock at more than 100 U.S. port cities burn low grade "residual fuel" or "bunker fuel" that is a major source of air pollution. More than 87 million Americans live in ports and coastal communities that fail to meet basic federal health standards for ground-level ozone and particulate pollution, according to EDF's report, "Protecting American Health from Global Shipping Pollution: Establishing An Emission Control Area in U.S. Waters". The residual fuel contains sulfur levels 1,800 times greater than U.S. law allows for other diesel engines.
EPA estimates that in 2001, ocean-going ships in the U.S. emitted:
* as much oxides of nitrogen (NOx, a key ingredient of ozone smog) as put out by 94 coal-fired power plants (an estimated 745,000 tons).
* as much particulate pollution (sometimes called soot) as is emitted from 117 coal-fired power plants (more than 54,000 tons).
* 40 percent of all mobile source sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions.
A recent study by two leading researchers on shipping pollution, Corbett and Winebrake, shows shipping-related particulate matter emissions contribute to approximately 60,000 global deaths annually, with impacts concentrated in coastal regions on major trade routes.
The United States submitted its application -- asking for the most rigorous clean air standards authorized under international law to apply to ocean-going ships calling on U.S. ports -- to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and will make its case at the July 2009 meeting of the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee. Government officials estimate that foreign-flagged vessels make up 90 percent of the ship calls on U.S. ports.
The EPA estimates that some 87 million Americans live in port areas that do not meet basic federal public health standards for ground-level ozone and particulate pollution. Fortunately, a pivotal opportunity is on deck to achieve significant reductions in the pollution from ocean-going ships. With U.S. leadership in requesting the establishment of an Emission Control Area, and IMO approval, the nation will be sailing more smoothly towards healthier air.
Like most news reported by the media, facts can be skewed. Bias in news worthy stories is inevitable and should be expected. This is why thinking for yourself and doing your own research is important.
The Chicago Tribune recently did an article about BP. The same themed story was ran by the News-Sentinel as well, but the outcome of each article are quite different.
This is what all the fuss is about. "BP received permission from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be exempt from environmental laws that cap the amount of toxins into the lake. It will be allowed to include in its daily discharges into the lake 54 percent more ammonia (above the current 1,584 pounds) and 35 percent more sludge (above the current 4,925 pounds)."
"The exemption will allow the refinery to continue with a planned $3.8 billion expansion that will allow it to handle heavy crude oil from Canada, which requires more extensive processing."
"The oil we get from Canada will be oil we don't need to get from the Mideast."
The good and the bad about this can be weighed and viewed on many different levels. There are always two sides to every story. The environmental implications are quite clear, but who is to judge the environment against the cost of oil to citizens and the dependence on countries who are not necessarily trustworthy.
The Chicago Tribune seemingly left out the part of this deal with Canada. Their implications were purely shedding light on the fact that this allowance for toxins to be dumped into the lake is bad for the environment. Folks, this is a Catch 22 clearly, debatable for many reasons. It's important whether you agree or disagree to always give all components of the story. Without understand the facts you are depriving yourself of valuable information. Sludge waste is NOT being dumped into the Michigan Lakes as the Chicago Tribune will lead you to believe. Emissions aren't as low as we would like and there is excessive silt being dumped into the lakes.
I do not agree with putting more ammonia in the air and I do not agree with allowing more pollution in any body of water. I do however see the debate and am happy that I do not have to make these types of decisions. One can only hope that a fair compromise can be made.
I mean do we really want to continue to depend on the Middle East to supply oil to our country? No, of course not. Do we want Michigan's lakes to be polluted? No, of course not. Fighting about this will not solve the problem, everyone needs to stop being catty and sit down to figure out other possible solutions.
Reducing emissions is something BP is striving to do as are many other companies in our nation. It's one thing in a pile of things that needs to be taken care of and checked off the metaphorical list. If you would like to learn more about BP you can read their fact sheet click through to the BP Whiting Refinery Fact Sheet.
