In a world where we’re bombarded with climate news, it’s easy to miss the ocean of emissions coming from maritime shipping. On this episode of Democracy on Fire, we’re taking a closer look at one of the biggest culprits: black carbon. Our guest from the International Council on Clean Transportation, lays down the facts about how the shipping industry is a major player in global greenhouse gas emissions, ranking sixth if it were a nation! Who knew those massive ships were such heavy hitters? The discussion takes a sharp turn when we dive into the implications of black carbon, a short-lived pollutant that packs a punch while it’s around. When it lands on snow and ice, it turns them into heat-absorbing sponges, accelerating the melting of our precious Arctic. He shares some jaw-dropping insights about the fuels ships are burning – primarily heavy fuel oil, which is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to cleanliness. Switching to cleaner alternatives could drastically reduce emissions, but here’s the kicker: the regulatory process is as slow as molasses. We talk about the International Maritime Organization’s role in this mess and why we need to rally together to push for cleaner, safer shipping practices. With the Arctic being ground zero for climate change, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Listen in as we explore actionable steps we can take, how individual voices can make waves in policy discussions, and why every bit of advocacy counts. The planet might be in a tough spot, but together, we can steer it toward clearer skies.

Takeaways:

• Every day, over 100,000 ships cross our oceans, transporting 90% of global trade, but few know the environmental cost.
• Maritime shipping is a significant contributor to climate pollution, with emissions comparable to those of international aviation.
• Black carbon, a pollutant emitted by ships, accelerates the melting of Arctic ice by absorbing heat when it settles on snow.
• Switching from heavy fuel oil to cleaner marine fuels could reduce black carbon emissions by about 80% on individual ships.

Links referenced in this episode:

• icct

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• International Council on Clean Transportation
• ICCT
• State University New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
• Rochester Institute of Technology
• International Maritime Organization
• European Union
• Clean Arctic Alliance
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Mentioned in this episode:

Andrea Garcia for Judge

The Riverside County Democratic Party proudly endorses Andrea Garcia for Superior Court Judge, Seat 10

Welcome to Democracy on Fire.

So glad you're here.

Every day, more than 100,000 merchant ships crisscross our oceans, carrying 90% of the world's trade.

We see them in port.

We rely on the goods they deliver.

But most of us have no idea what they're burning or what they're releasing into the atmosphere.

Today we're talking about maritime shipping's invisible but massive controversial contribution to the climate crisis.

And we're focusing on a particular threat that's accelerating the disappearance of ice, snow, and glaciers in the Arctic.

A pollutant called black carbon, or soot.

Think of it as the climate crisis speed demon.

Black carbon doesn't stick around long, but while it's in the air, it packs a wallop.

And when it lands on ice and snow, it makes them melt faster.

To help us understand what's happening and why it matters, I'm speaking with Brian Comer.

He's Director of the Marine Program at the International Council on Clean Transportation, or icct.

Brian is an internationally recognized expert on the design and implementation of policies to reduce climate and health impacts of shipping.

He specializes in translating ICCT's technical research into actionable policy recommendations that clean up the global shipping industry.

He holds a PhD in Environmental Science and Policy from the State University New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, as well as an Ms. And BS In Public Policy from Rochester Institute of Technology.

Brian, welcome to Democracy on Fire.

Thanks, Kay.

It's great to be here.

Let's start with the basics.

Most people don't really think of shipping when they think about climate pollution.

They think of cars, planes, factories.

But shipping is actually a huge emitter.

Can you give us a sense of the scale?

Shipping emits about a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year, and that's about the same as international aviation emits.

And if you were to rank shipping as if it were a country, it would be sixth on the list.

So it's actually quite a large contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the pollutants that maritime shipping emits emits is black carbon.

What is black carbon and why is it a problem?

Black carbon is the black, thick particles that you would see in exhaust.

And it's both a health hazard as air pollution, and then it's also a climate hazard, because when it settles on things like snow and ice, it absorbs heat from the sun, helps it melt faster, and then the resulting land or sea that's underneath that snow and ice then absorbs even more of the sun's energy.

And so it actually helps accelerate the climate problem that we already have.

Why, why is black carbon an issue?

It's because of what ships are using for their fuel, right?

They're burning residual fuels, the dirtiest transport fuels.

And what are residual fuels and why are they an issue?

Now, if you were to look at a barrel of oil, once you distill off all of the high quality fuels, everything that's left over at the bottom of the barrel is what ships are burning as a marine fuel.

And so we call this heavy fuel oil.

It's a problem not only from greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions, but also as a spill risk.

It's really hard to clean up in sensitive areas like the Arctic.

And so the use of this fuel, especially in places like the Arctic, is a major threat to the environment and to human health and to the climate more broadly.

And so the simple solution is cleaner fuels, right?

Indeed, cleaner fuels.

And there's fuels on the market today that ships can use that would emit less black carbon, pose even lower spill risk.

And you know, the issue right now is that shipping is allowed to use this cheap heavy fuel oil in combination with a technology called exhaust gas cleaning systems, maybe better known as scrubbers.

But otherwise you could just use distillate fuel called marine gas oil, and you would achieve emissions reductions and lower spill risk just through that change alone.

How much would emissions be reduced by switching to distillates if all the ships did switch?

On an individual ship basis, if you switch from heavy fuel oil over to distillate fuels, you could reduce black carbon emissions by about 80%.

We are just adopted the Northeast Atlantic Emission Control Area at the International Maritime Organization.

And as part of that, many ships will start switching over from heavy fuel oil to distillate fuels.

Some will continue to use heavy fuel oil in combination with scrubbers.

And some ships in that area already use distillate fuels because they have smaller engines that can't run this like heavy fuel oil.

But as a consequence, our modeling expects that we'll achieve a 36% reduction in black carbon emissions in this area, which includes areas like Greenland.

So it's close to the Arctic, it's major shipping lane, a lot of shipping traffic.

And so policies like this can actually provide a step in the right direction when we're trying to reduce air pollution emissions that has negative human health impacts.

And then also to reduce air pollution and black carbon emissions.

So ships are not the only source of black carbon.

Right.

There are other things contributing to black carbon emissions from wildfires and industrial activities, but shipping is a big part.

And part of the issue here is because of what's happening in the Arctic.

So why is the Arctic kind of ground zero for the climate crisis?

Yeah, when I first started working on the issue of black carbon, this was about 11 years ago.

The Arctic was warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, and then it was three times the rate.

And now today, we think the best estimate is that the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet.

And shipping traffic has increased in this area, and black carbon emissions have increased in this area.

And over that time period, about six years, black carbon emissions doubled, and it's only increased from there.

And ships are the only source that can actually be emitting black carbon directly in the Arctic Ocean, near the Arctic Sea ice.

And in some cases, while they're going through the sea ice with the assistance of icebreakers, or if they're icebreaker, if the ship itself is.

Has icebreaking capabilities.

So, yeah, it's a big problem.

It's a growing problem.

And, you know, we need to be using cleaner fuels in an ecosystem like the Arctic.

So it was recently reported that the extent of Arctic sea ice is at its lowest point ever.

And so as sea ice melts and retreats, it opens up shipping lanes.

And then we have more ships using those routes emitting more pollution into the air, and that's accelerating the melting.

Is that a.

A fair way to describe it?

It's a fair way to describe it.

And, you know, we can see the writing on the wall.

We know that shipping in this area is going to increase.

We know the problem of lower quality fuel emitting more black carbon.

And it's just because of the combustion process.

When you have lower quality fuels, you're not combusting all of the fuel and converting it all into carbon dioxide.

Some of the carbon in the fuel is remaining as these little black carbon particles.

And the harder the fuel is to burn, like heavy fuel oil, the more black carbon you're going to produce.

So we have a simple solution.

You know, we can use cleaner fuels as a first step, and we can even go farther.

If we were to finally bring shipping up to the rest of the transportation sector in terms of diesel particulate filters, which you need a cleaner fuel in order to enable that technology.

So we've done this on trucks for decades and there's really no reason why we can't apply this technology to ships as well.

How does black carbon's warming potential compare to other greenhouse gases?

You know, there's some debate about this, but we know that in general it's about, you know, at least a thousand times more potent of a warming impact.

And it depends on the timescale you're talking about.

And you mentioned in your intro that black carbon doesn't stick around very long.

So the longer the timeframe you look at this, the lower its impacts.

But while it's in the atmosphere, has a tremendous warming impact.

And after it settles on the snow and ice, it has a large impact as well.

And we've quantified the contribution of black carbon to shipping's total climate warming impact over a 20 year time horizon.

We've estimated that black carbon emissions from ships represents about one fifth of Shipping's climate warming impact.

So it's really quite substantial.

And it also affects the folks that live in the Arctic, indigenous people who are dependent on marine mammals that live on the ice.

And it's causing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, premature death, because residents are being exposed to black carbon, which is a component of particulate matter.

Can you comment further on the health effects?

It's not just affecting people in the Arctic.

It's, I assume black carbon is, is being felt throughout the globe and is causing health issues for many, many people.

Yeah.

Our research estimates that Shipping contributes to 36,000 premature deaths each year just from fine particulate matter pollution.

There's other pollution too that contributes to negative health impacts and premature death as well that we're not quantifying in this study.

But black carbon is one of the smallest components of particulate matter.

And so when you breathe it in, it's so small that it can actually cross into the bloodstream.

And the things that are stuck onto the outside of these little carbon particles, things like heavy metals that are carcinogenic, are also coming into your bloodstream.

So you would think that it would just be like a lung or respiratory issue to be breathing in this pollution, but actually it also contributes to cardiovascular problems.

So, you know, it's a big problem globally and, you know, everyone deserves to clean, to breathe cleaner air.

And even if you live in the Arctic, believe it or not, and you know, there are some policy discussions about, well, we shouldn't really put additional protections in this area there's not that many people that live there.

Well, everyone deserves to breathe cleaner air.

So let's talk about the regulatory regime.

I mean, how does any of this get addressed?

We know it's a problem.

It's happening in areas, in some cases beyond national jurisdictions, out in the open ocean, beyond where Internet or where national laws are in effect.

But we have this body called the International Maritime Organization, which regulates international shipping through treaties.

And so it tries to do everything by consensus, which is really a long, slow process as we've seen.

But what's the current state of the imo?

The International Maritime Organization's attempts to regulate black carbon or reduce black carbon emissions?

Yeah, the, the IMO is unique in the fact that whatever regulations we do eventually agree to are legally binding under this international treaty.

So that is a real strong suit.

The issue, as you mentioned, is that the body tries to work through consensus.

It doesn't have to be unanimous, but really they try and bring everybody along, especially the countries that are impacted by, by the policy.

And so, you know, the process can be long.

But there have been some steps at the International Maritime Organization that have the effect of reducing black carbon emissions in the Arctic.

But these are really half measures, if, if you can even call them a half measure.

But there are exemptions and waivers to this policy that give a five year delay to implementation for almost all of the ships that are operating in there.

So in the first iteration of this policy, the Arctic heavy fuel oil ban, really heavy fuel oil is not being banned and black carbon emissions are only being reduced by like 5%.

According to our estimates.

But we really need to drive that down even farther.

And the IMO's definition of the Arctic is very odd.

So if you were to actually look the line of the Arctic, according to the International Maritime Organization, it excludes the coast of Norway, it excludes all of the waters around Iceland.

And so it's not this like, neat circle in Antarctica.

We define the Antarctic as below 60 degrees south.

In the Arctic we it's above 60 degrees north, except for this area.

So there's, as you can imagine, a ton of shipping traffic.

It's being excluded.

Probably you could get three times or maybe even four times the, the regulatory coverage.

If you were to properly define the Arctic region.

So we have this HFO ban and then there are, there's a resolution to voluntarily switch to distillate fuels in the Arctic.

But, but, you know, voluntary doesn't really mean much.

And there is a proposal that was put forward back in February at a subcommittee of the IMO called Pollution Prevention and Response by four member states that seeks to compel a switch to distillate fuels or other cleaner fuels in the Arctic and also to, ideally to broaden the geographic coverage beyond just this really narrow definition of the Arctic at the imo, to expand that to be more effective.

So that's the next policy proposal.

The process at IMO though, is, is quite slow.

And so it's still stuck in the subcommittee.

And then it'll debated there, it'll go to the committee at some point, it'll be debated there, maybe we'll agree to something later.

And then there's a kind of two year delay process between when IMO decides, yes, we'll do it and before it becomes implementable or in effect.

So we have a long way to go.

But you know, at least there, there are some proposals on the table.

Who's objecting?

I mean, is it industry objections that are preventing this from going forward?

It's been on the agenda in some form or another for more than 15 years that it's been known to be a problem.

And various things have been, you know, considered or put forward and the voluntary measures that you just alluded to.

But why isn't this happening, given the seriousness of the issue?

The, the IMO set up this long process to work on black carbon.

So it was this three step process to first, we better have an IMO definition of black carbon, then we better agree on how we can measure it based on that definition.

And then, okay, now that we know that, how can we control it?

And we've meticulously gone through each of those three steps.

We've done it, we've completed it.

But still, somehow there's not enough information.

The science isn't settled.

The big problem and the elephant in the room is Russia, which controls a large portion of the Arctic.

They are responsible for about 50% of black carbon emissions in the Arctic.

Ships that are flying their flag.

And so, you know, having Russia on board is going to be crucial for getting any sort of IMO agreement done, one that can be enforced and one that can be effective.

And so, you know, that's one of the major stumbling blocks that we face.

There's been some encouraging progress when this issue was first Very first brought on the table, which was something like 15 years ago.

This was even before I started working on the issue.

It was brought to, brought forward by a couple of IMO member states, including Norway.

And then it kind of the mantle was really taken up by the environmental NGOs that participate in the IMO process.

And the member states weren't so interested in really championing the issue or making sure that it moved through the process.

It was really the NGOs including a group now under the, under the umbrella of the Clean Arctic alliance that has been moving this issue forward.

But in February we had four member states at the IMO that took up this issue as a champion and put forward a concrete proposal on how to make progress on black carbon and its impacts on the Arctic.

That's really encouraging.

The European Union in the next week or two is going to start a new process to consider if and how to include black carbon in its shifting climate regulations, including something called fuel EU maritime, which regulates the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels that are used on voyages that connect to Europe.

The last thing is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is going to be considering methods for dealing with short lived climate pollutants, including black carbon, in a special report to come out next year.

And whenever the IPCC focuses on something, it gives us some additional opportunities to raise the issue and in policy venues, including the International Maritime Organization.

So some recent acceleration in the interest on black carbon, some recognition that the climate crisis is worsening, that yes, we need to focus on the things that we can do immediately to give us some relief.

And that includes reducing short lived climate pollutants like black carbon.

Is there a way that individual people can influence this debate or accelerate the action that is pending?

One is to support the organizations that are engaged directly in the policy process at the IMO and in the European Union.

And this includes the nonprofit organizations that are operating under the umbrella the Clean Arctic Alliance.

So they do some great work.

The other thing is that, you know, you can, you can support political candidates that care about the climate, that care about the environment, that care about people and that care about people's health.

And you know, the decisions that are being made at the International Maritime Organization are being driven by governments.

So if you're in Europe, support politicians that hold, you know, hold your values dear.

We can do the same in North America.

And we really need stronger leadership from governments.

And that really reflects the values and the priorities of the individual member states administrations that are in power.

Brian, I want to thank you so much for explaining the situation and sharing your expertise and your information.

The Arctic doesn't belong to any one nation, but what happens there does affect all of us because it is one of the areas that is affecting climate change throughout the globe and particularly rising sea levels are going to be an increasing issue.

And for people who want to learn more about ICCT's work and the excellent work that Brian has been doing on shipping emissions, you'll be able to find links at our website on United America Network.

So thank you again, Brian.

So glad to have you here.

Thanks Kay.

It was a real pleasure.

This is Democracy on Fire.

Thanks for listening, liking and sharing.

Democracy on Fire with K. Brown is edited and produced by Sam Page Executive Producer Joy Silver and is a production of the United America Network.