BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Calls Grow For Full Investigation Into VLSFO Fuel Causing Ship Incidents Around World

This article is more than 3 years old.

Leading environmental and marine worker groups are calling for a full and urgent investigation into a growing ship fuel controversy that is affecting 70% of major ocean-bound ships.

This follows a report on December 21, that revealed that an experimental fuel mixture was the reason for the unusual response to the Mauritius oil spill last year. This experimental new type of ship fuel, called Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil or VLSFO, was powering the giant Japanese Bulk Carrier, the Wakashio. Not only has VLSFO fuel been found to exceed critical ship engine safety parameters set by engine manufacturers, but reports from the German and Finnish Governments last year revealed that it released higher greenhouse gas emissions, not lower. VLSFO was nicknamed a super-pollutant ‘Frankenstein Fuel’ by environmental groups because of the blend of different chemicals in each mixture.

The ship fuel controversy came to light following the oil spill on Mauritius in the summer, and maritime experts are now considering this a leading root cause of the incident. The low-sulfur VLSFO ship fuel had been rushed into global shipping in January 2020 by the UN shipping regulator - the International Maritime Organization (IMO) - as a way to avoid criticism for the industry seeking to escape from the Paris Climate Agreement. Greenpeace has been calling for justice and a full investigation into the use of VLSFO on ships, as other ocean groups like Ocean Rebellion have called for oil suppliers to ‘come clean’ with what is in its oil.

Major environmental and labor organizations, such as the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), environmental groups such as the European Federation for Transport and Environment, the Clean Arctic Alliance, Ocean Conservancy, Pacific Environment have all claimed that the dangers and risks of low sulfur fuel were well known but that their concerns were ignored by the shipping industry, the oil industry and the international shipping regulator, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The world’s largest ship engine manufacturers such as Wärtsilä Marine Power, MAN Energy Solutions and providers of lubricants for ship engines, such as Chevron Marine Lubricants, all emphasized the importance of proper handling of these new low-sulfur fuels in order to meet ship engine manufacturer safety standards and safe ship operations.

In situations where this was not being done and poorly monitored, ship crews were essentially being asked to perform giant chemistry experiments in the middle of the ocean to try and get the fuel to work, causing significant risk to themselves and the environment. Industry analysis revealed that 6% of fuel samples taken were found to be off specification, meaning that 3600 ships could be at risk at any one moment. Industry analysts at last October CMA Shipping Conference saying these numbers were likely to be much higher.

Interviews with Government regulators around the world also reveals that no major Government is regularly sampling, testing or monitoring the VLSFO ship fuel now in use by 70% of ships around the world. This means the oil and shipping industry have worked together to put out experimental fuels that put the ocean, coastal communities and seafarers’ lives at risk, without any external oversight or safeguards, as the island of Mauritius discovered last August.

This ship fuel is now suspected to be behind a series of ship engine failures around the world, as industry reports reveal ship engine incidents have significantly increased since the introduction of VLSFO last year at the insistence of the Secretary General of the UN’s IMO, Kitack Lim.

The role of the UN shipping regulator, the IMO is central to how the VLSFO ship fuel controversy came about. However, on January 6 a spokesperson for the IMO continued to denied the risk of VLSFO, saying that it was “not aware of safety issues with VLSFO being reported” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary in trade publications and industry events. For example, Lloyd’s Register identified that investigations into critical components of ship engines, such as cylinder damage, doubled in 2020 compared to 2019 (revealed in the January 2021 edition of industry publication Marine Propulsion) and was largely attributed to the forced introduction of VLSFO fuel into ships around the world.

Experimental ship fuel puts lives at risk

The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) is one of the largest federation of unions in the world, representing workers in the transportation sector. While national-level unions can influence national Governments on fuel regulations and health and safety concerns, the ITF is able to raise concerns internationally and push for action with the United Nations, the IMO and other international bodies. Through this network of national unions around the world, the ITF represents the views of 20 million transportation workers in 147 countries in the seafaring, port, road, rail and aviation sectors. The ITF has taken a strong stance on worker safety and environmental issues, and have been closely following the VLSFO ship fuel issue.

General Secretary of the ITF Trade Union, Stephen Cotton, described how workers have been experiencing more frequent breakdowns with the use of low-sulfur fuels. “Since sulfur content was lowered in gas oil fuel, seafarers have experienced problems with breakdowns. The ITF has been vocal for many years about the workplace and environmental concerns we have with the use of ‘low-sulfur’ fuels.”

He expressed concern about the additional workload placed on crew, especially with the crew change crisis stretching ship crews during the coronavirus pandemic.  

“An increased frequency of breakdowns naturally puts an extra burden on crew to constantly change or overhaul pumps and replace engine equipment, which is often compounded by ships drifting without propulsion and the navigation challenges and dangers that this presents.”

The ITF went on to say that they were concerned about the health impact of chemicals being introduced onto ships that could pose additional safety risks for crews. “What we are most concerned about are the chemicals that are substituted or should be added to new blended fuels to replace the lubricating effect of sulfur. Many of these chemicals are in fact life-threatening and pose serious risks for crews that come in contact with or breathe them in. We also know that these kind of fuels also require higher pressures and temperatures, which pose an additional risk to seafarers’ safety.”

Insufficient and inadequate consultation over risks

Cotton also described the consultation with seafarers as insufficient prior to the introduction of low sulfur fuels. “Consultation with seafarers, their unions and the wider maritime industry about the potential risks of ‘low-sulfur’ fuels to humans, engines and the environment was insufficient.”

The ITF has called for fuels and technologies to be introduced into shipping that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and also ensures strong worker safety.

“It is well-known among seafarers, particularly engineers, that use of these fuels has been related to illnesses, disease, fire risk and pollution of the natural environment. It is imperative that as the industry work to develop fuels and technologies that lower emissions to address the climate crisis, that workers health and safety is given exactly the same priority as emissions reduction and environmental protection. The voice of workers therefore must be at the table.”

He went on to say, “short-term profit seems to be the driver behind the popularity of these controversial fuels, while proponents of their use have clearly been willing to ignore the long-term costs to our coastlines and the health of the people who operate ships. We strongly believe that the industry should be looking for solutions that protect the planet, reduce emissions and create safe jobs at the same time – that is in everyone’s interest.”

The United Nations has begun an investigation into the human rights implications of toxic chemicals carried on board ships, and have called for evidence to be submitted before the end of January.

Industry hiding true effects of VLSFO fuels

The European Federation for Transport and Environment is one of the most influential transportation and environment bodies working at the level of the EU.

Lucy Gilliam who works in aviation and shipping for Environment and Transport, expressed concerns about how difficult VLSFO fuels would be to clean up in the event of an oil spill. She explained there were several viable alternatives to achieve less polluting ship fuels, and repeated calls that the global shipping needed to be more transparent about what was in the new fuel blends being put into ships around the world.

“We are concerned about LSHFO [low-sulfur ship fuels] because these fuels appear similar to HFO [Heavy Fuel Oil] when spilled as we have seen with the Wakashio spill. The Wakashio disaster is a disaster because of the type of oil spilled. Clearly LSHFO is extremely difficult to clean up and toxic to environment just like HFO. It also appears that some LSHFO are similar or worse in terms of Black Carbon Emissions (a potent climate forcing particulate) when combusted. 

Shipping should switch to MGO (Marine Gas Oil). This fuel is currently not much more expensive then LSHFO (around 13% higher price according to my colleagues at the International Council on Clean Transportation). Charterers, cargo owners, public could demand industry use of Marine Gas Oil when carrying their cargoes. There is more then enough supply for all ships. 

As the Clean Arctic Alliance coalition, we raised concerns about new LSHFO fuel blends at the IMO’s pollution committee (PPR7) in February 2020. We publicly called for industry to be transparent about fuel characteristics and the environmental impact of new fuel blends.”

Shipping industry dragging heels on addressing ship pollution

Lucy Gilliam was particularly concerned about how the shipping industry has found almost any excuse to hold back progress to reduce ship pollution. She called for a full investigation into the risks of low sulfur fuel, without losing momentum for reform or allowing the shipping industry to delay further progress on this issue.

“While there are clearly issues to investigate [with low-sulfur fuels], this is not a reason to stop progress on removal of sulfur from fuels. There are cleaner safer fuels available with lower sulfur content (e.g., more distilled Marine Gas Oil) that are not much more expensive. There is cause to be alarmed about new fuel blends and how they perform when combusted or spilled. We need more transparency from fuel suppliers regarding fuel blends.” 

With concerns rising about the effect of these toxic fuel blends if spilled into the ocean, are current ship designs (e.g, single hulled vessels) are safe enough for the higher risks entailed with these new blended fuels, which are much more harmful than the fuels that existed before?

Serious environmental concerns

The Clean Arctic Alliance is a group of 21 of the world’s largest environmental organizations calling for cleaner fuels for shipping in the Arctic.

This group has repeatedly called for the heavier oils used in ships to be banned from the Arctic, as Arctic sea ice melts, opening up shipping route across the North Pole. The Clean Arctic Alliance were one of the first groups to identify VLSFOs as a ‘super-pollutant’ and a described these as ‘Frankenstein fuels’ based on the blends that were being used.

The UN regulator, the IMO, has delayed putting in place a rigorous ban of VLSFO in the Arctic, and has instead introduced a light measure that has been widely criticized by all major environmental groups.

Lead Advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, Dr Sian Prior, said “The Clean Arctic Alliance is concerned and disappointed about the use of VLSFOs in the Arctic since as blended fuels they are made from both heavy fuel oil and lighter fuels, and from the information that is available it appears likely that they will behave more like HFOs if spilt. It had been assumed that with the adoption of the 0.5% global sulfur standard that most ships would move to distillate fuel.

A recent summary report from Norwegian Research Organization SINTEF, published in August 2020, concludes that ‘the low sulfur (residual) fuel oils tested in this project indicate a high degree of persistence on the sea surface. The oils have high viscosities and/or high pour points. Therefore, an oil spill response operation can even be more challenging than the previous traditional intermediately fuels oils (e.g. IFO 180 or IFO 380), particularly in cold water spill situations. Accordingly, for oil spill responders it is crucial to get a better overview and knowledge of the variability in the weathering processes, fate and behavior and response capabilities of the new generation of low sulfur fuel oils.’ 

In addition when burnt, VLSFOs are expected to have similar and potentially worse (if the aromatic content is high) black carbon emissions which are significantly more damaging when emitted in the Arctic. Use of VLSFOs will not allow the use of an efficient particulate filter which would cut Black Carbon emissions by over 90%.”

Dr Prior believes that cleaner alternatives are available and feasible, saying, “a switch to distillate fuels or other cleaner fuels in the Arctic will eliminate the risks of a heavy fuel oil spill and reduce black carbon emissions (around 33 - 44% by switching to distillate alone, and by over 90% if an efficient particulate filter is used as well). Ultimately however all shipping must move away from its dependence on fossil fuels both in the Arctic and globally.”

Shipping still not decarbonizing

Madeline Rose from environmental NGO, Pacific Environment, has described VLSFO as ‘just heavy dirty fuel’ and called for the shipping industry to urgently decarbonize.

“Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil is still just dirty heavy fuel oil. However, by forcing shipping companies’ to reduce the sulfur content of their fuel oil, policymakers and the International Maritime Organization successfully prevented tens of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution.

The bigger story here is that the shipping industry needs to get off fossil fuels – period.

Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil rose in prominence because of a half-measure, piece-meal culture of regulating the global shipping industry. Policymakers in this instance were solving for one isolated environmental challenge: reducing Sulfur oxide emissions from ships that kill people and cause early onset asthma and other public health challenges.

A global Sulfur cap on fuel without a global ban on heavy fuel oil or other policies in place to force the shipping industry’s transition off fossil fuels created an environment in which Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil rose quickly in popularity.

Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil still carries significant oil spill risk, because it is still heavy fuel oil, and still emits greenhouse gas emissions, because it is fossil fuel. We need to build a world where ships do not run on fossil fuels – period.”

Governments not tracking VLSFO ship fuels

Major Governments around the world have revealed that they have not been actively monitoring whether VLSFO complies with safety standards.

In the case of the U.K. and the U.S., there are higher emission standards in place, meaning that vessels are not permitted to burn ship fuels in their waters that release more than 0.1% sulfur dioxide. However, for most other regions in the world, the IMO has set weaker pollution standards.

United States’ Emission Control Areas

A spokesperson for the United States Coast Guard said, “For the vast majority of U.S. ports, very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) containing 0.50% sulfur or less cannot be used. 

The U.S. has two emission control areas (ECAs), the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea ECAs, that encompass almost the entire U.S., including Hawaii, Alaska, and the Caribbean.  Fuel oil used in the two U.S. ECAs is required to be 0.10% or less sulfur, and is a more common product, known as marine gas oil (MGO).  That limit has been in place since January 1, 2015.”

United Kingdom not inspecting for fuel quality

The United Kingdom has higher emission standards than the IMO’s regulations, but only conducts inspections of vessels stopping in U.K. ports, not passing through its waters.

A spokesperson for the U.K.’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said, “The MCA routinely inspects vessels in UK ports for compliance with the requirements of MARPOL Annex VI which regulates for the production of Nitrogen and Sulfur Oxide emissions from vessels.

No Inspections are currently carried out on vessels exercising their right of innocent passage through UK waters.

The MCA do not inspect for fuel quality in excess of the requirements set out in the relevant regulations though we are closely following developments in the technologies being used to reduce the impact of shipping on the environment. For the majority of the waters around the UK the use of VLSFO with a Sulphur content of greater than 0.10% concentration is not permitted.”

So both the U.S. and the U.K. are not regularly testing the fuel of vessels that pass through their waters, and which could pose a significant risk to their coastlines in the event of an oil spill.

Australia not regularly testing VLSFO either

Ship safety authorities from Australia’s Maritime and Safety Authority confirmed that Australia is not regularly testing for VLSFO fuel in Australian waters either.

“AMSA does not regularly test for VLSFO fuel in Australian waters.

AMSA commissioned a pilot study in early 2020 where VLSFO samples were taken from ten vessels.  This pilot study occurred prior to the MV Wakashio incident.”

Toxic chemicals associated with VLSFO fuels have significantly increased

Ship engine manufacturers have noticed the rise in engine issues, and believe a leading cause for this is the mishandling of the additional chemicals and lubricants that need to accompany VLSFO ship fuel.

The world’s largest manufacturer of ship engines is Finland’s Wärtsilä Marine Power, which earns over $6 billion a year, and provides almost half the ship engines around the world.

Chief Expert for Engine Fluids at Wärtsilä Marine Power, Kai Juoperi, describes the instability issues of VLSFO ship fuels.

“What has been seen is mainly related to fuel treatment. Some VLSFOs have been unstable and have caused issues in separation and filtration when asphaltenes have precipitated out from solution and can caused excessive sludge formation and clogging of fuel separators and also clogging of fuel filters. If abnormal wear has taken place in power train engine components, that can be seen mainly only when scheduled engine overhauls are done and that action can take several years depending on yearly accumulated service hours of the installations in question.”

 This raises more serious questions for how ships are inspected. Ship inspections are very different from car and plane inspections. The use of offshore ‘flags of convenience’ has allowed for lower ship inspection standards to take place through the use of non profit organizations called ‘Classification Societies.’ This poses particular risks in the shipping industry, and is akin to the risks in the accountancy and consultancy business during the Enron scandal in 2001. At the time, U.S. regulators uncovered strong conflicts of interest between inspection and consulting arms of the same groups and forced a separation through a body of law known as the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This is precisely why the use of classification societies for ship inspections needs to be urgently reviewed in a coordinated manner by the G20.

Wärtsilä also believes there are viable alternatives to VLSFO.

“Alternatives for the VLSFO use are 1) the use of marine gas oil, i.e. distillate fuel, 2) install a scrubber and use High Sulfur Heavy Fuel Oil, 3) use of biofuels, either biodiesel or hydrotreated renewable diesel or 4) convert the engines to Dual-Fuel engines and use LNG.

Wärtsilä engines can be operated on all of these fuel types. But it is essential that fuels will fulfil existing standards and specifications in order to avoid operational issues regardless of which fuel type is in use.”

Use of scrubbers: safer and lower carbon dioxide emissions

One technology that has received particular attention has been the use of scrubbers. This is a piece of equipment that could cost up to $10 million, and can remove the sulfur emissions as it is being produced. This could end up being as high as a quarter of the value of a large, ocean-bound ship.

Director for Exhaust Treatment at Wärtsilä Marine Systems, Sigurd Jenssen, believes scrubbers are a viable and safe alternative to VLSFO fuel.

“Exhaust gas cleaning systems, or scrubbers, are a viable and effective alternative to using VLSFO, which have been successfully certified and implemented by the industry.

Scrubbers allow shipowners and operators to continue to burn heavy fuel oil and thereby cut their fuel costs, because of the price difference between heavy fuel oil and VLSFO. They also reduce the burden on crew, by removing the need to switch to more costly fuels when entering 0.1% sulfur Emissions Control Areas, which are more stringent than the global 0.5% sulfur cap. Instead, the exhaust gas cleaning system can be prepared and tuned for these stricter requirements if required.

We believe that this continuity can have a positive impact on both crew and engine. Clearly, less change in the engine room also has a positive impact on seafarer safety.”

Jenssen believes that scrubber technologies are more environmentally friendly than VLSFO as they reduce harmful greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) and reduce the risk of a harmful chemical VLSFO spill, which is often more toxic than a heavy fuel oil spill.

“We believe that scrubbers can provide a more environmentally friendly choice in the long term compared to VLSFO, and at a much lower risk. This is because they can effectively become a ‘platform’ for other emissions abatement technologies, particularly with innovations that are coming in the next decade, so investment in a good scrubber now can potentially unlock further emissions savings down the line.

Meanwhile, there is evidence that VLSFO is both more carbon intensive – because of the refining process – and can have poorer performance than heavy fuel oil. This makes scrubbers the sensible choice for owners and operators who wish to pursue assurance and continuity, while unlocking a cost reduction benefit.”

Problems identified in critical engine parts

Another major engine manufacturer is Germany-based MAN Energy Solutions, who employ almost 15,000 in over 20 countries. MAN Energy Solutions is a subsidiary of the German carmaker Volkswagen Group. The Danish part of the company was formed out of the Burmeister & Wain ship building company.

A spokesperson at MAN Energy Solutions confirmed that they had seen an increase in ship engine issues linked to faulty VLSFO fuels.

“We saw already in December 2019 – when the new low-sulfur oil began to be used – an increased wearing in the liners, both for our mechanically and electronically controlled engines. That is, scuffing, where you have accelerated wearing – metal against metal – between the piston ring and liner.

 This side-effect from the new low-sulfur oil was, however, fully expected.”

The German-based company went on to explain that certain critical components of a ship’s engine, such as piston rings, should be upgraded to prevent wear and tear caused by the abrasiveness of VLSFO ship fuels and associated chemicals. New types of materials, such as cermet, which is a mixture of ceramics and metal, should be used for piston rings.

“MAN Energy Solutions has prepared engine-customers for any complications that they may experience in the transition to the much less sulfurous bunker-oil. In September last year, MAN Energy Solutions issued guidelines where it, among other things, recommended the use of cermet-coated piston rings that have a harder surface and that ensure controlled wearing under the new conditions. MAN Energy Solutions is also recommending new requirements for cylinder-lubricating oil that can compensate for the reduced corrosion caused by the lower sulfur content in the fuel oil, and that maintains controlled wearing on the liners.”

Both MAN Energy Solutions and Wärtsilä provide regular safety updates, which they issue through Service Letters and which highlight ongoing issues with VLSFO fuels and associated chemicals on ship engines. 

IMO response: “We are not aware of any issues with VLSFO”

Despite this overwhelming body of evidence that VLSFO ship fuels are causing significant risks to ship engines, a spokesperson for the IMO has claimed that they were not aware of any issues associated with VLSFO ship fuels.

On January 6, as spokesperson said, “We are not aware of safety issues with VLSFO being reported by shipowners/operators/bunker suppliers/Member States during 2020.”

The spokesperson then went on to say that VLSFO fuels complies with IMO pollution standards.

However, the shipping industry is notorious for submitting only one in two reports into major shipping incidents, and most of these are into proximate causes, not the root causes of serious ship failure.

There are also concerns whether chemical spills associated with VLSFO fuel as seen with the Wakashio, would fall under oil spill legislation or hazardous substances legislation (such as the IMO’s Harmful and Noxious Substances Convention), creating more regulatory uncertainty in the event of a VLSFO spill with associated chemicals and lubricants.

Call for national regulators to step up

The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has said that mariners have been on the front lines of the introduction of this new type of fuel, and have been surprised with how slow regulators have been to act on mariner’s concerns. ITF Secretary General Stephen Cotton, said, “The industry was warned of the risks, and the engine failures are as expected. The ITF has been vocal for many years about the fact that new fuels like VLSFO use chemicals whose mechanical and environmental impacts are either unknown, or have proven to be damaging to human health or the environment. It is clear that this result was expected and that major players in the industry were warned of potential impacts. What has been surprising about this case is how slow regulators have been to act."

He went on to say, “As a global union federation made up of seafaring unions with over a million members, our duty is to ensure that every single seafarer’s health and safety is never compromised. The ITF will continue to remind everyone that there are humans at the center of this industry who have to handle these materials – we all have a responsibility to protect them from harm.”

Addressing the climate emergency and worker safety

Cotton also called for stronger action by Governments and the shipping industry to address the concerns of mariners. “The ITF continues to support strong action to address the climate emergency, including the necessary transformation of global supply chains including the global shipping industry to dramatically cut emissions in coming years. But the revelations surrounding VLSFO underscores the importance of meeting the climate challenge with solutions that don’t harm workers’ health nor poison our delicate ecosystems.”

 “We expect to see stronger regulations from governments and international bodies to ban the use of any offending chemicals and substitutes until safe alternatives can be found and rigorously tested. We will continue to be vigilant against any efforts by the industry to cut corners again and endanger either seafarers or our environment. We will continue to participate through our Maritime Safety Committee in the global forums, including at the IMO, to ensure that workers are front and center in discussions and decisions on alternative fuels or any other climate change solutions.”

“We have shown through the unfolding crew change crisis our commitment to partnering with industry, consumer goods giants, NGOs, governments and international bodies to address the collective challenges we face – our resolve for addressing the climate emergency is as unwavering.”

Call for greater transparency from fuel suppliers

The Clean Arctic Alliance have called from greater transparency from fuel suppliers. “In terms of what should happen now, we urgently need more data and transparency from fuel suppliers regarding VLSFOs. Ideally data on the likely spill response of VLSFOs and on the black carbon emissions associated with the use of these blended fuels should have been widely available ahead of these fuels coming onto the market.

In the Arctic, a ban on HFO is due to be adopted and take effect from mid-2024, but in reality will not reduce HFO (including VLSFOs) use in the Arctic until mid-2029. A switch to distillate in the Arctic is feasible with immediate effect. Already more than half of the ships operating in the Arctic are using distillate albeit smaller ships, and many of the larger vessels already alternate between HFO and distillate fuel use as they move from coastal waters of North America and Europe and the open sea. The fuel industry has advised that supply is not a problem. In 2021, the IMO should adopt a resolution calling on all ships to be moved to distillate or other cleaner fuels while operating in the Arctic.”

Fossil fuels are ‘unjust and immoral’

Madeline Rose from Pacific Environment has echoed these calls to place sustainability and safety at the center of shipping regulation. She calls for three concrete actions from regulators.

“1. Governments need to comprehensively regulate ship pollution at their own ports and in their own national waters. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has a critical role to play in formalizing global environmental standards and policies for the sector – but the IMO is a United Nations body and thus relies on the leadership of nations. National governments need to put the shipping industry on a serious zero-emission pathway – meaning zero climate emissions and zero air pollution emissions. Piecemeal regulations that solve for one environmental problem without considering unintended consequences continue to elevate bad interim fuel solutions.

2. Shipping companies should abandon Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) right now – and governments should stop all investment in LNG infrastructure. LNG is, right now, having nearly the exact same rise to prominence in the shipping industry as Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil had over the last decade. LNG is being pushed by fossil fuel companies and petro-states as a ‘bridge fuel’ to help shipping companies lower their carbon emissions. There are dozens of LNG vessels in the shipbuilding pipeline globally. But LNG ships leak methane and have higher overall life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than traditional fuel oil – so LNG fuels do not solve the shipping industry’s fundamental environmental challenges.

Shipping companies should just use Marine Gas Oil for now, which is only 13% more expensive than Heavy Fuel Oils, and demand that shipbuilders make 100% zero emission ships their next builds.

3. Shipping companies and regulators need to increase resourcing for safety and spill mitigation and social and environmental justice. Even if every ship on the planet ran on zero-emission hydrogen fuel cells tomorrow, there may still be some spill risks. The global response to the MV Wakashio Oil Spill this year in Mauritius has been absolutely lackluster. Pacific Environment was the only organization to even mention the spill during the November 2020 Marine Environmental Protection Committee – a 5 day virtual negotiation – lest center a Mauritius perspective in the talks. Where is the justice for victims of ship spills – oil or otherwise? Where is the urgency to prevent another spill ruining another marine ecosystem? Once again, communities least responsible for fossil fuel proliferation are bearing the brunt of their damaging effects.

It is unjust and immoral.”

Will the G20 intervene?

At the core of the ship fuel scandal is the question of how the global shipping industry is regulated. The Wakashio and the spike in ship safety incidents last year has highlighted that the current governance regime for global shipping is no longer fit for purpose.

An industry regulator that calls for the industry to break the Paris Agreement, as the IMO greenhouse gas emission talks achieved in November, no longer retains the moral authority to claim to be acting for the benefit of the planet, and certainly does not befit the use of the UN badge in its logo.

With the emergence of new global leadership from the United States and the roll out of coronavirus vaccines set to re-open the global economy, 2021 may also be the time for the world to make bolder choices for how some of the biggest industries on the planet are governed and are swiftly transitioning toward a low carbon future.

If the industry has been unwilling to reform itself, perhaps this is the time for a body such as the G20 to take a long, deep look at all aspects of how the global shipping industry is regulated and is functioning.

That may be the only way to ensure that global shipping becomes clean, safe and sustainable.