SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
shipping industry
Polluters Must Pay: A Shipping Levy for Climate Justice
It is time to hold global shipping corporations accountable for burning heavy fuel oils and putting profits before the well-being of people and the planet.
Mar 28, 2025
In April, the International Maritime Organization has a critical opportunity to put shipping on a path toward real climate action. A levy on shipping emissions would not only hold major polluters accountable but also generate billions in funding to support a just transition—one that helps vulnerable nations, accelerates zero-emission fuel production, and breaks shipping’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Adeboye Joseph Oluwadamilare, a Nigerian climate advocate who called for a levy at last year’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting, said, “If we don’t act now, climate change could cost the global economy $38 trillion every year.”
If the levy is adopted, the revenues could be used to support the most vulnerable countries towards transitioning their shipping fleets and port infrastructure to zero-emission technologies. It would rightly force the biggest polluters to pay the true cost to our planet and health to continue to pollute and would set the industry on a path to a just and equitable transition.
While some in the shipping industry may resist the financial burden of upgrading fleets, the alternative—a world plagued by climate-fueled disasters, serious threats to public health, and economic instability—is far worse.
Top shipping companies like Maersk and CMA CGM have made billions of dollars in revenues over this past year—more than $100 billion combined in 2024. Both companies have taken steps to transition their fleets to zero emissions but not on pace to meet the timeline of the Paris agreement or the IMO’s own 2023 greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Nicole Morson, a climate activist from Dominica, also pushed for a levy of $150 per metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions last year in London. She told The Wall Street Journal that the push for the tax is “a movement of the climate underdogs.”
It is time to hold global shipping corporations accountable for burning heavy fuel oils and putting profits before the well-being of people and the planet. The majority of Americans recognize that global warming is happening; a recent study from Yale and George Mason University found that 73% of Americans recognize that global warming is happening, including 60% who say that it is caused mostly by human activities. The good news is that the cost of clean shipping is negligible—one study shows that using e-fuels adds just 8 cents to a pair of Nikes.
As the world’s shipping regulator, it is time that the International Maritime Organization take action to adopt a levy to hold the sector accountable. Olumide Idowu, another climate activist from Nigeria and known as “Mr. Climate,” said: “One of the best ways to clean up shipping and avoid huge climate bills is by pricing its emissions. A global levy on shipping emissions will help get ships off faster off fossil fuels while generating finance worth billions of dollars to upgrade shipping to zero emissions and make the sector more resilient, especially in the most vulnerable and developing countries.”
Revenue could also be used to reward the needed production of zero-emission fuels and required infrastructure upgrades in climate vulnerable countries. The World Bank estimates that around $60 billion could be generated annually, based on a price of $100 per metric ton per greenhouse gas emissions. It would be a drop in the bucket for the industry but would help accelerate shipping decarbonization around the world and in the most vulnerable countries.
The cost of inaction is far greater than the price of transition. Climate change threatens global supply chains, coastal infrastructure, and economies, with damages projected to reach trillions of dollars annually. While some in the shipping industry may resist the financial burden of upgrading fleets, the alternative—a world plagued by climate-fueled disasters, serious threats to public health, and economic instability—is far worse. The IMO must decide: Will it lead the industry toward a sustainable future, or allow shipping’s biggest polluters to keep passing the costs of their pollution onto the most vulnerable?
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Scrub Sad Facts Away': The Yes Men Target LNG Greenwashing With New Satirical Ad
"We are hoping Maritime Executive's readership are reminded that investing in a fuel that will expedite the rapid decline of life on the planet is not a good look (or a good investment)," one spokesperson said.
Feb 28, 2025
When readers of The Maritime Executive peruse the magazine's latest issue on Friday, they will be in for a surprise.
Page 15 of the magazine displays an ad for GreenCurrent Group, which bills itself as a "full service communications and marketing agency specializing in supporting commercial maritime operators and energy providers investing in LNG [liquefied natural gas]—the most exciting and misunderstood marine fuel."
But when curious maritime or energy executives follow the QR code at the bottom-right corner of the ad, they will discover that no such company exists. Instead, they will be directed to a satirical video commercial for "Scrubby Greenwash," a giant anthropomorphic green sponge that promises to "scrub, scrub, scrub sad facts away."
The false ad and video are the latest hijinks from underground activist collective The Yes Men, who have used humor and pranks to target corporate wrong-doing since 1996.
"We are hoping Maritime Executive's readership are reminded that investing in a fuel that will expedite the rapid decline of life on the planet is not a good look (or a good investment)," The Yes Men's Natalie Whiteman told Common Dreams.
The Yes Men first made waves more than three decades ago with a mock World Trade Organization website that got taken seriously enough to win them an invitation to a real-world conference. Since then, they have used creative deceptions to call attention to various social, economic, and political issues from high drug prices to lack of accountability for the Bhopal disaster.
"We need industry leaders, energy producers, and all players across the supply chain to reject LNG as a climate solution."
Many of their past actions have targeted fossil fuel companies and raised awareness about environmental issues such as the climate emergency and corporate greenwashing. Over the past year, they have begun campaigning around LNG specifically.
"We've always been in favor of generally keeping living things still alive, and methane is going to make all of that not happen much faster," Whiteman said. "We thought hey, that's not cool at all."
"LNG is a massive issue," Whiteman continued. "and the industry is pouring enormous resources into convincing the public that LNG is a green fuel when in fact LNG is methane, with a warming capacity 80 times more powerful than CO2, that leaks across practically every step of the supply chain."
To tackle this issue, the group has taken Scrubby Greenwash on tour to major cities around the world.
How did they come up with the character?
"Greenwashing is the process of scrubbing inconvenient facts and science away to protect the reputation of a company," Whiteman explained. "It's a process of sanitizing their image with marketing, and so a delirious looking slimy sponge seems like the sensible choice."
Whiteman said that Scrubby was "building up a rabid fanbase all over the world" while "targeted companies don't seem nearly grateful enough for the services he provides in protecting their image."
The group also crashed the World LNG Summit in Berlin in December under the guise of a Royal Caribbean executive. They managed to hold a few one-on-one meetings and earn a panel invitation before being found out, in an adventure that will be fully shared in a documentary to be released next year.
Their focus on LNG parallels the work of more traditional climate activists, who have been sounding the alarm about its planet-warming potential and urging governments to curb the buildout of new LNG infrastructure.
However, following the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, there has been backsliding on the regulatory end, with Trump declaring an energy emergency to stimulate more fossil fuel extraction and lifting a Biden-era pause on new LNG export approvals. On Wednesday, the European Union also announced a plan to fund new LNG exports, which was interpreted by some as a concession to Trump's pro-fossil fuel agenda.
The Yes Men's latest fake ad targets not governments, but shipping and LNG companies directly.
The false ad placed by The Yes Men in The Maritime Executive.
In the video ad, a table of men in suits sit around a table in "liquefied natural gas headquarters" as a news item announces, "A new investigation has revealed that cruise liners powered by liquefied natural gas produce more global warming than those powered by regular marine fuel. That's because methane leaks at every point in the supply chain, and gas traps 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide."
The newscaster continues, "That's bad news for everyone, but especially for the luxury cruise lines, like Royal Caribbean, which have been marketing themselves as green," at which point the camera pans over to a Royal Caribbean representative in a captain's uniform. "If the industry doesn't act fast, this information could hurt their bottom line."
It's at this point that the executives pick up the phone to call in the assistance of Scrubby, who comes bursting through a brick wall Kool-Aid style.
Whiteman said The Yes Men chose to target Maritime Executive and Royal Caribbean in particular because "the trade media is complicit in propagating the greenwashing that protects LNG's false reputation as a clean fuel. And the fact that Royal Caribbean is marketing their LNG-powered mega ships as sustainable is a criminal untruth, when they could be investing in zero-emissions alternatives or other efficiency measures.'
Ultimately, Whiteman told Common Dreams, "We need industry leaders, energy producers, and all players across the supply chain to reject LNG as a climate solution. It has proven to be anything but."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Is Waging an Illegal War for Faster Shipping
Even as the Biden administration and Congress move forward with military solutions, there are alternatives to addressing the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping, namely, negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza.
Apr 04, 2024
The United States is waging an illegal war in Yemen, where major shipping routes along the country’s coastlines have been disrupted by ongoing violence in the region.
Despite widespread understanding in Washington that U.S. military operations in Yemen violate U.S. law, U.S. officials continue to insist that they must continue their military campaign, which they say is necessary to saving time and money on commercial shipping through the Middle East.
“The U.S. economy relies on open sea lanes,” U.S. General Michael Kurilla, the commander of U.S. Central Command, said at a March 7 Senate hearing, after being asked about the growing U.S. military presence in the Red Sea. “By our national security strategy, we will not allow a state or non-state actor to affect the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al Mandeb, or the Suez Canal.”
Although some of the Houthis’ attacks have caused casualties, the major concern in Washington has been the implications for the global economy.
Since January 11, the United States has been directing airstrikes and other military operations in Yemen. U.S. military forces have been targeting the Houthis, a militant group that has been launching missiles and other attacks against commercial vessels in the Red Sea, Bab al Mandeb, and Gulf of Aden.
For months, the Houthis’ attacks have disrupted commercial shipping. The Houthis have insisted that they will continue their attacks until Israel ends it military offensive in Gaza.
Although some of the Houthis’ attacks have caused casualties, the major concern in Washington has been the implications for the global economy. As U.S. officials have repeatedly noted, as much as 15% of global trade passes through the Red Sea, including 12% of the sea-based oil trade.
“The reason it’s so important there is this,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken explained earlier this year. “15% of commercial traffic is going through that strait every single day.” That includes “30% of the world’s container ships.”
Of particular concern to U.S. officials is the Bab al Mandeb, a narrow strait along the southwestern coast of Yemen that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. An estimated 8.8 million barrels of oil are shipped through the strait every day, making it one of the world’s “strategic chokepoints,” as Gen. Kurilla described it.
Although the White House has insisted that President Joe Biden has the legal authority to take military action against the Houthis, several members of Congress have refuted its claims. At a Senate hearing in February, several senators called attention to the War Powers Resolution, which establishes that the president cannot continue hostilities for longer than 60 days without approval from Congress.
Regardless, Congress has failed to act, even now that the deadline has passed. March 12, the day that the White House was required to cease its military operations, “came, and went, in public silence,” as The Associated Press reported.
Even as the Biden administration and Congress move forward with an illegal war, there are alternatives to addressing the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping.
As some U.S. officials have acknowledged, the ideal and perhaps most obvious alternative would be to achieve a cease-fire in Gaza. After all, the Houthis continue to insist that they will not end their attacks until Israel ends its siege of Gaza.
“I am very keen to see that there is a cease-fire in Gaza,” U.S. Special Envoy to Yemen Timothy Lenderking said during a March 29 appearance on “Washington Journal.” “I do believe that we can use that moment to deescalate some of these other crises, including the Red Sea. We must get to that moment.”
Absent a cease-fire, however, it remains possible for commercial ships to circumvent the Middle East. Data compiled by the International Monetary Fund indicates that maritime trade is being redirected around Africa. In other words, commercial ships are taking advantage of other options for reaching their destinations.
The Biden administration has opposed both approaches, however. Not only has the administration continued to support Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, despite its acknowledgment of the worsening “humanitarian catastrophe,” as Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described it, but the administration remains unwilling to tolerate the longer shipping times that are associated with the route around Africa.
“If you’re talking oil that comes through, we’re seeing a diversion of that,” Gen. Kurilla said at the March 7 Senate hearing. “It goes around the Cape of Good Hope. What that’s going to do is bring products late to market and price increases as well.”
Indeed, the priority of U.S. officials is to keep the Red Sea open for shipping. Their determination to maintain faster shipping is leading them to move forward with a war in Yemen that they know is illegal, even as they come to recognize more sensible options.
The first step in getting to a “just settlement” in Yemen “is the cease-fire in Gaza,” Lenderking said. “I think we can use that diplomatically to deescalate the situation in the Red Sea.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Container Ship That Destroyed Baltimore Bridge Has Troubled History
The Maersk-chartered MV Dali—which lost propulsion just before the collision—not only was involved in a previous crash, but was also briefly detained last year over problems with its propulsion system.
Mar 26, 2024
The mega-container ship that lost propulsion before toppling Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge in a Tuesday morning collision was involved in a previous crash, and was cited last year for propulsion-related problems.
Newsweek reported that the Maersk Line Limited-chartered MV Dali—which crashed into the Interstate 695 Patapsco River crossing just before 1:30 am, causing the span to collapse and sending a construction crew into the water—collided with a wall in the harbor at Antwerp, Belgium in 2016. The accident, which was reported by Vessel Finder and other outlets at the time, was attributed to errors made by the ship's master and pilot.
The 9-year-old Dali was also detained by port officials in San Antonio, Chile last June after inspectors discovered a problem related to the vessel's "propulsion and auxiliary machinery," according to The Washington Post, which cited records from the intergovernmental shipping regulator Tokyo MOU.
The ship's owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and operator, Synergy Marine, "have been sued at least four times in U.S. federal court on allegations of negligence and other claims tied to worker injuries on other ships owned and operated by the Singapore-based companies," according to The Associated Press.
Maersk was also sanctioned last year by the U.S. Labor Department for allegedly stopping employees from reporting safety concerns, documents published by The Lever revealed.
According to a July 14, 2023 Labor Department letter to Maersk regarding an Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation, the Danish company "suspended and then terminated" a worker "in retaliation for reporting unsafe conditions and contacting the U.S. Coast Guard."
The fired employee "engaged in numerous protected activities" including reporting a leak and the need for repairs to a ship's cargo hold bilge system, alcohol use aboard the vessel by crew members, and inoperable equipment including an emergency fire pump and lifeboat block and releasing gear.
The search for six construction workers who were on the bridge when it collapsed into the river was suspended until Wednesday, according to The Associated Press. The workers are presumed dead by their employer, Brawner Builders. Local media reported that multiple vehicles plunged into the river and that two workers—one of whom was briefly hospitalized—were rescued from the water.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ocean Defenders Decry 'Total Failure' of Global Shipping Agreement to Meet Paris Climate Goal
"There is no excuse for this wish-and-a-prayer agreement," said one activist.
Jul 07, 2023
As the world's seafaring nations failed to agree on any absolute emission reduction targets during this week's Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting in London, civil society groups warned Friday that the draft deal reached by 175 nations is insufficient to achieve the Paris climate agreement's preferred 1.5°C planetary warming limit.
In a tentative agreement reached at the tail end of the 80th Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting (MEPC80), members of the United Nations' International Maritime Organization (IMO) eschewed concrete commitments to slash greenhouse gas emissions in favor of "indicative checkpoints" to reach net-zero by or around 2050.
These include reducing global annual emissions from shipping from 2008 levels "by at least 20% and striving for 30% by 2030." In the longer term, the tentative agreement calls for a 70% reduction—and "striving for 80%"—in shipping emissions by 2040.
Activists are demanding a 50% reduction in worldwide shipping emissions from 2008 levels by the end of the decade.
The shipping industry is responsible for about 3% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, even more than worldwide commercial aviation. The overwhelming majority of the roughly 100,000 cargo vessels plying the seas and carrying 90% of all global cargo run on bunker fuel, the world's dirtiest diesel containing 3,500 times more sulfur than automotive diesel.
Members of Ocean Rebellion marked what the activist group called the "total failure" of MEPC80 by dropping a large banner from the second floor of IMO Lambeth Road headquarters.
Ocean Rebellion also staged creative protests throughout the week at MEPC80. An activist dressed as Poseidon confronted attendees; the mythical ruler of the seas also "sent a letter" to IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim seeking a meeting to discuss how his "watery realm is becoming uninhabitable."
Ocean Rebellion also staged a mermaid "die-in" on the conference floor, and threw a morning rave outside the IMO building.
"The U.N. talks a great talk. The International Maritime Organization, a U.N. body, is unfit for purpose. It's corrupted by industry and uses its U.N. remit on behalf of the shipping industry," charged Ocean Rebellion activist and artist Suzanne Stallard.
"We're living in an age of ecological breakdown; the U.N. must recognize this by reforming IMO governance," she added. "We ask the U.N. to call out its rogue subsidiaries, still more harmful to life on Earth than the rogue states we hear so much about."
The Clean Shipping Coalition, an international association of civil society environmental protection groups, on Friday published a set of recommendations for the shipping industry:
- 1.5°C-aligned emission cuts through the introduction of new legislation and tightening of existing laws;
- Shipping levies on a 1.5°C-aligned basis and of at least $100 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions in service of an equitable transition;
- Industry cooperation and investments in wind propulsion, green hydrogen, and other alternative energy solutions;
- Inclusion of shipping in countries' nationally determined contributions under the Paris agreement.
"There is no excuse for this wish-and-a-prayer agreement," John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, said in a statement. "They knew what the science required, and that a 50% cut in emissions by 2030 was both possible and affordable. Instead, the level of ambition agreed is far short of what is needed to be sure of keeping global heating below 1.5ºC and the language seemingly contrived to be vague and noncommittal."
"The most vulnerable put up an admirable fight for high ambition and significantly improved the agreement," Maggs added, "but we are still a long way from the IMO treating the climate crisis with the urgency that it deserves and that the public demands."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ocean Rebellion Targets UN Maritime Agency With Demand for 50% Emissions Cut by 2030
The International Maritime Organization is currently aiming a 50% reduction only by 2050.
Jun 27, 2023
Saying the International Maritime Organization is "unfit for purpose" due to its refusal to take far-reaching action to drastically draw down emissions from the shipping sector, the global campaign group Ocean Rebellion on Monday greeted delegates at the body's four-day summit with a visual representation of the shipping pollution that harms both marine and human life.
Outside the IMO's headquarters in London, the group displayed a puppet of an oil tanker "belching a vile black carbon fog of heavy fuel oil (HFO)," the dense oil that is used to power ships around the world and is linked to respiratory diseases, particularly in children.
A replica of a flaming Molotov oil drum, "representing the carbon bomb the IMO is planting under all our futures," was also on display at the protest, which the group titled "IMO, OMG, Just Do It."
Across the street, two campaigners dressed as shipping industry lobbyists unfurled a banner reading, "50% down by 2030=1.5 degrees."
Ocean Rebellion and other climate action groups are demanding that the IMO impose regulations that would reduce shipping emissions by 50% by 2030, which the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) said in 2021 is needed to support the Paris climate agreement's goal of limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
The ICCT said that 2050—at the latest—should be the deadline set by the IMO for achieving zero "carbon dioxide equivalent" emissions, but the IMO, a United Nations agency, currently aims only to halve shipping emissions by then.
"This is an emergency," said Clive Russell, co-founder of Ocean Rebellion, which began as an art collective tied to the grassroots group Extinction Rebellion. "Our greenhouse gas emissions are setting off a chain of events tipping our environment and societies towards climate chaos. Every moment we fail to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and commodities we threaten the resilience of nature."
"With every day we fail to act, we approach dangerous tipping points with cascading knock-on impacts," he added. "There's no time to waste, we must act now."
The group noted that HFO is "so toxic its use is banned on land," with the highly acidic substance filled with nitrogen oxides, and "has been linked to 400,000 premature deaths worldwide per year (at a health cost of $50 billion)."
"Furthermore black carbon from burnt HFO falls as soot and makes the ice caps absorb more heat and melt, further accelerating the terrifying feedback loops of planetary heating which are already killing millions and threaten all our lives," said the group.
The IMO has proposed the use of "scrubbers," or an exhaust gas cleaning system, to allow for the continued use of HFO, but as the World Wildlife Fund said in 2020, scrubbers "don't eliminate air pollution—they just transform it into water pollution" by running on "a continuous flow of seawater that gets discharged into the ocean in a contaminated and acidic state."
"While still polluting the air the IMO is also now directly acidifying the sea—that's surely the definition of greenwash!" said Ocean Rebellion on Monday. "The IMO's 'solution' is a toxic solution."
Shipping companies have also been turning to so-called liquefied "natural" gas (LNG) to power vessels, which they claim will reduce their environmental impact.
LNG, however, leaks planet-heating methane, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear must be urgently reduced in the atmosphere to mitigate the climate emergency.
According to Ocean Rebellion, more than 785 cargo ships are currently being built, and over 400 will run on liquefied fossil gas. Those ships would increase global methane emissions, which rose 150% between 2012 and 2018.
Despite claims by shipmakers that LNG is "natural" and a clean alternative to HFO, said Ocean Rebellion spokesperson Andrew Darnton, LNG is "not a solution, it's just madness."
"It's a fossil fuel. The U.N. IPCC has warned us we need to reduce fossil fuel use—how does building infrastructure to use more fossil fuels help us?" said Darnton. "Governments must stop listening to industry and start listening to the scientists, they're all saying the same thing—CUT FOSSIL FUELS."
The group demanded that the agency "follow the science and commit to [halving] ship emissions by 2030" by:
- Requiring ships to slow down;
- Prioritizing wind power for ships, new and old;
- Speeding up the roll-out of new climate-friendly fuels; and
- Steeply pricing the carbon in shipping fuels.
A 10% reduction in a ship's speed can reduce the vessel's greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 20%, researchers in Croatia found in 2020.
"The U.N. must form a new, transparent, and representative body to govern the ocean for the benefit of ALL life," said the group. "This new body must have the restoration and replenishment of the ocean as its only measure of success."
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need a National Strategy on Whale Ship Strikes
International law recognizes the interest of nations in protection of its living marine resources, including rare and endangered species, and the U.S. has the legal ability to impose speed restrictions.
Mar 19, 2023
Whales are the biggest creatures on earth, but they are no match for a supertanker. In recent months there has been a rash of whales washed up on U.S. shores, with broken backs or other mortal injury.
These known deaths are only a fraction of the true toll. Most of the carcasses sink at sea and are never discovered.
But, by all indications, collisions between whales and ships are on the rise, devastating whale populations. At least three large whale species in U.S. waters are on the brink of extinction, with more listed as endangered. These would be the planet’s first large whale species lost in modern history.
The leading cause of death for many of these species is preventable ship strikes. And these deaths are expected to continue growing due to a number of causes. First, global trade has grown almost exponentially driving a huge growth in ship traffic in the world's oceans. Today, there are an estimated four times as many ships at sea than just three decades ago.
Second, this increasing cargo traffic is carried by bigger ships travelling through coastal waters that are primary whale habitats. Since 2006, the size of the largest container ships has more than doubled. Many of today’s ships are so big that they do not know that they have struck a whale. Both the size of ships and cargo volume are both projected to continue spiraling upward
At the same time, containership speeds have steadily grown with speeds now averaging between 20 to 25 knots.
These factors combine to devastating effect. Whales seem to rely on last‐second avoidance. Almost all ships are quieter at lower speeds. Quieter seas allow marine life more leeway to communicate for their essential life functions. The cumulative probability of detecting one of the available “cues” of whale’s presence (and direction of travel) decreases with increased ship-to-whale distances. Moreover, a big ship creates a “bow null effect” that blocks engine noise by the bow, creating a quiet zone in front of the vessel, leaving a whale unaware of the pending threat.
The net result of thousands of massive ships crisscrossing waters which are prime whale habitat is that many of our busiest coastal shipping routes have become death traps. For example, the Southern California shipping lanes to San Francisco cover the two busiest hubs in California and, not coincidentally, are also two epicenters of whale mortality from ship strikes.
Despite looming extinctions of whale populations and increasing vulnerability of whales to ship strikes in U.S. waters, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration lacks a coherent strategy for avoidance of these collisions. Instead, the U.S. has a piecemeal approach, limited by certain species and in certain areas.
In the absence of mandatory restrictions in much of U.S. waters, NOAA and other authorities have depended on voluntary measures, with mixed success. For example, a new analysis of automated ship tracking data shows that nearly 90 percent of vessels transiting mandatory speed zones to protect the highly endangered North Atlantic right whales are violating the speed limits.
In the San Francisco area, cooperation rates with NOAA’s voluntary speed limits have been hovering around 62 percent for the last three years, with compliance varying by company. Maersk, one of the world’s largest shipping companies, has slowed down 79 percent of the time in the Santa Barbara Channel. But ships operated by Matson, a major Pacific shipper, slowed only 16 percent of the time.
Similarly, collision avoidance techniques are mostly voluntary, and these programs are widely ignored by shippers. But these voluntary efforts do demonstrate that application of active whale avoidance techniques by large ships is feasible. Yet the effectiveness of these measures requires some form of mandatory enforcement to ensure widespread compliance.
Last year, Congress directed NOAA to establish a near real-time monitoring and mitigation program to reduce the risk to large cetaceans posed by vessel strikes. My organization is proposing a plan to NOAA that directly responds to this congressional direction. We urge the creation of Whale Safety Zones for all large ships entering or leaving U.S. ports or transiting marine sanctuaries and monuments. While in these Whales Safety Zones, these ships must reduce their speed and take other whale avoidance measures that studies show sharply reduces whale mortality when applied.
International law recognizes the interest of nations in protection of its living marine resources, including rare and endangered species, and the U.S. has the legal ability to impose speed restrictions.
What is required, however, is the political will to adopt mandatory safety measures that will be effective in stemming the rising tide of preventable whale deaths. Unless NOAA acts in a comprehensive fashion we fear the nation will witness the onset of a cascade of whale extinctions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Arctic Battlelines Drawn as Industry Exploits Fragile Seas
Climate change is driving unprecedented warming and sea ice melt in the Arctic, opening up the ecosystem to a host of new threats
Mar 02, 2016
Rapidly melting Arctic ice has exposed enormous swaths of this pristine and ecologically significant landscape to dangerous industrial threats. As officials meet this week to hammer out new rules that could potentially protect the region, environmental groups warn that the area known as the "Arctic Galapagos" is already in grave danger.
Scientists have reported that the Arctic is warming at nearly double the global average rate, which is one of the key factors driving an unprecedented ice sheet loss. This January saw a record low for sea ice extent in a troubling development.
These newly open waters have seen a surge in industrial activity, including fishing and shipping, which have been left largely unregulated, according to green groups.
Greenpeace released an investigation (pdf) on Wednesday that found that industrial fishing fleets are increasingly moving into Arctic waters, particularly the previously ice-covered Barents Sea, off of Norway.
"Sea ice loss in the northern Barents Sea is turning it into a new hunting ground for industrial fishing," Greenpeace states. "Fishing brings with it the threats of habitat degradation and bycatch, potentially wiping out marine life and putting this whole fragile ecosystem at risk."
The northern Barents Sea, known as the "Arctic Galapagos," is home to "a huge diversity of marine life including bowhead whales, walruses and polar bears, along with rare fish and invertebrates," the report states. It is also currently holds the largest cod stock in the world, which international fishing companies are rushing to exploit.
At the same time, environmentalists are raising concern about the uptick in shipping traffic moving through newly-open Arctic channels. Such traffic, warns John Kaltenstein, a marine policy analyst with Friends of the Earth (FOE), invites "the use of heavy fuel oil, harmful air emissions, and invasive species risk."
Less than 1.5 percent of the entire Arctic Ocean has any form of protected status. And while the International Maritime Organization's recently adopted Polar Code aims to establish a standard of safety for ships operating in Arctic waters, Kaltenstein notes that the actual text--expected to enter into force January 1, 2017--"does little to deal with the most urgent and far-reaching problems we face from Arctic shipping."
"Unfortunately, the shipping industry still behaves as if it were in the 1960s or 1970s, and the sad fact is that many countries both domestically and within international venues, such as the U.N.'s International Maritime Organization, coddle it," he states.
"It only takes one big spill to change everything," he continues, "remember Exxon Valdez. Incredibly, environmental policy surrounding Arctic shipping has become the equivalent of 'fingers crossed,' when it comes to grave threats such as heavy fuel oil spills, climate-warming emissions, and invasive species."
The warnings come as delegates from 15 European countries along with the European Union, known as the OSPAR commission, are meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden this week to discuss the formation of an Arctic Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the international waters north of Greenland.
Greenpeace describes the meeting, and the potential agreement, as a "make or break moment for Arctic protection."
"It is crucial that these areas are protected from destructive industrial activities, as they could be devastating for the species dependent on this area for survival," states the group, which notes that the region under consideration for protection "could be a potential habitat for ice-dependent species in the future as the ice melts in other places."
Ironically, Greenpeace notes that as international waters, the Arctic is part of the "global commons, belonging to all mankind." However, "there is no protection at all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy