Arctic meltdown continues as heavy fuel oil ban begins

By Kay Brown May 30, 2024
169
A cargo ship and tug pass by the entrance to the Port of Nome on Sept. 29, 2020. Planned port expansion, which got a $250 million allocation through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, would extend and rearrange the causeway on the right and the breakwater on the left to create a much larger protected area that could accomodate deeper-draft vessels traveling in and out of the Arctic. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)

As the planet warms, the Arctic continues to be hit hardest of any region on earth. The impacts of climate change are all around us: rising sea levels, melting permafrost, shrinking sea ice — and now our rivers are running orange.

Ocean going vessels are a huge contributor to climate change pollution. If shipping was a country it would be the sixth-largest polluter globally. Starting July 1, some ships in Arctic waters will no longer be allowed to burn or carry heavy fuel oils, which are the dirtiest fuels on the planet. Although the so-called “HFO ban” for Arctic shipping is a regulatory milestone, it is insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming in the Arctic.

Immediate and more extensive action is needed to reverse the Arctic meltdown. The Arctic cannot endure five more years of unabated melting. Most of the HFO being used and carried on board ships will continue until the ban comes into full effect in 2029. Currently, the ban only prohibits 16% of the HFO burned and 30% of the HFO carried as fuel in the Arctic, while failing to address cargoes of HFO.

Heavy fuel oil pollutes our air, land and water and drives climate heating by producing large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and black carbon (soot) particles when burned. HFO makes up about 80% of marine fuel used worldwide and about 75% of marine fuel currently carried in the Arctic by larger ships. Burning HFO produces emissions of harmful pollutants like carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds, which can have serious health effects on Alaskans’ health, wildlife and ecosystems.

One significant co-benefit of immediately banning all HFO in the Arctic would be a reduction of the super pollutant black carbon. Black carbon warms the Arctic’s atmosphere and blackens the snow, glacier ice and sea ice exposing darker land and sea surfaces underneath, reducing reflectivity and increasing the absorption of more heat. Reducing black carbon emissions would slow near-term warming, and reduce a profound human health risk from particulate pollution.

If spilled, HFOs pose higher risk to marine ecosystems than other marine fuels. Because of its viscous consistency, HFO does not evaporate and dissipate as diesel fuel does, but instead emulsifies and sinks in cold water, mixing with the seabed sediments. And can reappear again if the waters warm or when the sediments are disturbed by storms. Spilled HFO can be trapped in ice and pushed by wind and currents to foul beaches hundreds of miles away.

HFO spills are almost impossible to clean up in remote Arctic areas with unchartered waters, navigational hazards such as sea ice, severe weather conditions, and lack of response infrastructure. Such spills can have catastrophic consequences for Arctic Indigenous residents and communities, many of whom depend on the subsistence harvest of fish and marine mammals for their nutritional and cultural needs and livelihoods.

Arctic ship traffic is increasing. From 2013 to 2023, the number of vessels sailing the Arctic rose by 37%. As more sea ice melts and recedes and Arctic shipping continues to grow, more ships will exploit the ban’s exemptions and waivers, increasing the amount of HFO being used and carried in the Arctic.

An HFO ban has been in effect in Antarctica since 2011; that ban is broader, also prohibiting HFO from being carried as cargo. It’s time to recognize the Arctic’s similar vulnerabilities.

Instead of continuing to use HFO, if all shipping in the Arctic used lighter distillate fuels and installed diesel particulate filters — technology long used in land transport to reduce emissions — a massive threat to what’s left of Arctic sea ice would quickly be removed. Ships must switch to cleaner fuels or propulsion methods to protect Alaska’s environment, the health of its residents and our wildlife.

Kay Brown is Arctic policy director for Pacific Environment, based in Anchorage. She is a former director of the Division of Oil and Gas for the state of Alaska and a former Alaska state representative.

Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew Kitchenman for questions: [email protected]. Follow Alaska Beacon on Facebook and X.