As of July 1, a ban on heavy fuel oil (HFO) for ships has come into effect in Arctic waters. The UN International Maritime Organization (IMO) ban on HFO, however, includes significant loopholes that will allow the vast majority of ships operating in the Arctic to use the fuel until 2029.
HFO, also known as bunker fuel and residual fuel, is the dirtiest and most climate-damaging fuel on the market. It is a tar-like and thick, but relatively cheap oil that has been widely used in shipping.
The specific concerns about the use of HFO in Arctic include the risk of oil spills in which the sludge-like fuel would be effectively impossible to clean up in icy Arctic waters. Such spills could have a devastating impact on the Arctic’s sensitive environment and species, including walrus, polar bears, and beluga whales.
The BBC also notes that beyond the risk of oil spills, HFO also spews significant volumes of sooty particles called black carbon.
“The black carbon is creating the sort of double whammy impact in the Arctic,” said Dr Sian Prior, from the Clean Arctic Alliance group of campaigners.
“It’s attracting heat while it’s in the atmosphere, and then it settles onto the snow and ice and is speeding up the melting as well.”
HFO was banned from use or transport in the Antarctic in 2011.
Environmentalists have been pushing to expand that restriction to northern waters for years, finally persuading the countries that participate in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to enact a ban back in 2021.
The restriction now comes into force in Arctic waters – and while campaigners agree this is progress, they believe there are far too many loopholes that will limit the impact.
According to the regulations, ships that have a “protected fuel tank” will be exempt from the ban. Protected locations for fuel tanks reduces the risk of oil spills but does nothing to limit the emission of black carbon.
Countries that border the Arctic will also be able to exempt their own ships from the ban in their own territorial waters.
One of the major players in the region is Russia, which has over 800 ships operating in northern waters. They are not implementing the new IMO regulation.
These waiver exemptions will last until 2029 – their impact is likely to be significant, with the International Council on Clean Transportation estimating that about 74% of ships that use HFO will be able to continue to do so.
Thanks to Alaric Bond for contributing to this post.
They should provide LNG bunkering, and then incentivize ships to use it. I suspect many tourist ships could use that as a selling feature.
This article sheds light on a significant yet somewhat disheartening development regarding the ban on heavy fuel oil (HFO) in Arctic waters. While the move by the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO) to ban HFO is a step in the right direction, it is clear that the numerous loopholes undermine the overall effectiveness of this regulation.
The environmental risks posed by HFO, especially the potential for catastrophic oil spills in the fragile Arctic ecosystem, are alarming. The fact that such spills would be nearly impossible to clean up in icy waters highlights the urgent need for stricter regulations without exceptions. Additionally, the detrimental impact of black carbon emissions on both the atmosphere and the Arctic ice is concerning. It’s troubling to learn that ships with protected fuel tanks and those registered in Arctic-bordering countries like Russia are exempt from this ban until 2029. This significantly weakens the intended impact of the regulation.
As someone deeply concerned about environmental conservation, I believe it’s crucial for the IMO and other regulatory bodies to close these loopholes and enforce a more comprehensive ban. Protecting the Arctic is not just about preventing oil spills; it’s about preserving a delicate ecosystem that affects global climate patterns. We need to prioritize long-term environmental health over short-term economic gains.