世界最大的赌博app|欢迎您

<p id="fcf6z"><tbody id="fcf6z"></tbody></p><p id="fcf6z"><form id="fcf6z"></form></p>

  • <table id="fcf6z"></table>
      <p id="fcf6z"></p>

          Clear The Air Ships Air Pollution Blog Rotating Header Image

          Particle

          Fuelling a low-emission target

          Download (PDF, 287KB)

          The world’s largest cruise ship and its supersized pollution problem

          As Harmony of the Seas sets sail from Southampton docks on Sunday she will leave behind a trail of pollution – a toxic problem that is growing as the cruise industry and its ships get ever bigger

          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem

          At full power the Harmony of the Seas’ two 16-cylinder engines would each burn 1,377 US gallons an hour of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Reuters

          At full power the Harmony of the Seas’ two 16-cylinder engines would each burn 1,377 US gallons an hour of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Reuters

          This article is the subject of a legal complaint made on behalf of Royal Caribbean International

          When the gargantuan Harmony of the Seas slips out of Southampton docks on Sunday afternoon on its first commercial voyage, the 16-deck-high floating city will switch off its auxiliary engines, fire up its three giant diesels and head to the open sea.

          But while the 6,780 passengers and 2,100 crew on the largest cruise ship in the world wave goodbye to England, many people left behind in Southampton say they will be glad to see it go. They complain that air pollution from such nautical behemoths is getting worse every year as cruising becomes the fastest growing sector of the mass tourism industry and as ships get bigger and bigger.

          The Harmony, owned by Royal Caribbean, has two four-storey high 16-cylinder W?rtsil? engines which would, at full power, each burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour, or about 66,000 gallons a day of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world.

          In port, and close to US and some European coasts, the Harmony must burn low sulphur fuel or use abatement technologies. But, says Colin MacQueen, who lives around 400 yards from the docks and is a member of new environment group Southampton Clean Air, the fumes from cruise liners and bulk cargo ships are “definitely” contributing to Southampton’s highly polluted air.

          “We can smell, see and taste it. These ships are like blocks of flats. Sometimes there are five or more in the docks at the same time. The wind blows their pollution directly into the city and as far we can tell, there is no monitoring of their pollution. We are pushing for them to use shore power but they have resisted.”

          “The liners pollute, but the road traffic that they and the cargo ships generate is also huge,” he adds.

          Royal Caribbean, the US owners of the Harmony of the Seas, said that the latest and most efficient pollution control systems were used and that the ship met all legal requirements.

          Industry body Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) added that companies had “invested significantly over the last decade to develop new technologies to help reduce air emissions”.

          But marine pollution analysts in Germany and Brussels said that such a large ship would probably burn at least 150 tonnes of fuel a day, and emit more sulphur than several million cars, more NO2 gas than all the traffic passing through a medium-sized town and more particulate emissions than thousands of London buses.

          According to leading independent German pollution analyst Axel Friedrich, a single large cruise ship will emit over five tonnes of NOX emissions, and 450kg of ultra fine particles a day.

          Bill Hemmings, marine expert at Brussels-based Transport and Environment group said: “These ships burn as much fuel as whole towns. They use a lot more power than container ships and even when they burn low sulphur fuel, it’s 100 times worse than road diesel.”

          “Air pollution from international shipping accounts for around 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe alone, at an annual cost to society of more than €58bn [ $65bn],” says the group on its website.

          emmission-cruise-ship

          Daniel Rieger, a transport officer at German environment group Nabu, said: “Cruise companies create a picture of being a bright, clean and environmentally friendly tourism sector. But the opposite is true. One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance because these ships use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.”

          Nabu has measured pollution in large German ports and found high concentrations of pollutants. “Heavy fuel oil can contain 3,500 times more sulphur than diesel that is used for land traffic vehicles. Ships do not have exhaust abatement technologies like particulate filters that are standard on passenger cars and lorries,” says Rieger.

          Southampton, which has Britain’s second largest container port and is Europe’s busiest cruise terminal, is one of nine UK cities cited by the World Health Organisation as breaching air quality guidelines even though it has little manufacturing.

          “Up to five large liners a day can be berthed in the docks at the same time, all running engines 24/7, said Chris Hinds, vice chair of the Southampton docks watchdog group WDCF. “Pollution from the port is leading to asthma and chest diseases. We are now seeing more, bigger liners but also very large bulk cargo ships.”

          According to CLIA, the cruise ship industry is now one of the fastest growing sectors in the mass tourism market, with 24 million passengers expected to sail in 2016, compared to 15 million in 2006 and just 1.4 million in 1980.

          “The industry shows no signs of slowing down. It generated $119.9bn (£83bn) in total output worldwide in 2015, supporting 939,232 full-time equivalent jobs,” said a spokesman.

          “The luxury sector is seeing the most amazing growth that it has ever seen in its history,” said Larry Pimentel, president of Azamara club cruises.

          ? This article was amended on 23 May 2016. An earlier version said the Harmony of the Seas had three 16-cylinder engines which, if running at full power, would burn 96,000 US gallons of fuel a day. It has two such engines which together would burn about 66,000 US gallons of fuel a day if running at full power, and is understood to have four 12 cylinder engines. The article also said the ship must burn low-sulphur fuel in port and close to some coasts; it can also use abatement technologies to meet emissions guidelines.

          Big benefits of cleaner marine fuel

          Air quality in coastal areas improved significantly in 2015 after stricter sulphur limits for?marine fuels were introduced in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

          In several countries bordering the North?Sea and the Baltic Sea, concentrations of?sulphur dioxide (SO?) have come down by?50 per cent or more in 2015 compared to?previous years, according to a recent study?by the Dutch research consultancy CE?Delft conducted on behalf of the German?environmental group NABU (Nature and
          Biodiversity Conservation Union).

          The study has investigated the experiences?of the first year of applying stricter marine fuel?sulphur standards in the Sulphur Emission?Control Area (SECA) covering the North?Sea and the Baltic Sea. It focussed on air?quality, socio-economic effects, impacts on?business, and on compliance and enforcement.

          As from 1 January 2015 the maximum?sulphur content of marine fuels used in?SECAs was reduced by 90 per cent, from?1.0 to 0.1 per cent. The resulting health?benefits of better air quality were estimated?to amount to between €4.4 and 8 billion.

          This can be compared to the cost to the?maritime sector of moving to low-sulphur?marine gas oil (MGO) in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, which was estimated?at €2.3 billion.

          The researchers conclude that the health?benefits of lower emissions of SO? and?particulate matter (PM) were between 1.9?and 3.5 times higher than the increase in?fuel costs, which means that the benefits?of introducing the new regulations clearly?outweighed the cost.

          Before its implementation, there were?industry concerns that the stricter fuel?standard would significantly increase fuel?costs and that there would be problems with?the availability of low sulphur fuels. There?were also concerns about impacts on the?industry, such as closures of companies or?services, and potential shifts towards road?transport. The lack of effective surveillance?schemes to ensure compliance and enforcement?were also subject to debate.

          The study found that the availability?of MGO has proven to be sufficient?and that the price of MGO actually decreased?– the latter mainly as the result?of reduced oil prices in general. However,?the MGO price decreased more sharply?than the price of heavy fuel oil (HFO)?and automotive diesel. In fact, by the?end of 2015, the price of 0.1 per cent?sulphur MGO was at the same level as?the price of high-sulphur HFO was at?in the beginning of 2015.

          No significant shifts towards road?transport were found for RoRo transport,?which is regarded as the market segment?that is most sensitive to a modal shift.

          Moreover, no company or service closures,?nor any decrease in cargo turnover in?Northern European ports, was found?that could be clearly linked to the introduction?of the stricter sulphur standard.

          Interestingly, some shipping companies?reported a financial record year for the?year 2015 and established new services.

          According to data for 2015 from the?European Maritime Safety Agency?(EMSA), between three and nine per cent?of the ships were non-compliant in the?Baltic Sea and North Sea, respectively. It?should be noted that countries typically?use a margin of up to 20 per cent above?the legal threshold during control in?ports for reporting deficiencies and 50?per cent for applying sanctions.

          It is believed that the rate of noncompliance?on the open seas might be?significantly higher, but the limited data?available does not allow any firm conclusions.

          More and better data are needed in?order to estimate the actual compliance?rate on the open seas. In addition, fuel?sampling needs to be intensified in 2016?in order to meet the required 30–40 fuel?samples per 100 administrative inspections,?as required by EU legislation.

          It is recommended that there should be?further development of monitoring and?control techniques, including control on?the open seas, to improve the effectiveness?of the inspection regime. The authors?also recommend that countries apply?sanctions that are proportionate to the?economic benefits of non-compliance.

          Christer ?gren

          Sources: CE Delft press release and Ends Europe?Daily, 20 April 2016

          The study: “SECA Assessment: Impacts of 2015?SECA marine fuel sulphur limits” (April 2016).

          By CE Delft, the Netherlands. Downloadable?at: http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/seca_assessment%3A_impacts_of_2015_seca_marine_fuel_sulphur_limits/1780

          American cruise lines to control SO2 and PM

          from Airclim’s Acid News, Dec 2013 issue:

          Cruise line Carnival has announced an agreement with US and Canadian agencies to invest USD180 million in emission-reduction technology on 32 of its cruise ships to comply with the Emission Control Area (ECA) standards.

          The ECA sulphur standards require ships operating within 200 nautical miles of the US or Canadian coasts to use fuel containing less than 0.1 per cent sulphur by 2015. A 1 per cent sulphur limit on fuel took effect in August 2012.

          Under the agreement the company will install scrubbers and diesel particulate filters on its ships to cut emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and fine particulate matter (PM), pollutants that exacerbate smog and damage human health.

          The agreement follows a similar deal between the US Environment Protection Agency and the other major cruise line operating in the country, Royal Caribbean, which also called for the installation of pollution controls on a trial basis, in lieu of using lower sulphur fuel.

          Source: Car Lines No 5, October 2013

          Daily Mail: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world

          from Fred Pearce of the Daily Mail:

          Award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.

          We’ve all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.

          It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.

          As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

          Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

          But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

          Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.

          There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast as goods are ferried in vast quantities from Asian industrial powerhouses to consumers in Europe and North America.

          The recession has barely dented the trade. This Christmas, most of our presents will have come by super-ship from the Far East; ships such as the Emma Maersk and her seven sisters Evelyn, Eugen, Estelle, Ebba, Eleonora, Elly and Edith Maersk.

          Each is a quarter of a mile long and can carry up to 14,000 full-size containers on their regular routes from China to Europe.

          Emma – dubbed SS Santa by the media – brought Christmas presents to Europe in October and is now en route from Algeciras in Spain to Yantian in southern China, carrying containers full of our waste paper, plastic and electronics for recycling.

          But it burns marine heavy fuel, or ‘bunker fuel’, which leaves behind a trail of potentially lethal chemicals: sulphur and smoke that have been linked to breathing problems, inflammation, cancer and heart disease.

          James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions. He calculates a worldwide death toll of about 64,000 a year, of which 27,000 are in Europe. Britain is one of the worst-hit countries, with about 2,000 deaths from funnel fumes. Corbett predicts the global figure will rise to 87,000 deaths a year by 2012.

          Part of the blame for this international scandal lies close to home.

          In London, on the south bank of the Thames looking across at the Houses of Parliament, is the International Maritime Organisation, the UN body that polices the world’s shipping.

          For decades, the IMO has rebuffed calls to clean up ship pollution. As a result, while it has long since been illegal to belch black, sulphur-laden smoke from power-station chimneys or lorry exhausts, shipping has kept its licence to pollute.

          For 31 years, the IMO has operated a policy agreed by the 169 governments that make up the organisation which allows most ships to burn bunker fuel.

          Christian Eyde Moller, boss of the DK shipping company in Rotterdam, recently described this as ‘just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It’s tar, the same as asphalt. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world’.

          Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in
          the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs.

          Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.

          With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.

          (more…)

          Lack of Emissions Control Area in HK waters will continue to leave Hong Kong blanketed in smog

          Less than a week after favourable weather cleared the skies of Hong Kong, the city is covered again in particles. It has become a common refrain for city officials to sing of their achievements in switching out diesel engines from the roads, and after that for Legco members to debate to no end as to how (un)successful their measures have been in improving the city’s air quality.

          It is also commonly known, albeit with less attention paid, that cargo ships – especially ocean-going vessels – are a major contributor to pollutants as they move through the waters of Hong Kong. In addition to Hong Kong’s own Kwai Chung terminal, ships docking at Shenzhen’s Yantian and Shekou terminals pass through channels east and west of Hong Kong respectively, meaning Hong Kong bears the brunt of the emissions whichever way the prevailing winds blow.

          Thus far, Hong Kong’s policymakers have only implemented a weak policy – incentivising ships docking at Kwai Chung to switch to cleaner fuels when moving in Hong Kong, transitioning into a compulsory requirement by Sep 2014. Meanwhile, there are already complaints that this would ‘hurt competitiveness’ of the Kwai Chung terminal in comparison with Shenzhen’s terminals (of which Hong Kong’s Hutchison Whampoa, and the Wharf, are shareholders).

          The situation can be greatly improved if Hong Kong officials can push for the implementation of an Emissions Control Area, which will effectively make the same clean fuel requirements for Shenzhen’s terminals. This may call for cross-border co-operation between policymakers in order for the policy to be strictly enforced, but if Hong Kong officials wish to display some real work done, there can be no better opportunity.

          Clear The Air has prepared a brief document on this issue.

          Shipping lines complain about expensive clean fuel requirements

          Ocean-going vessels, burning bunker fuels with 2.75-4% sulphur content, is a major contributor of air pollutants to Hong Kong. Prevailing winds bring sulphur particles into the ‘urban canyons’ of Hong Kong, where the concentration of particles are increased, posing a huge health hazard to Hong Kong residents.

          Shipping lines are now complaining that the requirements imposed by the Hong Kong government to use cleaner fuels will increase their cost of business, and demands that the government extends a subsidy scheme that incentivises the use of cleaner fuels (the scheme does not end until Sep 2015). Alarmist warnings about ‘competitiveness’ with Shenzhen are being sent out, aiming to panick and pressurize the authorities to provide more incentives for doing what is right, even though they can share the extra costs with their clients as per usual business practices.

          Of note is that Hong Kong is ‘the only Asian city to impose such a requirement’. Hong Kong should not step backwards from the rare occasion of being the lead in an environmentally-friendly policy, with developing economies increasingly adopting environmental technologies and policies ahead of Hong Kong.

          from Anita Lam of the SCMP:

          Ships calling at Hong Kong will face higher costs when legislation requiring vessels to switch to cleaner marine fuel upon berthing is passed next year.

          Some carriers may, as a result, switch to neighbouring ports in Shenzhen.

          To prevent this, shipowners said, the government should consider extending a scheme that subsidises shipping lines – many of which are expected to suffer losses this year – for the extra cost of the clean fuel.

          However, a government official said, an extension is unlikely.

          (more…)

          Port of Antwerp joins clean shipping project

          http://i.pmcdn.net/z/img/106985_9821_2_s.jpg

          The Port of Antwerp is participating in the Clean North Sea Shipping (CNSS) project

          The?Port of Antwerp has announced that it is participating in a clean shipping project that aims to cut down on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from vessels operating in the North Sea region of Europe.

          The?Clean North Sea Shipping (CNSS) project incorporates 18 partners from six countries, and is looking to raise awareness, share knowledge and convince influential stakeholders to take action and accountability relating to the environment.

          Stakeholders include regional and European politicians, ports, shipping companies and cargo owners.

          As part of the project, a new website gathering information on clean shipping technology has been launched by CNSS, covering both current and future legislation and technology, as well as economic and environmental benefits for the shipping industry and port authorities.

          The website serves as a guide for existing nearby and long-term technological solutions to reduce carbon dioxides (CO2), sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in order to promote the development of a sustainable maritime transport system, with the “ultimate challenge” seen as developing and implementing zero emission technologies.

          Maritime shipping is estimated to represent approximately 3% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, with maritime CO2 emissions expected to increase by two to three times by 2050 if no action is taken.

          The initiative is not the only one being implemented within the region.

          Last month, the North Sea Foundation informed Sustainable Shipping that it is?getting ready to introduce the Clean Shipping Project’s environmental index tool to Germany.

          The Clean Shipping Index (CSI) is a transparent tool that can be?used by cargo owners to evaluate the environmental performance of their providers of sea transport.

          Adam Currie,?Vancouver News Desk, 30th September 2011?17:12 GMT

          Comments? Email?editor@bunkerworld.com.

          How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

          Fred Pearce

          Eco expert: Fred Pearce is an environmental consultant to New Scientist magazine

          Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen.

          But that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.

          We’ve all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.

          It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.

          As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

          Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

          But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

          Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.

          There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast as goods are ferried in vast quantities from Asian industrial powerhouses to consumers in Europe and North America.

          The recession has barely dented the trade. This Christmas, most of our presents will have come by super-ship from the Far East; ships such as the Emma Maersk and her seven sisters Evelyn, Eugen, Estelle, Ebba, Eleonora, Elly and Edith Maersk.

          Each is a quarter of a mile long and can carry up to 14,000 full-size containers on their regular routes from China to Europe.

          Tankers moored at Lyme Bay, Devon

          Waiting game: Tankers moored off Devon waiting for oil prices to rise even further

          Emma – dubbed SS Santa by the media – brought Christmas presents to Europe in October and is now en route from Algeciras in Spain to Yantian in southern China, carrying containers full of our waste paper, plastic and electronics for recycling.

          But it burns marine heavy fuel, or ‘bunker fuel’, which leaves behind a trail of potentially lethal chemicals: sulphur and smoke that have been linked to breathing problems, inflammation, cancer and heart disease.

          James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions. He calculates a worldwide death toll of about 64,000 a year, of which 27,000 are in Europe. Britain is one of the worst-hit countries, with about 2,000 deaths from funnel fumes. Corbett predicts the global figure will rise to 87,000 deaths a year by 2012.

          Part of the blame for this international scandal lies close to home.

          In London, on the south bank of the Thames looking across at the Houses of Parliament, is the International Maritime Organisation, the UN body that polices the world’s shipping.

          For decades, the IMO has rebuffed calls to clean up ship pollution. As a result, while it has long since been illegal to belch black, sulphur-laden smoke from power-station chimneys or lorry exhausts, shipping has kept its licence to pollute.

          For 31 years, the IMO has operated a policy agreed by the 169 governments that make up the organisation which allows most ships to burn bunker fuel.

          Christian Eyde Moller, boss of the DK shipping company in Rotterdam, recently described this as ‘just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It’s tar, the same as asphalt. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world’.

          Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in
          the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs.

          Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.

          With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.

          Fleet Routes

          A year ago, the IMO belatedly decided to clean up its act. It said shipping fuel should not contain more than 3.5 per cent sulphur by 2012 and eventually must come down to 0.5 per cent. This lower figure could halve the deaths, says Corbett.

          It should not be hard to do. There is no reason ship engines cannot run on clean fuel, like cars. But, away from a handful of low-sulphur zones, including the English Channel and North Sea, the IMO gave shipping lines a staggering 12 years to make the switch. And, even then, it will depend on a final ‘feasibility review’ in 2018.

          In the meantime, according to Corbett’s figures, nearly one million more people will die.

          Smoke and sulphur are not the only threats from ships’ funnels. Every year they are also belching out almost one billion tons of carbon dioxide. Ships are as big a contributor to global warming as aircraft – but have had much less attention from environmentalists.

          Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol rules on cutting carbon emissions. But green pressure is having its effect on airlines. Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen climate talks, airlines have promised to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.

          But shipping companies are keeping their heads down. A meeting of the IMO in July threw out proposals from the British Chamber of Shipping, among others, to set up a
          carbon-trading scheme to encourage emissions reductions.

          Amazingly, they pleaded poverty. Two-thirds of the world’s ships are registered in developing countries such as Panama. These are just flags of convenience, to evade tougher rules on safety and pay for sailors.

          But at the IMO, governments successfully argued that ships from developing countries should not have to cut carbon emissions. IMO secretary-general Efthimios Mitropoulos insisted: ‘We are heavily and consistently engaged in the fight to protect and preserve our environment.’ Yet without limits, carbon emissions from shipping could triple by 2050.

          The failure brought calls for the IMO to be stripped of its powers to control the world’s ships. Colin Whybrow, of Greenwave, a British charity set up to campaign for cleaner shipping, says: ‘The IMO is drinking in the last-chance saloon.’

          Burning low-sulphur fuel won’t cut carbon emissions from ships. But there are other ways. More efficient engines could reduce emissions by 30 per cent, according to British marine consultant Robin Meech.

          Cutting speed could reduce emissions by as much again. And there are even wackier ways, such as putting up giant kites to harness the wind as in the days of sailing ships.

          However you look at it, the super-ships are rogues on the high seas, operating under pollution standards long since banished on land; warming the planet and killing its inhabitants. Santa’s sleigh, they are not.

          • Robert Pedersen, of Maersk, said: ‘The sulphur content varies according to where you get your fuel. Our average sulphur content is, I believe, 2.5 per cent. It’s rather rare you get anything close to 4.5 per cent.’ He added that ‘the sulphur issue is one for the whole industry’ and that there would be a ‘huge cost implication’ to switch to cleaner fuel.

          Read more:?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz1aN0pJj3Z

          世界最大的赌博app