International shipping has a good record on pollution control

It is misleading to compare the emissions of these huge vessels with those from cars

Robert Ashdown
The Guardian, Friday 1 May 2009

Your article reports allegations that the health risks of shipping pollution have been "underestimated", and suggests that Europe "has resisted imposing tight laws on the shipping industry, even though the technology exists to remove emissions" (One ship equals 50m cars: study shows pollution toll, 10 April). Both charges are wrong.
In 2005 Europe adopted some of the most stringent shipping air pollution legislation in the world - Directive 33/EC (Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels). Among other provisions, this went beyond existing international regulations by requiring all ships at berth to burn fuel with a sulphur content of no more than 0.1% from 2010, and all passenger ships to burn low-sulphur fuel when voyaging between two community ports.
As far as the technology to remove pollutants is concerned, that for sulphur is - for shipboard applications - still only at the prototype stage. A number of Chamber of Shipping members have been active in trialling equipment but the results have so far been disappointing. For nitrogen oxide emissions the technology is being developed by the engine manufacturers, and an ambitious timeline for its introduction already forms part of the latest International Maritime Organisation (IMO) legislation.
You report that "pressure is mounting on the [IMO] and the EU to tighten laws governing ship emissions following the decision by the US government last week to impose a strict 230-mile buffer zone along its entire coastline". In fact, the US is using the IMO laws to put in place regional standards for a specific regional problem in accordance with an agreed international framework.
The article then says the EU plans "only two low-emission marine zones" and does not seek "to limit deadly particulate emissions". But it is not the number but the scale of the zones that is relevant - these cover the English Channel, the entire North Sea and the entire Baltic Sea - and, as the IMO has explicitly recognised, measures to address sulphur emissions would also limit particulate emissions.
Equally misleading are your report's comparisons with other industries or transport modes. Comparing the output of a ship - which may, for example, carry the equivalent of 6,000 large trucks and operate (as you make clear) 24 hours a day, 280 days a year - with a car driven 15,000km a year tells us very little.
The IMO, governments and the shipping industry have to dramatically reduce shipping's negative health impacts while maintaining the capacity to transport cargoes essential to clothe, heat and feed their populations. The latest IMO legislation was recognised by governments and the shipping and refining industries as a prime example of ambitious but pragmatic rule-making. It is unfortunate that your article reflects neither the complexities of the issue nor the widespread satisfaction with the outcome.
The reality is that international shipping is a highly regulated, responsible industry that delivers 90% of world trade for only 2.7% of global carbon emissions. As such, the shift from road and air to shipping should be actively encouraged as part of the government's measures to combat global warming.
• Robert Ashdown is head of technical at the Chamber of Shipping press@british-shipping.org