The Los Angeles and Long Beach seaports, the top 2 North American ports in terms of tonnage imported, have also become notorious for their chronic congestion. The California coast sees a daily average of 40 to 60 massive cargo ships idling offshore, all spewing pollutants that gravely impact air quality. Neighborhoods located near the ports have seen elevated rates of asthma, cancer, and even COVID-related deaths related to the record-high levels of smog. This dilemma is a blaring wake-up call to what scientists have known for decades: cargo ships and their harmful use of diesel fuel are a major threat to our already deteriorating climate.
Global shipping emitted about 800 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2023, a number that has steadily grown over the years despite the resolve of climate activists. If the industry were a country, it would easily rank among the top 10 CO2 emitters at levels similar to Germany or South Korea. While striking, these statistics do not even consider the other chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that also contribute to the harmful threat cargo ships pose to our environment.
This major driver of climate change is expected to worsen as our global population growth accelerates, with increased consumer demand leading to higher rates of seaborne transport. By 2030, CO2 emissions related to shipping are expected to increase by a staggering 200-300%. Even without these shipping emission increases, scientists have estimated that the global temperature will rise by 1.5 degrees this century. This threshold represents a high risk to ecosystems and human systems alike, especially in less developed nations.
Recently, the US Department of Energy has been forging domestic and international partnerships to support an ambitious plan to achieve net zero emissions in the maritime sector, including international shipping, by 2050. There have also been benchmarks set for 2030 and 2040, providing a clearer trajectory for this long-term project. The U.S. Maritime Decarbonization Action Plan, currently under development, considers energy and technology strategies in conjunction with economic and political factors to ensure a smooth transition into this innovative future.
The published Maritime Action Plan Preview calls for a mix of energy alternatives. However, some experts within the shipping sector have argued for the priority use of biofuels given barriers to other zero-emission solutions. For instance, while ammonia is commonly discussed in the industry as a cleaner alternative, it emits nitrous oxide. This substance is around 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide and plays a significant role in thinning the stratospheric ozone layer. Additionally, the economic viability of electrification has been frequently raised. Not only does electrification require scarce metal mining often connected to child labor and environmental damage, but even modern batteries do not have sufficient storage to power ships on long international treks. It would require building periodic charging infrastructure pitstops along the route. Biofuels, on the other hand, are relatively less expensive and are produced by absorbing carbon. Although they release carbon dioxide when used, their production process counteracts the emissions, making them carbon-neutral.
While the climate crisis incentivizes sustainability, developing nations usually rely on low-cost solutions that often harm the environment. China has been particularly vocal about its perceived right to develop without strong environmental considerations given that other nations, such as the U.S., did not have to consider these factors in their own development. At the moment, China is the world’s largest global exporter and 80% of global trade in goods is transported by sea. China’s participation is key to this transition, and a comparatively feasible fuel alternative like biofuel will pose the most attractive option. While diversification is necessary, the US must advocate for biofuels as the primary alternative for international shipping. It is the most promising method for cooperatively decarbonizing this global industry, especially on the short timeline proposed.
Biofuel investments represent the best chance to persuade large portions of the international community to negate the disastrous environmental impacts of global shipping. This is also an opportunity for the United States to hold itself accountable for the environmental damage it has inflicted on the world throughout its history. By virtue of being a top global consumer, this country is a dominant force in the global shipping industry. It is up to the U.S. to set a realistic standard of compliance for these technically non-binding commitments to carbon-neutral shipping, establishing a new developmental norm for a more sustainable future.
Erin Czelusniak 
Leave a comment