The China Mail - Did cuts to shipping emissions spur more global warming?

USD -
AED 3.67315
AFN 62.506465
ALL 82.894362
AMD 377.319892
ANG 1.790083
AOA 916.999838
ARS 1397.492201
AUD 1.43539
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.706959
BAM 1.687977
BBD 2.01456
BDT 122.73608
BGN 1.709309
BHD 0.377686
BIF 2965
BMD 1
BND 1.279846
BOB 6.926967
BRL 5.274202
BSD 1.000203
BTN 93.723217
BWP 13.705842
BYN 2.961192
BYR 19600
BZD 2.011712
CAD 1.37534
CDF 2272.999858
CHF 0.790945
CLF 0.02313
CLP 913.29907
CNY 6.880498
CNH 6.89499
COP 3716.01
CRC 466.057627
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 95.249557
CZK 21.095012
DJF 178.123395
DKK 6.447315
DOP 59.874988
DZD 132.648986
EGP 52.710602
ERN 15
ETB 157.374985
EUR 0.86294
FJD 2.221803
FKP 0.74705
GBP 0.746455
GEL 2.715015
GGP 0.74705
GHS 10.904967
GIP 0.74705
GMD 72.999411
GNF 8780.000368
GTQ 7.659677
GYD 209.341164
HKD 7.82715
HNL 26.520334
HRK 6.526387
HTG 131.152069
HUF 336.373049
IDR 16905
ILS 3.12205
IMP 0.74705
INR 93.873601
IQD 1310
IRR 1315050.00032
ISK 124.100338
JEP 0.74705
JMD 157.845451
JOD 0.709061
JPY 158.708501
KES 129.579875
KGS 87.4485
KHR 4014.999755
KMF 424.999851
KPW 899.971148
KRW 1495.809924
KWD 0.30655
KYD 0.833571
KZT 482.866057
LAK 21549.999711
LBP 89549.999964
LKR 314.407654
LRD 183.602094
LSL 16.849753
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.395002
MAD 9.362042
MDL 17.4948
MGA 4165.000385
MKD 53.139493
MMK 2099.628947
MNT 3568.971376
MOP 8.061125
MRU 40.110204
MUR 49.201173
MVR 15.449742
MWK 1737.000359
MXN 17.82445
MYR 3.956496
MZN 63.908035
NAD 16.820218
NGN 1379.980262
NIO 36.720106
NOK 9.678604
NPR 149.95361
NZD 1.71658
OMR 0.384457
PAB 1.000203
PEN 3.473011
PGK 4.3055
PHP 59.882496
PKR 279.250376
PLN 3.684555
PYG 6526.476592
QAR 3.644026
RON 4.396699
RSD 101.351033
RUB 80.49721
RWF 1460
SAR 3.753687
SBD 8.051718
SCR 14.949356
SDG 600.999933
SEK 9.31975
SGD 1.278815
SHP 0.750259
SLE 24.549964
SLL 20969.510825
SOS 571.498886
SRD 37.340262
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.63
SVC 8.752314
SYP 110.977546
SZL 16.850211
THB 32.656995
TJS 9.597587
TMT 3.5
TND 2.905035
TOP 2.40776
TRY 44.34696
TTD 6.795811
TWD 31.9333
TZS 2570.000173
UAH 43.928935
UGX 3745.690083
UYU 40.762429
UZS 12205.000204
VES 456.504355
VND 26357
VUV 119.458227
WST 2.748874
XAF 566.134155
XAG 0.014354
XAU 0.000227
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.802694
XDR 0.704159
XOF 568.496327
XPF 103.397606
YER 238.649931
ZAR 17.008897
ZMK 9001.200612
ZMW 18.929544
ZWL 321.999592
  • CMSC

    0.0200

    22.9

    +0.09%

  • RIO

    1.0000

    86.84

    +1.15%

  • NGG

    0.5950

    82.655

    +0.72%

  • GSK

    0.9170

    52.907

    +1.73%

  • BCE

    0.2250

    25.985

    +0.87%

  • AZN

    1.2350

    185.305

    +0.67%

  • RBGPF

    -13.5000

    69

    -19.57%

  • RYCEF

    -0.4500

    15.6

    -2.88%

  • BCC

    1.8900

    73.77

    +2.56%

  • JRI

    0.1650

    11.845

    +1.39%

  • CMSD

    -0.0550

    22.685

    -0.24%

  • BP

    1.0350

    44.605

    +2.32%

  • RELX

    -1.1500

    32.66

    -3.52%

  • VOD

    0.2150

    14.695

    +1.46%

  • BTI

    0.2800

    58.2

    +0.48%

Did cuts to shipping emissions spur more global warming?
Did cuts to shipping emissions spur more global warming? / Photo: © AFP

Did cuts to shipping emissions spur more global warming?

Could a sudden drop in pollution from cargo vessels criss-crossing global shipping lanes be inadvertently making the world hotter?

Text size:

The main reason for global warming is the heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels.

But scientists have been looking at the extent to which a shift to cleaner, lower-sulphur shipping fuels in 2020 may have fuelled warming by reducing the amount of particles in the atmosphere that reflect heat back into space.

This theory surfaced again when January was declared the hottest on record, extending a streak of exceptional global temperatures that has persisted since mid-2023.

- Why did shipping emissions drop? -

On January 1, 2020, the sulphur content in engine fuel used to power container vessels, oil tankers and other ships in global trade was slashed by decree from 3.5 percent to 0.5 percent.

This was mandated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN agency that regulates the global shipping sector, including its environmental impact.

Sulphur oxides in fuels are tiny airborne particles harmful to human health and linked to strokes and the development of lung and cardiovascular diseases.

Some jurisdictions have even tighter restrictions in so-called "emissions control areas" in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North American zone and the US marine Caribbean area.

- Is it working? -

The IMO estimated its fuel mandate would cut emissions of sulphur oxide by 8.5 million tonnes a year.

Last June, research published in the academic journal Earth System Science Data reported that sulphur oxide emissions from the shipping industry declined 7.4 million tonnes between 2019 and 2020.

The IMO said that in 2023 just two vessels flagged for inspection were found to be using fuel with a sulphur level above the 0.5 percent requirement.

Since the new regulation came into force, only 67 violations have been recorded.

- Is there a link to global warming? -

Sulphur oxides are not greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide or methane which are effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere, raising global temperatures.

On the contrary, they boost the reflectivity of clouds by making them more mirror-like and capable of bouncing incoming heat from the Sun back into space.

The sudden decline in these particles may have spurred recent warming "but we can't quantify it in an ultra-precise manner", said Olivier Boucher from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)

He said studies had detected changes in clouds above major shipping lanes since 2020, including a greater presence of larger particles less reflective of sunlight.

Scientists could say shipping emissions had aided warming to some degree "but we are not able to say that it contributes a lot", Boucher added.

One study published in August in the journal Earth's Future concluded that the IMO regulation could increase global surface temperatures by nearly 0.05 degrees Celsius a year up until 2029.

The drastic reduction in airborne sulphur pollution helps to explain the exceptional heat of 2023 but the authors said the magnitude of the temperature extremes meant other factors were likely also at play.

L.Johnson--ThChM