Time to eliminate black carbon from Arctic shipping

Black carbon results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. In the Arctic, many ships run on heavy fuel oil (HFO) which also generates black carbon. At an upcoming IMO meeting, WWF, the Inuit Circumpolar Council and other NGOs have proposed that existing voluntary shipping regulations around air pollution, including black carbon, should be made mandatory. But what is black carbon? And why are mandatory shipping regulations crucial for the future of Arctic ecosystems?

It is estimated that 90 per cent of world trade is transported by ships, and Arctic shipping traffic is taking a larger share as the Arctic Ocean sea ice melts. Between 2013 and 2019, the number of ships operating in Arctic waters grew by 25 per cent, and the distance they sailed increased by 75 per cent. Shipping is responsible for nearly 3 per cent of all global climate emissions and that number is growing. If the sector is left alone to carry on business as usual that share would jump to 17 per cent by 2050. Especially damaging are black carbon emissions which make up 20 per cent of the shipping sectors climate impact. Black carbon, a soot-like fine particulate matter, absorbs both heat and light and wreaks havoc in the Arctic.  

Black Carbon results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. In the Arctic, many ships run on heavy fuel oil (HFO) which also generates black carbon and is emitted from the exhaust stack of a ship. HFO represents 57 per cent of fuel used and 76 per cent of fuel carried on board ships in the Arctic.  

When black carbon is released from a ship’s exhaust stack, it lands on surfaces like snow and ice absorbing sunlight and causing the snow and ice to melt. The same process happens in air particles around a ship as the soot absorbs heat, warming the air.  When the sea ice melts the dark water of the Arctic Ocean absorbs more heat and releases more heat into the atmosphere, causing more Arctic and global warming, exacerbating the climate crisis.

What are the impacts of continued use of HFO on people in the Arctic?

The continued use of fossil fuels, like HFO in the marine sector is responsible for the decline in sea ice which is putting ice-dependent Arctic species—such as narwhals, polar bears and walrus—at risk. This is also impacting Indigenous communities who rely on the availability of traditional foods. Sea ice loss is also making transportation to and from communities dangerous.

There are also immediate human health consequences from exposure to black carbon emissions. These include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, non-fatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms, such as airway irritation, coughing or breathing difficulties.

For Arctic communities and Indigenous Peoples, such exposure can have significant effects on quality of life and community well-being, adding hardships to northern communities that are already impacted by the climate crisis. Snow and ice are at the centre of Indigenous culture the intense warming, now experienced in the Arctic, makes traditional ways of life difficult.

Alternatives exist

A recent study from the International Council on Clean Transportation modelled five transit routes through the Arctic, to find out what would happen if ships switched away from HFO, the world’s most polluting and hazardous fuel, to the use of cleaner distillate fuels (similar to diesel). It demonstrated that black carbon emissions from these ships would fall by between 50 per cent to 80 per cent by using these cleaner fuels, which are already available and don’t require any vessel retrofit costs.

Given the nature of international trade and vessel traffic, rules need to be set globally. The United Nations specialized agency, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), has the responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships. A country can implement regional measures in its own waters, but to address a global problem like the climate crisis, the IMO must be involved.

On the surface, the task to reduce a significant portion of shipping black carbon emissions by mandating a switch away from HFO to cleaner, distillate fuels seems straightforward and doable. The IMO has adopted a ban on HFO use and carriage in the Arctic starting in 2024, but it is riddled with loopholes until 2029, which means only 16 per cent of the HFO used will be prohibited as of 1 July 2024, reducing black carbon emissions by only 5 per cent by some estimates.

Importance of action at the IMO and the upcoming MEPC79 meeting

WWF, the Inuit Circumpolar Council and other NGOs have submitted a solution for discussion at the upcoming 79th meeting of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC), a subsidiary body of the IMO on 12-16 December 2022. The proposal is to turn the existing IMO voluntary resolution for ships to switch to distillates in and near the Arctic, into a mandatory amendment to existing air pollution regulations.

IMO members can make this agreement. It is possible—and doing so could reroute the shipping industry away from a certain black carbon climate collision.

What if the International Maritime Organization doesn’t respond?

Progressive states could deal with black carbon emissions by designating emission control areas in country-exclusive economic zones offshore. None exist in the Arctic yet. Bringing such a proposal to the IMO could help mandate the use of cleaner fuels in those states’ waters. Countries can also refuse to include loopholes that were allowed as part of the 2024 ban.

In short, states can act if the proposal on the table does not pass.

In the Arctic, changes due to the climate crisis are already causing nature to break down, causing risks to the livelihoods, health and cultural identities of Indigenous and local communities.

These changes, many of which are irreversible, will result in a very different Arctic than the one we have been used to. Forcing the elimination of HFO use is a necessary step forward for northern communities, the world’s climate systems and the maritime industry itself—a rare win–win–win climate solution.