Today’s lawsuit notes that discharges of vessel ballast water originating thousands of miles away can carry invasive species, pathogens and pollutants. These can contaminate waters and threaten ecosystems, public health and economies.

“The EPA has looked the other way for years as ships from all over the world dump disease-causing pathogens and invasive organisms that harm our waters and communities,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Pollutants and invasive species like the invasive overbite clam are threats that demand action, and it’s absurd that the EPA has abdicated its duty for so long and neglected to set firm limits on ballast water.”

Vessel pollution has spread harmful zebra mussels, coral diseases and even human pathogens. To improve stability, ships take up ballast water at their origins, and this water contains animals, plants and other organisms. The vessels carry that water to their destinations, where it is released and the foreign species are let out into the aquatic ecosystems. Some of these now-invasive species threaten native organisms and water quality. Communities with unreliable water treatment systems, including low-wealth and environmental justice communities, may be at heightened risk from introduced human pathogens.

“EPA was given an exceedingly generous timeline to comply with the law and issue meaningful regulations on vessel discharge,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director for Friends of the Earth. “It is clear that litigation is the only remaining tactic to force the agency to act. We hope today’s lawsuit will finally get EPA’s attention and begin forging a real path toward protecting ecosystems and nearby communities from this dangerous form of unregulated pollution.”

The EPA has a track record of ignoring vessel pollution. Courts have rejected the EPA’s inadequate vessel discharge standards in the past, and Congress required the EPA to establish new vessel discharge standards by Dec. 4, 2020, including standards to control ballast water pollution.

Under the Biden administration, the EPA has repeatedly postponed the release of its final standards. In fall 2020 the agency projected that the final standards would be published in March 2021, but after multiple delays the agency now says it will take nearly the entire four years of Biden’s first term. The EPA’s repeated moving of the goalposts has kept weak and unlawful standards in place. Today’s lawsuit is intended to force the EPA to stop delaying and issue its final standards.

In September 2022, environmental groups filed a notice of intent to sue the EPA over its failure to regulate ballast water. In June 2022, 34 members of Congress asked EPA Administrator Michael Regan to end the agency’s 50-year failure to comply with the Clean Water Act and finally issue the ballast water discharge standards required by the Act. In November 2022, 180 environmental organizations, public health organizations, commercial- and sport-fishing organizations and Native American tribes asked President Biden to order the EPA to finally follow the law on ballast water discharges. The Biden administration has not responded to either letter.

Today’s lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California.

Contacts:

Miyoko Sakashita, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 845-6703, miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org
Shaye Skiff, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0723, kskiff@foe.org

The post Lawsuit Seeks to Protect U.S. Waters From Ship Pollution, Invasive Species appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

“Underwater noise pollution from ships is rampant in the ocean, and it threatens the recovery of critically endangered marine mammals, such as Southern Resident orcas and North Atlantic right whales,” said Regan Nelson, senior oceans advocate for NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). “This smart new legislation will invest in reducing vessel noise and put the country on a pathway to building ships that are both carbon-free and quiet.” 

“We deeply appreciate the leadership of Washington State’s Congressional delegation for its amendments to help assure commerce and killer whales can coexist,” said Port of Seattle Commissioner Fred Felleman. “Washington State is rich in marine life, maritime innovation, and ports motivated to incentivize the development of technologies that support the ecology and economy of our region.” 

“The critically endangered Southern Resident orcas depend on sound to find and capture their scarce prey as well as to communicate with each other,” said Nora Nickum, Senior Ocean Policy Manager at the Seattle Aquarium. “Applying measures like these to monitor underwater noise and quiet the waters will contribute to foraging success and improve their chance of recovery.” 

“This legislation fortifies the U.S. Coast Guard’s ability to communicate with boaters and commercial mariners in real time and put more space between orcas and vessels – much like our partners in Canada are doing,” said Todd Hass, Special Assistant to the Director at the Puget Sound Partnership. 

“We are running out of time to save the Southern Resident orcas, which are in crisis due to threats from pollution, noise, and lack of their primary food – salmon,” said Tara Galuska, Washington State’s orca recovery coordinator. “This legislation will support efforts in our state to address these threats and take us a step much closer to ensuring these incredible creatures are around for a long time. We are very grateful to the Washington Congressional delegation for this important legislation that will help quiet our waterways and ultimately help us protect orcas and other important marine animals.” 

“For too long, the shipping industry has flown under the radar when it comes to noise and other pollution streams,” said Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Program Director at Friends of the Earth. “These new measures will give Southern Resident orcas and other marine mammals a better chance of survival in the Pacific Northwest.” 

Specific provisions in the funding package to protect marine mammals include: 

• A grant program to support ports and initiatives like Washington’s Quiet Sound program that aim to reduce underwater noise pollution from large vessels that share waters with orcas and other sensitive whales.  

• New technologies that can detect whales in real-time to assist mariners and natural resource managers in taking actions to avoid disturbing or colliding with whales.  
• A new “Whale Desk” in Puget Sound that will help the Coast Guard communicate with mariners when necessary to help avoid ship strikes and other vessel disturbances of orcas. 
• Federal government investments in advancing technologies that help quiet ships and other vessels, which contribute the bulk of underwater noise to busy coastal waters. 
  

For more, here is a blog by Regan Nelson, senior oceans advocate at NRDC. 

Communications contacts:
Anne Hawke, ahawke@nrdc.org, (646) 823-4518
Peter McGraw, mcgraw.p@portseattle.org, (206) 787-3446 
Nora Nickum, n.nickum@seattleaquarium.org, (206) 556-1830
Jon Bridgman, jon.bridgman@psp.wa.gov, (360) 999-3847
Susan Zemek, susan.zemek@rco.wa.gov, (360) 764-9349
Brittany Miller, bmiller@foe.org, (202) 222-0746 

The post Big Wins for Endangered Orcas in Defense Spending Bill appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

“The EPA needs to stop ships from spewing zebra mussels, infectious diseases and other organisms into our waterways, contaminating ecosystems and communities,” said Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The agency’s foot-dragging on finalizing strong, legally required vessel discharge standards is inexcusable. Every day without ship discharge rules ramps up the risks and harms.”   

Ballast water, which is taken up and carried in a ship’s ballast tanks to improve stability, includes plants and other organisms from the vessel’s region of origin. This water and its biological baggage are then re-released in destination regions, where some species become pests and threaten water quality. Environmental and community groups have been fighting for more than a decade for strong standards that would minimize the harms inflicted by ballast water and other vessel discharges.  

On Dec. 4, 2018, Congress passed the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, consolidating laws that regulated vessel discharges to prevent the introduction of harmful pollutants. The law requires the EPA to establish vessel discharge standards, including to control ballast water pollution, by Dec. 4, 2020. While EPA released a proposed rule on Oct. 26, 2020, the agency never finalized it. 

“Ship discharges are wreaking ecological, economic and public health havoc, all while the EPA sits on its hands,” said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels program director at Friends of the Earth. “The agency must protect people, the economy, wildlife and habitats from harmful vessel pollution without any further delay.”  

Contacts:

Julie Teel Simmonds, Center for Biological Diversity, (619) 990-2999, jteelsimmonds@biologicaldiversity.org  

Brittany Miller, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0746, bmiller@foe.org 

The post Lawsuit Launched to Protect U.S. Waters From Ship Pollution, Invasive Species appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

This is why it is vital that U.S. ports transition to zero-emission vehicles in order to greatly reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. This shift will help align us with obligations under the Paris Agreement and national climate goals. Above all, it will provide much needed relief to portside environmental justice communities. 

Unfortunately, one of the biggest barriers for port electrification has been the cost of the transition. However, with federal funding provided by port-related provisions in the IRA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the time is now for ports to transition. 

$3 billion has been allocated in Clean Ports Investments as part of the IRA. These funds help port authorities purchase zero emission equipment or technology, assist in planning for these purchases, and aid in developing climate action plans in order to reduce air pollution. These additional provisions in the IRA could be applied to benefit port-adjacent communities. For the 2022 fiscal year, the Port Infrastructure Development Program (part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), offered $450 million for ports to plan and execute projects that improve the safety, efficiency, reliability, and environmental performance of the movement of goods through and around ports. If the trend continues, we can expect a similar amount, if not more, for  fiscal year  2023. This fact sheet provides some examples of items and projects that PIDP can fund. 

There are plenty of ways in which funding from PIDP has been used to benefit U.S. ports. Some examples of projects include: the construction of on-site fuel cell facilities, the implementation of offshore wind infrastructure, the evaluation of resiliency and sustainability plans, and the purchases of electric equipment (electric cranes, drayage trucks, cargo-handling equipment, freight trucks, ferries, etc.) 

There is a path to a greener, safer future for shipping in the U.S. The technology for electrification exists and the funds for the transition are available. 

Port authorities simply cannot overlook the social and environmental importance of leveraging newly available federal funding to transition to green port operations now. 

The post Ports Need to Take Advantage of Inflation and Infrastructure Funding appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

Through this case, Trump-era EPA officials had attempted to undermine the protections of the Clean Water Act by reopening Washington State’s cost-benefit analysis of the NDZ.  That analysis took years of work with public stakeholders, including environmental organizations and American Waterways Operators.  Tens of thousands of people submitted public comments at the state level and the federal level to support this vital protection for clean water.

“The judge’s ruling upholding the Puget Sound No Discharge Zone is great news for clean water everywhere,” said Mindy Roberts Puget Sound Program Director with Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters. “Trump’s EPA used every tool to try to undermine foundational environmental laws from the inside. This final decision closes the door to an industry-led effort with a direct line to decision makers. That’s not only good for protecting Puget Sound’s waters but for all waters protected by the Clean Water Act.”

Sewage contains bacteria and other pathogens that threaten shellfish beds, animal life, and public health, especially in communities that subsist on local fish. Within No Discharge Zone boundaries, boaters are required to hold sewage on board their vessels for disposal at pump-out facilities or outside the zone’s boundaries. Lobbyists for the tugboat industry attempted to undermine the state-designated rule by appealing to Trump’s EPA. Puget Sound now joins more than 90 other Zones around the country, including in the Great Lakes and the entire California coast. It is the first in Washington state.

“We all have a crucial role to play in protecting the Puget Sound we love for future generations. This place is a treasure, not a toilet.” said Katelyn Kinn, Senior Attorney for Puget Soundkeeper. “The No Discharge Zone is a common sense solution, and we are thankful to see it preserved.”

“Hundreds of thousands of people rely on a healthy, thriving Puget Sound for their livelihood, recreation, and as an essential food source. Washington’s waters are far too precious and important to allow ships to dump their sewage,” said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels program director at Friends of the Earth. “This ruling cements the effort to keep clean water protections for Puget Sound in place for our communities and for future generations.”

“Puget Sound is one of the nation’s environmental and economic crown jewels. The Court made the right decision rejecting a Trump administration attempt to undermine a key Clean Water Act provision that protects our people and ecosystem,” added Paulo Palugod, attorney for Earthjustice in Seattle, WA. “The Court acknowledged the importance of our stewardship when we ‘took up the mantle’ to defend the Puget Sound when the Trump-EPA would not.”

See Washington State Department of Ecology Director Laura Watson’s tweet here and news post. 

Communications contact: Kerry Skiff, 202-222-0723, kskiff@foe.org

The post Court rules on No Discharge Zone, blocking lingering Trump Admin attempt to allow vessels to dump sewage into Puget Sound appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

Air pollution from large container ports has been a historically neglected environmental justice issue. Near-port communities tend to be communities of color, low-income, or otherwise disadvantaged and are disproportionately exposed to pollutants. While there have been significant efforts to reduce emissions from the transportation sector, efforts to reduce emissions at ports have been slow and far behind other industries. However, as the harms of environmental injustices are increasingly recognized, port emissions have received heightened focus.  

Port operations release high amounts of climate change-causing greenhouse gases (GHGs), as well as particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are known to have negative human health impacts, among other pollutants. Particulate matter is the mixture of small airborne particles, such as dust, soot, and liquid droplets. Both coarse particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are known to cause respiratory health problems and can lead to premature death.1 Fine particulate matter accounts for between 85,000 and 200,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year2 and a recent scientific study found that people of color are exposed to disproportionately high levels of PM2.5 from nearly all major emissions sources.  

A 2020 study conducted in Newark, NJ  found that communities located adjacent to ports, high-density truck and bus routes, and related infrastructure experience higher levels of diesel truck traffic as well as higher pollutant exposure, exacerbating health concerns. The study found that non-roadway sources, particularly ports, were the dominant contributor of PM2.5 emissions; port operations and rail yards were responsible for around 85% of PM2.5 and black carbon exposure.  

Reducing emissions from roadway sources (e.g., trucks) could meaningfully reduce exposure to pollutants in the study areas near roadways, but when assessed across the entire study area, focusing on roadway emissions would only reduce emissions exposure by one to two percent, due to the magnitude of port and rail yard emissions exposure. This study demonstrates the outsized impact ports have on local air pollution and near-port communities, but efforts can be taken to reduce port air emissions and create a cleaner environment for near-port communities, while also mitigating the impacts of GHGs and climate change.  

Expanding the use of renewable energy and moving toward electrification of port operations are  making inroads at ports across the country. Yet air emission reduction efforts at the top ten container ports in the US (by TEU) vary significantly. Of the top ten U.S. container ports, eastern and southern ports tend to be far behind those on the west coast, with the Port of New York and New Jersey as a possible exception. Lagging ports can look to the west coast ports as examples for emissions reductions they could achieve through implementing renewable and electrification initiatives.  

The first step in understanding port emissions is conducting an emissions inventory at regular intervals. An emissions inventory is a comprehensive assessment of air emissions of pollutants and their sources, which can be used to understand baseline emissions and track progress over time. For example, the Port of Los Angeles (LA) conducts an annual emissions inventory that tracks emissions of eight pollutants (e.g. PM10, PM2.5, NOx, etc.) from five different port sources (ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, locomotives, and heavy-duty vehicles).  

The Port of LA has conducted annual emissions inventories since 2005. In 2019, the most recent inventory available, the Port had reduced PM2.5 emissions 86% from 2005 levels across all sources. Of the top ten U.S. container ports, only the Port of Savannah has not completed an emissions inventory in the past 10 years or have a plan to complete one in the future.  

With an emissions inventory to understand port air emissions, ports can then create long-term goals to reduce emissions. The Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy (Strategy) lays out a vision for four Northwest port entities to phase out emissions from seaport-related activities by 2050.  

The Strategy was first adopted in 2008, and progress is documented annually. In 2016, the four port entities had collectively reached their 2020 emissions targets, significantly reducing their port-related air pollution since the baseline year of 2005. While only one of the top ten container ports does not have a recent or ongoing emissions inventory, the Port of Virginia, the South Carolina Ports Authority, and the Georgia Ports Authority all lack a long-term strategic plan for emissions reductions. 

The combined efforts of an air emissions inventory and a long-term strategic plan for emissions reductions have led to west coast ports notably reducing their port-related air pollution. With or without an emissions inventory or a long-term plan, there are several measures ports can carry out to achieve reductions in air emissions 

Clean Trucks 

Replacing old, inefficient diesel trucks with newer, cleaner trucks is one way to reduce diesel emissions. Drayage trucks, trucks that transport containers and bulk freight between the port and other near-port facilities, are of particular concern. These trucks can have major impacts on nearby communities, particularly through the use of residential streets.  

In 2008, as part of the San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), the Ports of LA and Long Beach launched a Clean Truck Program to phase out the oldest, dirtiest trucks serving port terminals by banning trucks older than 2007 engine model year. The 2016 emissions inventories for the ports showed that truck-related diesel particulate matter emissions had decreased 97% since 2005, and to date the Clean Truck Program has reduced air pollution from harbor trucks by more than 90%. Of the top ten U.S. container ports, all but Jacksonville (JAXPORT) have implemented some form of clean truck incentive program or have utilized federal grant funding to purchase cleaner trucks. 

Vessel Shore Power 

Vessel shore power is the ability for marine vessels to plug into the local electricity grid while at berth, allowing ships to turn off their auxiliary diesel engines. According to the NWSA, “for a ship that is at the dock for 40 hours, [shore power] avoids burning about ten metric tons of marine gas oil (diesel fuel for ships) and avoids emitting about 32 tons of CO2 and 22 pounds of diesel particulate matter.”  

The TOTE Terminal in Tacoma, WA has had shore power installed since 2010, and the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma have been expanding their shore power capabilities with a goal of 100% of their major cruise and container berths to have shore power installed by 2030. While shore power can achieve beneficial emissions reductions, it requires landside infrastructure for vessels to connect to the local electric grid as well as shipside power modifications. Only five of the top ten U.S. container ports currently have shore power capabilities. 

Electrification of port infrastructure 

Ports can also move toward electrification of infrastructure such as cargo handling equipment. Cargo handling equipment is any motorized equipment used for routine maintenance and function of port activities (e.g., rubber-tired gantry cranes (RTGs), container handlers, terminal tractors). The Port of Long Beach has received $80 million in total grant funding for six projects to demonstrate zero emissions equipment and advanced energy systems in port operations. One of these projects includes 12 battery-electric yard tractors and nine fully electric RTGs, the nation’s largest deployment of fully electric RTGs at a single terminal; RTGs make up only 5% of the terminal fleet, but account for up to 20% of equipment emissions. While these types of equipment may not be numerous or top of mind when thinking about port emissions, electrification of these operations can lead to notable emissions reductions. 

Supporting renewable energy on-site

Although not directly related to port equipment operations, ports can support renewable energy through installation of renewable energy infrastructure on-site. For example, the Port of Seattle has installed four solar arrays on port properties, demonstrating the port’s commitment to developing renewable energy and achieving their goal to meet all increased energy needs through conservation and renewable sources. One of these solar arrays is designed to generate approximately 120,000 kilowatt hours annually, which will offset greenhouse gas emissions by about 2.0 to 2.5 metric tons of CO2 and save $10,000 in energy costs per year.  

Conclusion 

Purchasing and implementing low- and zero-emissions technology requires overhauling sizable amounts of existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, building out this infrastructure is not cheap – the Port of Long Beach has completed more than $185 million worth of dockside power hookups and other infrastructure for vessel shore power alone. 

Thankfully, the federal government has funded grant programs, such as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program, that can be used to fund port emission reduction projects. In addition to existing grant funding mechanisms, there is movement within Congress to create new grant programs and additional funding to implement these types of initiatives at ports. 

The Climate Smart Ports Act (CSPA), introduced by Representative Barragán (D-CA), would establish the Climate Smart Ports Grant Program to award grants to eligible entities to purchase, and as applicable install, zero emissions port equipment and technology, and would authorize $10 billion over ten years for the program. Additionally, there is movement within the Biden Administration for port infrastructure. The American Jobs Plan would invest an additional $17 billion in inland waterways, coastal ports, land ports of entry, and ferries, including a Healthy Ports program to mitigate the cumulative impacts of air pollution on near-port communities. 

If the Biden Administration and environmental groups are serious about addressing environmental justice concerns, port air emissions and their impact on near-port communities cannot be overlooked. Ports have the ability and technology to reduce air emissions from their operations, but it will take money and public pressure for more ports to actually implement these technologies and initiatives. 

Implementing the mentioned programs will help mitigate climate change and impacts to environmental justice communities that are disproportionately harmed by air pollution. There is now greater momentum than ever to make sweeping changes at U.S. ports.  

The post US Ports Poorly Address Environmental Justice Concerns appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

The groups sued the U.S. Coast Guard and National Marine Fisheries Service for failing to meet Endangered Species Act consultation requirements. This failure resulted in a flawed biological study that didn’t consider actions proven to reduce ship strikes, including mandatory vessel speed limits and routing changes to reduce shipping traffic’s overlap with areas of high whale densities. The administration was notified twice last year that it was violating the law.

“Ship strikes kill way too many endangered whales along California’s coast. The feds are ignoring this carnage rather than addressing it with simple actions like mandatory speed limits,” said Brian Segee, an attorney at the Center. “We should let science guide how shipping lanes are placed and managed. The Endangered Species Act works, but only if federal officials follow its requirements.”

Studies have found ship strikes, already known to be a leading cause of death and injuries to whales, are more lethal than previously understood.

Federal records document at least 27 whales struck by ships in California over the last three years, including a dead fin whale draped across the bow of a container ship as it entered San Francisco Bay in 2018. Scientists say the actual number could be 20 times larger, since most dead whales sink.

“The Trump administration had ignored the impact of vessel traffic on endangered species for far too long,” said Hallie Templeton, deputy legal director at Friends of the Earth. “The science is clear: Better management of vessel speeds and routes will make a difference, yet federal agencies are refusing to conform. After multiple notices of unlawful agency action, we are now turning to the federal court system to hold the federal government accountable.”

Today’s lawsuit covers shipping lanes through the Santa Barbara Channel that access ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as shipping lanes in the approach to San Francisco Bay ports. It calls for the Fisheries Service and Coast Guard to revisit their consultation and update the Fisheries Service’s 2017 biological opinion to consider ship strike avoidance measures, including vessel speed limits and routing changes.

In 2019 the Center successfully secured a proposal from the federal government to designate 175,812 square miles of the Pacific Ocean as critical habitat for endangered humpback whales and won new rules protecting whales from being entangled in fishing gear off California’s coast.

The Center and its allies also contested plans to increase oil-tanker traffic into San Francisco Bay that could harm whales. The group has long called for shipping speed limits and other maritime rules to better protect imperiled marine life.

Contact: Aisha Dukule, Friends of the Earth, (202) 893-3502, adukule@foe.org

The post Lawsuit Aims to Protect Endangered Whales in California Shipping Lanes appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

A tugboat capable of assisting disabled oil tankers will be required to escort laden oil barges, articulated tug barges (ATBs) (see Resources) and small oil tankers between 5,000-40,000 deadweight tons (dwt) through Rosario Strait. Since 1975 Laden oil tankers larger than 40,000 dwt have been required to have tug escorts East of Sequim (RCW Title 88 Chapter 88.16 Section 88.16.170).

This safety measure is the result of successful legislation from 2019: ESHB 1578, Reducing Threats to Southern Resident Killer Whales by Improving the Safety of Oil Transportation. ESHB 1578 only requires these smaller vessels to have tug escorts when filled with oil in Rosario Strait – about half the number of transits given they usually return to the four North Sound refineries empty to be refilled. The legislation also applies to a few smaller refined oil tankers that were not subject to the tug escort requirement.

“Commercial vessels don’t need assistance often, but if they are not responded to quickly it can result in a catastrophic oil spill that can last decades and render our endangered orca extinct,” said Fred Felleman, NW Consultant to Friends of the Earth and Port of Seattle Commissioner. “We greatly appreciate the legislature’s leadership by filling a major safety gap in the state’s oil spill prevention regime. The increasing use of ATBs since 2010 and series of significant incidents and oil spills involving barges and ATBs in the region has more than justified the added protection they are now being afforded.”

As a result of the passage of this legislation each year, ATBs and barges carrying a total of 3 billion gallons of oil through the environmentally rich and vulnerable Rosario Strait, characterized by narrow shipping lanes and swift currents most oil carrying vessels in transit, will be afforded the additional protection of tug escorts with trained crews that can keep them from grounding if they lose power or steering. The tugs will also be available to help other vessels on an opportunistic basis if an unescorted vessel needs assistance.

This new safety measure means an additional 245 oil laden barges and 302 oil laden ATBs will be escorted by a tug annually—which translates to 1.5 tug escorted barges added to the 1 tug escorted tanker transit daily in Rosario Strait. The Board of Pilotage Commissioners interpreted the legislative intent to exclude all oil barges engaged in bunkering (fueling) operations (187) resulting in 43% of 432 laden oil barge transits through Rosario Strait being exempt from the escort requirement. 

The most common ATBs used in Washington waters carry between 6.5 and 7.5 million gallons of refined oil.  The most common barges subject to this rule carry approximately 3.6 million gallons of heavy crude oil from the Alberta oil sands deposits which are then transported through the Trans Mountain pipeline from Burnaby, British Columbia and exported through Rosario Strait to the Par Pacific (formerly US Oil) refinery in Tacoma.

Communications contact: Aisha Dukule, adukule@foe.org, (202) 893-3502
Expert contacts: Fred Felleman, (206) 595-3825
Marcie Keever, mkevver@foe.org, (415) 999-3992

The post Oil transportation in Rosario Strait Gets Safety Boost appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

While nothing is as important or concerning as the number of lives lost, it is also clear that the virus is impacting all corners of society.  From stay-at-home orders and dining out restrictions, to limits on grocery store purchases and closures of public areas, the virus has impacted almost every industry, likely forever changing the ways that we live and work.

The oil industry is one that COVID-19 may change forever. With travel restrictions and most citizens ordered to stay at home, the overall demand for fuel has been drastically reduced. Prior to the pandemic, oil demand around the world was approximately 100 million barrels per day; now, some estimates say that demand has fallen to approximately 30 million barrels a day.

Though demand had fallen drastically, production of crude oil actually increased in March due to a conflict between Saudi Arabia and Russia. An agreement between the two countries and other oil-producing nations was reached in April to cut production by May 1 in response to the reduced demand. However, the agreement came too late, as storage facilities and refineries of crude oil continue to fill up, turning oil tankers into giant  floating storage facilities for approximately 160 million barrels of crude oil. At the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, more than 20 oil tankers have congregated at or are anchored just off the coast, three times the amount  the port usually saw pre-COVID-19. Now, with the pandemic, on any given day another 10 tankers are either headed to LA/LB or are loitering further off the Pacific coast. At the Ports of New York and New Jersey, the third busiest port in the United States, over 20 oil tankers are anchored. And the Gulf of Mexico is the most disturbing: at the Ports of Houston and Galveston, which house the second largest petrochemical port in the world, over 50 oil tankers are congregated in groups both closer to shore and further out.  Dozens more are nearby at Corpus Christie, Port Arthur, and anchored further out in the Gulf of Mexico.

Off California, the Coast Guard has increased patrolling and monitoring of the ships, due to concerns over oil spills and environmental damage from the congregation of stationary vessels. However, when we spoke to Coast Guard personnel in Galveston, they acted as though this is business as usual despite the threat of a strong hurricane season this year.

With hurricane season already underway along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, public concerns are heightened about what these storms, coupled with COVID-19, could mean for the anchored tankers. Typically, large vessels like the oil tankers try to maintain a distance of at least 100 nautical miles from a hurricane’s path. However, oil tankers only reach top speeds of 15-30 miles per hour, and with unpredictable hurricane path changes, it would be difficult for these massive ships – all congregated within the same area just off the coast of highly populated metropolitan centers – to adequately and quickly respond to hurricane predictions.

The environmental damage – let alone the lives lost – from an oil tanker collision, grounding, or sinking because of a hurricane would be catastrophic. On average, each oil tanker can hold approximately 55 million gallons of oil. In comparison, the Deepwater Horizon spill leaked an estimated 133 million gallons of oil over the course of 87 days in 2010, the damage from which can still be seen in marine life and ecosystems throughout the Gulf. Just three oil tankers lost would surpass the oil released from the devastating Deepwater Horizon disaster. The aggregation of dozens of these oil tankers in these major oil ports could cause irreversible  damage to our oceans, marine life, fisheries and communities if they were caught in a hurricane and dumped their oil.

We have an opportunity to turn this unexpected and bleak pandemic into a moment for change. If we continue as we do, these types of situations will happen again and cause catastrophic damages, again. By reducing the market for oil by switching to alternative sources of energy, while also ensuring more protections for the environment, we can help prevent damages from oil tankers and spills.

The post COVID-19 and oil transport: The issue with too much oil appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

As a Siberian Yup’ik Inuit who was born and raised in Alaska, I have several concerns relating to my home in a changing climate.  I have hope humanity will not have to look back at the year 2020 wishing we had acted on the climate crisis, and say that, in hindsight, we wish we could have done something differently.  2020 must be a year of action, and if we fail to meet the challenge of the climate crisis, our inaction will have long-lasting impacts on the Arctic, its indigenous peoples, and the overall wellbeing of Earth’s climate.

As a senior oceans campaigner for Friends of the Earth, U.S., I have learned a lot about the issues of shipping, climate, and how my Arctic home-region is crucial for the health and wellbeing of the delicate temperatures of earth that support all life.  The Arctic, along with Antarctica, acts as the world’s refrigerator.  Growing in such frigid air, I didn’t realize that the snow and ice I played childhood games on with my friends in Alaska were crucial for places like the African and American deserts, which would be uninhabitable if it weren’t for the polar ice caps to help moderate their temperatures.

In 2020, our leaders must make several decisions that help protect our polar regions.  If foresight is 2020, then hindsight is 2019 – and we must understand what happened in the last year as it relates to our world’s climate.  The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report showing 2019 was the second warmest on record for our world, including the warmest on record for oceans.  In Alaska, it was reported that it was the warmest year on record.  In Antarctica, a record 65 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in early 2020.  In Greenland, scientists used aerial photos to document lakes the size of football fields made out of melting ice from Greenland’s thickest glaciers, alarming them at how much larger they were then previously thought.  In December, my mom posted a picture showing no snow or ice in my hometown of Dillingham, Alaska.  I remember Decembers growing up with  feet of snow for my friends and I to play in. Our Decembers were marked by ice-skating, snowball fights, snowmobiling and ice-fishing.  It was heartbreaking seeing my mom’s picture this holiday season knowing that younger generations face a future where snowy December afternoons are rare.

These troubling developments make 2020 the year that our leaders must act on climate change.  In my field of work, I focus mostly on shipping issues as they relate to the Arctic and the bustling Pacific Northwest.  And I know 2020 will be a pivotal year in both these regions as sea ice melts and commerce continues to grow between North America and Asia.  This next week, I am attending the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) Subcommittee that will be considering a ban of dirty Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) in the Arctic.  HFO is the dirtiest, thickest fuel that ships can use.  It burns with so much pollution that the Clean Arctic Alliance is advocating for its phase out in the Arctic, as a follow up to the ban on HFO already realized in the Antarctic.  If there was a spill, it would be next to impossible to clean up – devastating marine mammals and fisheries that me and my fellow Arctic indigenous people depend on for our food and livelihood.  Further, PPR will be considering reductions in Black Carbon emissions from ships.  This is crucial, as black carbon is known to melt snow and sea ice in the Arctic, exacerbating climate change.  Unfortunately, we are finding out the 2020 sulfur cap put in place by IMO has led to shipping companies using fuels that are lower in sulfur, but higher in emissions of black carbon.  This is a gross unintended consequence of the IMO sulfur cap that further pollutes the Arctic through the form of increased black carbon emissions.

In May 2020, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) will consider further reductions in climate change emissions from the shipping industry.  As I stated in a previous blog, if shipping were a country, it would rank sixth in the world between Japan and Germany in terms of climate change emissions.  It is important for Arctic Indigenous peoples to be heard at this crucial meeting, to help people understand why we need the Arctic to remain cool by reducing emissions from shipping and other sectors. That being said, I am glad to see the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), the international NGO that represents all Inuit people (including myself) seek to achieve consultative status at IMO.  IMO country delegations must support their application this year so they can gain the wisdom and knowledge of the people who have been living in the Arctic for thousands of years and have the values and determination to help protect their homelands and waters.  Friends of the Earth was glad to have helped our Indigenous partners move toward this important goal, as it is a matter of social and environmental justice for them.

Whatever happens in 2020, I hope it is led with foresight by our local and global leaders.  There’s usually a negative connotation to that saying that ‘hindsight is 2020,’ meaning you wish you had done something different to achieve a better outcome.  I hope that can be changed this year.  Let’s be proud in the future when we say ‘hindsight is 2020’ because we had the foresight to make the tough decisions to protect our planet and future generations.  The Arctic, and our one and only Earth, are worth it.

The post For Arctic Indigenous people, is foresight 2020? appeared first on Friends of the Earth.