The NGO Shipbreaking Platform has taken exception to the industry’s perceived refusal to accept that clean, green shipping scrapping is practical and pre-cleaning is necessary. Lloyd’s List has today opened up its opinion page to allow it to explain why.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL movement has heard it all before:
- it’s not practical to not dump waste in the ocean;
- it’s not practical to put catalytic converters on cars;
- it’s not practical to make products energy-efficient;
- it’s not practical to stop using tributyltin on ship undersides;
- it’s not practical to put two hulls on tankers;
- it’s not practical to design products without toxicmaterials...
Over the years most of those who have been asked to prevent pollution, internalise costs or act responsibly have at some time said: “But that is not practical.”
Luckily, what is “impractical” one year has tended to become “obvious and necessary” just a few years later. This is how it has always been. Smart industry leaders read the writing on the wall and make the changes early, rather than make themselves liable by damaging people and the environment.
The most practical way to remove toxic substances from ships is during the lifecycle of the ship. It is not appropriate to wait until the last minute to begin removing asbestos and other hazardous materials, such as PCBs, from the ship, as is the practice today.
Eventually, pre-cleaned ships will cost more when they are sold because costs will truly be internalised and not be allowed to be passed on at end of life to communities and people in developing countries.
We also know that toxic substances such as PCBs and asbestos will not always be used in the manufacture of ships. We expect soon to have a generation of toxic free ships. At that point, the requirement to pre-clean them in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or European Union countries, as called for in the Basel Convention and the Basel Ban Amendment, will be a moot point.
But before we can have toxin-free ships, it is clear that a major degree of compliance with Basel Convention rules is necessary. Many shipowners have taken the position that while the Basel Convention requires that 100% of waste be non-toxic, Basel
Experts tell us that this amount, depending on the ship, is 90%-99% of the toxic materials on the ship. Towing is likely to be necessary because removal of asbestos in the engine room, for example, will require removal of the engine.
Towing ships is not at all the impractical or outrageous proposition that the International Maritime Organization or International Chamber of Shipping makes it out to be, even though it would never be our first choice.
Many ships are towed to their shipbreaking destinations. Almost all the US Navy’s vessels are, for example, and recently, a Total oil barge was pre-cleaned and towed to China India , back to France and then to the UK
Arguments that it creates more greenhouse gases to tow a ship because the tow ship might have to make a round trip seem to forget that if greenhouse gases were really the major concern of the shipping industry, they would find regional waste recycling solutions in OECD countries, rather than concentrate the industry in only one part of the world.
We would much prefer that ships did not make these long final voyages at all.
We don’t advocate towing, but towing will be the cost if a shipowner is convinced that it does not want to pre-clean a ship during its normal life, or does not want to have the ship recycled in an OECD country in the first instance, where pre-cleaning will not be required.
In summary, for those that have ever stated that pre-cleaning a ship of toxic materials prior to exporting it to developing countries is impractical, we have this to ask:
- How practical is it to run toxic ships up on tidal beaches?
- How practical is it to operate what is tantamount to a hazardous waste facility on a beach?
- How practical is it to have workers blown to bits every few months by torching un-pre-cleaned fuels and gases?
- How practical is mesothelioma? Asbestosis? Cancer?
- How practical is it to solve your toxic waste problems by finding the poorest communities on earth and dumping those problems on them?
One person’s practical is clearly another, more responsible person’s immoral. With the Basel Ban decision, the global community already decided a long time ago that exporting toxic waste to developing countries was not only impractical, but in fact immoral.
Isn’t it time that the shipping industry decided that exploitation was not practical?n
The NGO Shipbreaking Platform is a global coalition of environmental, human and labour rights non-governmental organizations working for safe and clean ship recycling.www.offthebeach.org
Lloyd’s List welcomes comments on this issue of shipbreaking and invites readers to join the debate on our LinkedIn site www.lloydslist.com/environment
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment