False impressions

Carbon management is being likened to a ripening orchard where the “low-hanging fruit” is very quickly picked. Water leaks, unused buildings that continue to be heated – these are soon found.

And that is being achieved because environment control is making better use of the computer age. Software has replaced spreadsheets, allowing immediate assessments and changes. DP World illustrates this dramatically – previously, 200 spreadsheets had to be analysed and changed. Then along came a software programme from Greenstone Carbon Management and, as Charles Haine, global environment manager, puts it: “We can get results very quickly from our 50 terminals across the world, and answer any questions from regulators and organisations that we are doing business with.”

Says Greenstone chief executive Matthew de Villiers: “Using spreadsheets, a client usually does a once a year assessment, and often ends up getting a nasty shock. Now, they can keep regular track of what is happening.”

But, managers and chief executives are having to learn that there is no easy road thereafter. They know the once the obvious and easy savings are dealt with, the serious work starts.

One of the difficulties is that ports are more complicated to deal with than other sectors of the economy. Says Greenstone: “They are large organisations, with lots of people to deal with. They use very different types of inventory, such as straddle carriers and reefers, and the methods have to be adapted.

“The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is generic – if you can control the source of the emission it goes into your inventory. The trouble is that with, say, reefers you can argue that they’re the responsibility of the port or the owner of the container. Rail mounted gantries can be treated as stationary or mobile sources and so different emission factors apply.

“Ship emissions – are they the responsibility of the port or the line – with most people saying that in the port they are the responsibility of the shipping line. There is a growing body of opinion that shipping should be treated as a separate entity, just like a country, with specific standards and regulations.”

Mr de Villiers notes that aviation solved the dilemma with the rule that below 1,000 feet, aircraft are the responsibility of the airport. (Cynics say a large slice of luck would be needed for the IMO to come up with an acceptable solution in a reasonable time.)

Jem Porcaro, senior vice-president of The CarbonNeutral Company says: “Control of assets is the most difficult aspect of a management system for ports. It’s difficult to decide who is responsible for a leased property.”

Local authorities or national laws can add to the problems, preventing any remedies on such grounds as historical landmark status or surrounding community opposition because of fears of extra nuisance or noise.

For APM Terminals, the biggest challenge was getting the programme off the ground. “We had huge success with our safety drive because it’s close to peoples’ hearts,” says Henrik Kristensen, head of corporate responsibilities, “but with the environment people are not sure of its merit and some don’t believe in climate change. We put in a few changes – included it in our terminal managers’ scorecards to make it a key performance indicator, which has worked – a carrot-and-stick sort of thing.”

Ports are being careful to make their progress verifiable. Two main points of reference are used – volumes per teu and actual emissions. Base years can be a handy method of fudging the figures, but most international operators choose the year that they signed up with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, seen as the most comprehensive and effective system of measurement. Says Matthew de Villiers, “The important fact is to be transparent and to stick to a single methodology.”

DP World launched its programme in 2008 of a 27% reduction over five years. Mr Haine explains: “We compared ourselves with other multi-national companies, not just in ports, and chose this level because it puts us in the top bracket of those that are reducing their carbon footprint.” The 2010 findings have still to be totted up but 2009 reduction was 10.7%, giving a total of 830,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

APM Terminals produced about 700,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2009, with a 10% reduction in 2010 and aiming for 6% this year. The group aims to cut emissions by 15% in 2012, over the 2007 base year.

“But there is only so much that you can do in cutting emissions”, says Mr Kristensen. “You end up doing more with less and have to find new strategies.” The next step for APM Terminals is to invest in low carbon solutions, such as retrofitting of equipment, and further evaluate possibilities in carbon neutral energy solutions. “Very few private companies build these types of projects, because it takes years to pay back, and it’s mainly utilities that do so,” says Mr Kristensen.

“We evaluate to invest in retrofitting possibilities – in this area the technologies are known – however, on carbon neutral projects we still need to explore more widely, since the energy required to run a large container terminal is very significant.”

Individual terminals’ commitment to emissions management has been remarkably consistent throughout the world, be they in advanced or Third World countries. “Africa is just as keen on going green as elsewhere” says Mr Kristensen, “and our advantage as a global company comes in because they want to learn from experienced operators.” A particularly reassuring trend, he says, is that national and local authorities support cleaner ports.

“The one difficulty with poorer countries is that the ports can’t change easily from diesel fuel to, say, electricity. What we do then is make sure that best practices are followed and the latest technology for cutting diesel emissions is available.”

African ports also want to use more wind-generated power, but many are clustered around the Equator, where the laws of physics dictate that wind is hardly plentiful.

However, devotion to the cause is said to be lagging in the US. Greenstone says the nation is still in the throes of debating the merits and validity of reducing emissions. “Europe and other parts of the world have gone beyond this and are in what might be called the Carbon Plus stage.”

Los Angeles is probably one of the few exceptions. Kevin Maggay, air quality supervisor at the port, says Scope 3 emissions are calculated “for project specific environmental assessments and for annual inventories. For environmental assessments the port tries to mitigate impacts to the maximum extent feasible with a goal of zero increase from existing conditions. Through the California Climate Action Registry, the port reports Scope 1 and 2 emissions.”

A carbon calculator is being developed with the World Ports Climate Initiative, using the software program iThink.

Although Los Angeles has not set a timeline for becoming carbon neutral, reduction targets are 1990 levels by 2020, 35% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.