Moving the SOx and NOx debate on

“For many ports, particularly those in the US and Europe much has been done to address certain sources of emissions, but very few port operators have considered this in the context of wider sustainability challenges.”

He reckons that emissions discussions have “stalled on SOx and NOx with some forays into carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. As vital links in our global transport infrastructure, ports are the perfect place to pioneer low and clean energy technologies and an obvious point to try and regulate emissions across the supply chain. But there are other critical sustainability issues for ports to address and it’s time to move the discussion on.

“The cost benefit equation works well for ports as far as energy savings go. Latest models of almost all pieces of equipment or machinery is more energy efficient and therefore cheaper to run from a fuel perspective. Simple energy saving measures in other areas of operations will of course save money too with the return on investment delivering that saving over various timescales. Many of the emission reduction activities at ports such as reducing truck idling make clear economic, as well as environmental sense.”

Mr Redvers also calls for more attention to overall social benefit in regard to the cost/benefit discussion and says that for those who are responsible for emissions, particularly Sox, there are more wide-ranging ramifications.

“All forms of emissions to air can be considered externalities for the polluter. In other words, the polluter reaps the economic benefit of the free disposal of their emissions, which are a consequence of their business operations and society at large has to pick up the environmental and social cost. Where polluters are obliged to pay for their emissions or in the case of some ports required or encouraged to spend more to pollute less, such as the Port of Gothenburg Fuel Switch Programme, we are simply seeing the cost being carried by those who receive the benefit. And they in turn pass it down the supply chain to the end customer.

“So emission reductions, energy savings aside, only make true sense if the wider social benefit is added into the cost benefit equation and that doesn’t show up on the balance sheet of the ship owner, charterer or the port. There are of course, direct benefits for a port too, based around reputation and community goodwill which can have direct impacts on the number of lawsuits being defended etc.

“The bigger challenge for ports, however, is not one of emissions. This will be resolved in the medium term by new technologies, legislation and behavioural change. We already have the models in place and they are proving their worth.

“So here’s the question, can the port of the future be a place which protects sensitive coastal habitats, provides clean energy generation for the local community and acts as a hub for sustainable innovation in transport infrastructure? Even beyond that, imagine a port which refused to handle unethical cargoes such as timber from ecologically sensitive areas, or the produce from over-exploited fisheries? That would take a port’s environmental responsibility to an entirely different level. “