Dear Colleagues, I have just been informed by Barbara that an IMO meeting on this very topic *is being conducted now*:
Meeting Summaries and Schedule https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/Default.aspx Is anyone in these groups participating (or know someone who is) who would be willing to raise the question of " increasing sulfur emissions from ships when traversing the high seas away from human settlements" (per Barbara's succinct summary) to the meeting? Best, Ron On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:06 PM Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > A bunch of us (in forums and communications within the groups in the lists > above) have been discussing a potential immediate practical step (that > earlier has been raised by others) that may provide at least a modicum of > cooling especially over the oceans: *a relaxation of the "bunker fuel" > sulfur content regulations that just came into effect in 2020 > (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force > <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force> > ) for inter-port "high seas" shipping. *The idea is that cargo ships and > tankers would be able to use the old dirty sulfur laden fuel in the open > ocean but switch to the cleaner fuel when they are near ports or human > habitation. Apparently many ships have multiple fuel tanks so that they may > be able to switch fuels in transit. > > *To be clear, we would stress that we fully support getting off of fossil > fuels, but if fossil fuels are going to be used anyway it makes no sense > not to at least benefit from fossil fuel burning maritime sulfur aerosol > generation that is known to have a significant cooling effect *(how much > is currently being re-estimated using the "termination shock" signal from > the 2020 abrupt change in sulfur emissions due to the regulation). *Looking > forward this also points the way to including effective (and hopefully less > harmful to human health) tropospheric aerosol generators in future non GHG > emitting replacements for the bunker fuel* (see the HPAC direct climate > cooling petition for some possible options: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view?usp=sharing > ). > > Any thoughts or data on this that might be helpful in working up (or not) > this proposal would be appreciated. > > For example, the last sentence in this excerpt from a quote in this > Guardian piece ( > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/19/marine-heatwave-uk-irish-coasts-threat-oysters-fish-high-temperatures) > shared in recent ocean heat spike thread: > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/19/marine-heatwave-uk-irish-coasts-threat-oysters-fish-high-temperature > suggests that this may be a factor causing the recent unprededented spike > in ocean heating: > > "Piers Forster, a professor of climate physics at the University of Leeds, > said: “Both Met Office and NOAA analyses of sea-surface temperature show > temperatures are at their highest ever level – and the average sea-surface > temperature breached 21C for the first time in April. These high > temperatures are mainly driven by unprecedented high rates of human-induced > warming. Cleaning up sulphur from marine shipping fuels is probably adding > to the greenhouse gas driven warming..."" > > Best, > Ron > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9Cw%2B2duJn4L_7GorVrJGmGP-Erc2AfTGktJ3d8YFpiQjg%40mail.gmail.com.
