Canada not on board with plan to ban 'dirty fuel' use on Arctic shipping routes

It's time Canada develops a plan to get rid of "the dirtiest, the cheapest, the bottom of the barrel fuel on the planet" without placing a burden on northern communities, says specialist.

Feds say they're concerned ban would drive up the cost of getting supplies to remote Arctic communities

The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 06, 2018 4:12 PM EDT | Last Updated: April 6, 2018

Ice floats past a cargo ship and the hamlet of Pond Inlet, Nunavut, in 2014. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

The Canadian government wants more study on the impact of eliminating heavy fuel oil in the Arctic before it signs onto an international agreement to ban its use there.

Sixteen months ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then-U.S. President Barack Obama jointly committed to phase down the use of heavy fuel oils in the Arctic.

In an unexpected turn of events, the U.S.is keeping its end of the bargain under President Donald Trump.

Last summer, the U.S. along with Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Iceland and New Zealand proposed that the International Marine Organization ban heavy fuel oils from Arctic shipping vessels by 2021.

Heavy fuel oil has been banned in the Antarctic since 2011.

The proposed ban would apply to heavy fuel oil used or beingcarried for use by ships during trips through Arctic waters, but notto ships carrying it as cargo for use elsewhere.

Federal gov't to spend $175M on Arctic Ocean protection, spill response

"A single HFO spill could have devastating and lasting effectson fragile Arctic marine and coastal environments," the proposalsays.

"In addition, Arctic shipping is projected to continue torise, thus increasing the risk of a spill. For these reasons, theban on HFO should be implemented as soon as possible, and any delayin implementation of the HFO ban by eligible ships should beshort-lived."

Ban may drive up costs for northern communities

Canada, however, wants a delay.

It joined the Marshall Islands one of the most popular places in the world for shipping companiesto register their vessels to submit a request for things to beslowed down until further study on the economic and other impacts ofsuch a ban on Arctic communities can be completed.

Have they been sitting on theirhands hoping the issue will go away and now it's not so now they'resort of caught off guard and want to put the brakes on?- AndrewDumbrille, WWF Canada

Among the concerns: heavy fuel oil is far cheaper than the mainalternative, diesel, and replacing it would drive up the cost ofgetting supplies to remote Arctic communities.

Food and other goodsare already far more expensive in the North because of the cost toship them there.

Canada's position doesn't say it won't support a ban ever but itdoes want more study before seeing one put in place.

The Nunavut government wouldn't comment for this story.

Heavy fuel'most significant threat' to Arctic

Heavy fuel oil is a sludge-like byproduct of making distilledfuel like gasoline. It is half the cost of most alternatives but produces far more pollutants including 30 to 80 per cent more blackcarbon, a problematic pollutant in the Arctic.

In 2009, the Arctic Council called heavy fuel oil "the mostsignificant threat from ships to the Arctic environment."

The air pollution from heavy fuel oil burned on shipping vesselshas been blamed for thousands of deaths due to air pollution eachyear.

It also breaks down far more slowly than other fuels like marinediesel, meaning it's nearly impossible to get rid of once it spillsinto the ocean.

The International Council on Clean Transportation reported thatit's the most commonly used shipping fuel in the Arctic and its usethere is growing as climate change expands shipping options throughthe far North.

Has Canada been 'sitting on [its] hands?'

Andrew Dumbrille, sustainable shipping specialist at WorldWildlife Fund Canada, saidhe doesn't understand the need for delay,given that Canada has known for "months and years" that this issuewas coming and committed to addressing it with Obama.

"So, they've been doing nothing to do cost-benefit analysis ordo they have one?" he asked. "Have they been sitting on theirhands hoping the issue will go away and now it's not so now they'resort of caught off guard and want to put the brakes on?"

Dumbrille said 2021 is three years away plenty of time todevelop a plan to get rid of "the dirtiest, the cheapest, the
bottom of the barrel fuel on the planet" without placing a burdenon northern communities.

Most ships can convert to using marine diesel without muchdifficulty, he said. The WWF would prefer they switch to liquidnatural gas but that would require a lot of new marineinfrastructure to allow for refuelling.

Heavy fuel oil use is one of the items on the agenda next weekwhen the environment committee of the International MarineOrganization meets in London.