Fight has implications for Obama green strategy, region’s employment woes
An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that would compel the vessels to burn cleaner fuel and upgrade their engines has sparked a furious behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign that has come to a head this week, pitting congressional Democrats against a Democratic administration as lawmakers allied with Midwestern and Alaskan shippers pressure the EPA to back down and protect jobs.
The outcome of the battle -- which has delayed consideration of the EPA's budget -- has implications for a region battered by unemployment and one of the Obama's administration's key environmental strategies.
Large vessels rank second only to power plants as to the health risk their air pollution poses, and the EPA estimates the proposal will produce more health benefits than those it has applied to off-road vehicles, diesel trucks and other sources. Without further regulation by 2030, the agency projects that smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions from the ships will more than double, to 2.1 million tons a year.
Environmental and health groups say the new standards, proposed in July and set to be finalized by Dec. 17, would prevent up to 33,000 premature deaths a year from problems such as heart disease, respiratory illness and cancer. Although coastal areas would reap the biggest clean air benefits, air quality would also improve for states hundreds of miles inland, including Nevada, Tennessee and Pennsylvania, and parks such as the Grand Canyon and the Great Smoky Mountains.
The proposal would limit air emissions from ships in the United States' exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its coasts. This includes the 133 American and Canadian "Lakers" that spend their whole lives in the Great Lakes or St. Lawrence Seaway and the smaller "Salties" that go between foreign and Great Lakes ports.
The agency wants to require vessels to switch by 2015 from viscous bunker fuel, which contains about 30,000 parts per million sulfur, to fuel that contains no more than 1,000 parts per million. Trucks are required to use fuel with no more than 15 ppm sulfur, and by 2015 locomotives, bulldozers and barges will have similar limits.
~@~
I have lived in the Great Lakes region most of my life. Today I currently live in a small town that relies upon the shipping industry for it's lifeblood. While I am all for cleaner air quality, I must question why this industry is being singled out while the entire US Navy and Coast Guard are exempt from these same regulations.
My small town is poised to acquire a new industry, a clean-coal fired energy plant.
This energy plant will be totally dependant upon the shipping industry supplying the coal used for fuel.
Wolverine Power Plant in Rogers City, MI
http://wolverinecleanenergy.com/
Now, given time and the governments ear, I could resolve this air quality problem without ruining this industry and putting even more people out of work in Michigan.
This new Energy Plant is poised to bring around 300 good paying jobs to this community as well as the benefits to all of Michigan through the energy produced. If the above EPA regulations serve to destroy the shipping industry, not only will we not get these new employment opportunities but, even more of my friends and neighbors will lose the jobs they currently hold.
Please contact the http://www.epa.gov/ and tell them not to destroy my community.
I also suggest writing the President, asking him why the US Navy is exempt from this requirement while families who's very lives depend upon this industry are being forced out of work.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
"Clean-coal" is carbon, all carbon, burn it = carbon, crush it = carbon, apply thousands of pounds of pressure to it = carbon/diamond!
Who are they fooling? Answer: themselves!
I suppose you are one of those folks who think the devil hid all those fake fossils just to fool mankind too ?
"Clean-coal" is chemically washed with water and minerals designed to lower impurities from the coal to reduce surfers and other contaminants which reduce, but do not eliminate harmful off gases.
I believe in consequences, burning coal even “Clean coal” has environmental consequences.
Where is the energy coming from that runs your computer?
Shouldn't you shut off your computer and stop polluting the planet?
I understand Clean Coal all too well, you don't need to lecture me.
It is a viable alternative and if you knew anything about our state and it's current needs both for employment and cheaper energy, you would apologize for your previous comments.
Oh, the pains of the inconvenient truths.
Your mental masturbation does not impress me!
You're being 'off the grid' only works in a self-contained bubble.
Listen, why not go elsewhere with your smart-ass comments.
I certainly do not want them cluttering up my pages.
You offer nothing but ridicule every time you join the conversation.
It is not appreciated nor wanted, just go make others angry.
I have my life under control and you are sadly trailing in the dust of dreamers and complainers while the rest of us are doing something useful.
You know nothing about me or my life.
Because I write an article regarding the demise of an Industry which my town is dependent upon, you come to the conclusion I am "sadly trailing in the dust of dreamers and complainers" ?
Seems you are simply full of self-deception and delusions, wanting to brag that you are somehow better than the rest of us.
I do not need your kind commenting on my articles, please refrain from further comments. It will save me the trouble of having to delete them.
You know nothing about me or my life."
Heed your own words, one who is inclined to say "I do not need your kind.." is no longer a friend of mine!
Now say good by as a comment and a friend!
Seriously, you claim to be an educator and example for people to admire and follow yet, you come along and demean people with your every breadth?
I certainly feel for all your student, they must leave your class completely feeling rejected and dismayed they do not live up to your standards.
Get a life and get a grip !
How should I feel about that? Should I be glad that people around the world are using our tobacco products? Should I feel guilty for all the suffering and deaths each year that result from tobacco use? Should I advocate for a ban on tobacco products and production?
The air pollution from ships and power plants kills people and increases global warming. How should you feel about that?
I know how most people feel. "If it means money in my pocket, let them die."
Tobacco is a far cry from Ships that transport goods.
As for these older ships which may pollute the air quality, I believe a system of replacement with upgraded ships would suffice. Simply shutting down an entire industry on a given timeline without any support at replacing these ships is ridiculous.
Tobacco use is terrible and even though I smoke, I would welcome the day when Tobacco is considered a Class I drug (equal legally to Industrial Hemp)
It is not as simple as refitting these old ships to burn a new fuel source, they must be replaced. Not giving the industry time to replace it's fleet will only cost jobs and bring strife to peoples lives.
Another point I find ludicrous is that the Federal Government is exempt from these regulations they are imposing upon the civilian fleet.
Mandate the same requirements on the same timetable for every Navy ship that enters our coastal waters and then we may find a compromise.
I don't envy whoever has to make the decisions on this one.