Ports Urged to Lead the Way to Zero-Emissions by 2040

First Global Report Cards Point the Way

For over 15 years, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have touted themselves as green ports, but their greenhouse gas emissions have risen by more than 20% during this time, while the reduction of other pollutants has slowed dramatically after initial successes, and was sharply reversed by the pandemic. But despite this spotty record, they’re two of just five ports worldwide placed in the “full speed ahead” category in Pacific Environment’s initial set of “RePORT Cards for Shipping Ports,” assessing progress towards zero-emission shipping as part of its Ports for People campaign. These ports are recognized for having “committed decarbonization plans,” though they may not be as strong as necessary, and they’re offered “specific recommendations for prioritization and focus.”

The 2021 jump in pollution is “inexcusable,” the report card for POLA notes. “The San Pedro Bay ports must leverage their authority and economic power to immediately mandate cleaner ships and move toward 100% renewable shore power,” it says. “The Port of Los Angeles holds enormous power and responsibility in the shipping industry. Together with its federal, state and local government and port partners, the port must commit to zero-emission shipping by 2040, accelerate efforts to decarbonize its shore power supply, and eliminate air and water quality pollutants from all vessels that call its port.”

The report cards are based on the nine-point “Ports Playbook for Zero-Emission Shipping” released in September, with the initial set covering 15 of the top 50 ports worldwide. “We wanted to make sure we had an adequate representation of ports from around the world,” playbook co-author Allyson Browne told Random Lengths News. “So it’s kind of a combination of some of the world’s busiest ports and also some of the most economically important ports in other regions,” she said. “We wanted to measure where ports are on adopting a zero-emission shipping trajectory for 2040, based on where their planning and development is today,” They hope to expand the project to eventually include all of the top 50 ports.

The Ports Playbook was divided into three parts, from the most broad to the most specific. First, commitments: zero emissions shipping by 2040, create or join green shipping corridors, abandon all fossil-fuel projects. Second, policies: set mandatory zero-emission standards for all ships calling at port, reward first movers and attract the world’s cleanest ships, implement environmental and ecological protection, preservation and resiliency measures that support pollution and emissions reductions. Third, progress: electrify everything, provide clean energy and reliable fueling for zero-emission cargo ships, center community and maritime worker involvement and support in the port’s zero-emission action plan. The report cards place ports into three buckets as well — “jumpstart,” “accelerate,” and “full speed ahead,” based on their progress toward meeting the 2040 zero-emissions goal.

The first is “jumpstart,” exemplified by Manzanillo, Mexico’s main Pacific Ocean port. “Manzanillo doesn’t have much in the way of commitment, policies or progress on zero-emission shipping, so we rated them with a “jumpstart” rating, meaning they need to take a really active planning and implementation process to get to a zero-emission trajectory under way,” Browne explained. The commitment section of Manzanillo’s report card makes it clear that Mexico as a whole needs to step up. It’s not a party to the Clydebank Declaration, committing to creation of green shipping corridors, “and its national commitments to reduce emissions are highly insufficient to meet a 1.5 degree Celsius scenario,” largely due to Mexico’s reliance on its fossil fuel resources. Hence, “Transitioning to a clean energy future will require a national commitment to prioritize climate mitigation and adaptation, and moving toward producing clean energy in place of heavily-polluting fossil fuels.”

The “accelerate” category includes Shanghai, “because they have entered into this agreement with LA & Long Beach for a green shipping corridor,” Browne said, “But we think that it’s very important that they accelerate their ambition to make sure that it’s aligned with 1.5o scenario — so, mandating that all ships on that corridor be zero-emissions by 2040 and so far what we’ve heard about the corridor, that would initially be voluntary.” Shanghai’s commitment section notes, “the Port of Shanghai does not have a dedicated commitment for zero-emission shipping” and “will need to adopt aggressive policies to mandate clean shore power and zero-emission fuels.”

Oslo is one of five ports rated “full speed ahead.” Its commitment section notes “Its goal to reduce total CO2 emissions 85% by 2030 and to become one of the world’s first emissions-free ports is by far the most ambitious zero-emission target set by ports to date.”

“They have a very robust approach to decarbonize their onshore operations, as well as to address emissions coming from ships,” Browne added.

Singapore, also rated “full speed ahead” is negotiating a green corridor agreement with LA and Long Beach, it has one with Rotterdam as well, and has adopted a zero emission by 2050 strategy. “While we applaud their efforts… they need to take more aggressive and faster steps to get to zero emissions by 2040.” Browne said. “And also we have concerns about Singapore’s commitment on LNG, they’re very pro-LNG, they have entered into MOUs to provide LNG bunkering to several shipping companies and so we want to make sure that they move away from LNG as quickly as possible because it’s not compatible with a net zero by 2040 trajectory.”

Closer to home, Vancouver BC is also a “full speed ahead” port.

“Vancouver has been very progressive… they have a very considerate vessel slow down program, especially to protect and preserve the wildlife that live in the bay surrounding the Vancouver port,” Browne explained. “They were one of the first ports to adopt a really comprehensive vessel slow-down program. So we wanted to acknowledge that. They also have requirements for shore power,” she said, “And they adopted a zero emissions plan for the port.” Still, she said, there’s more they can do — specifically adopt a 2040 zero-emission target, as opposed to their current 2050 target, agreed to as part of the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy (NPCAS), a collaborative strategy by the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, the Northwest Seaport Alliance and the Port of Vancouver. It’s “one of the most ambitious commitments from ports in the world,” Vancouver’s commitment section notes. But it’s still not sufficient to achieve a 1.5 degree Celsius scenario.

San Pedro Bay Report Cards

Locally, the ports of LA and Long Beach have much in common, specifically under the umbrella of the Clean Air Action Plan, “However, they’re not on target to actually achieve the goals that [are] in that strategy,” Browne noted. “So they both need to accelerate the actual implementation measures to achieve the goals that they set for themselves, and assure that they adopt more progressive targets to achieve zero mission shipping by 2040.” The CAAP is mentioned in both ports’ commitment section, along with green shipping corridor agreements with Singapore and Shanghai. (POLA is “Very early in the process” of developing them, according to spokesman Arley Baker.) The devil could be very much in the details of these agreements — not to mention in the follow-through.

The pandemic emission spike reflects a lack of proactive initiative, vigilance and nimbleness of response, also evident in the ongoing breakdown in monitoring brought to light by Andrea Hricko, a coalition partner with Pacific Environment. “The real issue with that is that there is not proper accountability to make sure that that’s happening in a very transparent way. It takes advocates like Andrea at USC to be tracking it very closely to see when those equipment come off-line …. It shouldn’t be on the people … and unfortunately that is the case right now.”

Looking further into particulars, “the Port of Long Beach has several problematic perspectives on decarbonization,” its progress section notes, including “developing liquefied natural gas (LNG) bunkering facilities” and “a channel deepening project to make way for larger ships at the Port, despite the environmental impacts and climate resiliency impact of such expansion.”

POLB “is working to update its port master plan … and one of the proposed changes to the port master plan is an increase in the permissible use at pier S” including “development of an LNG bunkering facility.” It’s very concerning because “The Port of Long Beach already has the authority and the ability to develop LNG at other piers and this change would just give them additional space to do that,” Browne explained. “So we are fighting to get that addition removed from the port master plan update, but we’re also advocating for the port to take a stronger stand on banning all fossil fuels development at the port, including LNG, because LNG is that, it’s a fossil fuel and it’s primarily composed of methane,” which far more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

“We’re very concerned that the port has not taken an outright stance against LNG and that there is any consideration that they would be developing a fossil fuel bunkering project at the port that would dramatically harm the community for decades to come,” Browne said.

POLA’s progress section has more positive news: “The City of Los Angeles is collaborating with local and state government, labor and industry partners to pursue development of a green hydrogen hub in Los Angeles, with plans to apply for funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.” But there’s a warning as well: “As this initiative progresses, it is imperative that environmental justice be prioritized to ensure a just transition and an equitable future for all.”

“The development of any new energy infrastructure comes with pros and cons, and we need to be very cautious about the way that we develop any new energy infrastructure moving it into transition, both from a safety perspective and an environmental perspective,” Browne explained. The safety perspective involves “people working the port, operating the equipment, and also the neighborhood at large, and the risk of things like explosions, fires, things like that” while the environmental side involves “emissions and potential leakage coming from that equipment and facilities,” she said “So we want to ensure that environmental justice communities, community advocacy groups, public health experts are very carefully intertwined into the process” of the hydrogen hub development, “and make sure that those voices are predominantly heard at the table to ensure we minimize the amount of risk and harm to the community.”

In conclusion, Browne said, “We really want to impress upon all ports they have responsibility, and an economic opportunity to transition to zero emission shipping and we lay out that plan in our playbook.” In addition, she said, “We look forward to collaborating with community EJ action groups all over the world, as they work to get their ports to zero emissions.”