Millions of containers of goods move through ports in Charleston and across the U.S. every year—critical gateways for international commerce—but the air pollution associated with the massive shipping vessels that carry them gets less attention from locals and legislators.
Port-related operations emit toxins and other harmful emissions that pose a health risk to neighboring communities, according to a study by Friends of the Earth (FoE), an environmental advocacy group with a global reach and sturdy roots in the Lowcountry. John Kaltenstein, FoE oceans and vessels deputy director, spent some of his environmental advocacy career in Berkeley County before moving to remote work in Arizona.
“They’re essentially a massive power plant—each ship coming in that anchors or is birthed at the port,” Kaltenstein said. “When we compare it to newer trucks that are steadily being replaced by electric models, it’s a bit mind-boggling that we have been this blindsided — that we haven’t really picked up on maritime emissions that can cause pollutants that lead to public health problems.”
These emissions can worsen asthma, decrease lung function and cause heart attacks and cancer, according to FoE. Certain populations, like the elderly, children and those with pre-existing conditions, are even more vulnerable.
And, traffic at South Carolina ports is growing. The Port of Charleston reported its highest-ever container volume in December 2020. Charleston handled 209,606 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) in December 2020, up from 207,066 TEUs in November and an 11.6% increase from December 2019, the South Carolina Ports Authority said Jan. 11.
Detailed reports and records are taken and kept about ships’ inventories, but few reports document their emissions. The South Carolina Ports Authority has not filed optional CO2 emissions inventories, something Kaltenstein thinks should be mandatory for large ports.
Kaltenstein tried to figure out what the big ports do throughout the U.S. and the CO2 equivalent that the Port of Charleston may be producing, he explained, and a rough estimate seems to be just over 200,000 tons of CO2 per year.
Just one cargo ship visiting the Port of Charleston on average produces emissions equivalent to 23,810 heavy-duty diesel trucks idling for 16 hours, but due to variable docking times, specific emission rates are hard to measure retroactively.
“We wouldn’t tolerate, or at least most communities wouldn’t, a whole mess of trucks just idling for hours and hours by your home or your kids’ school, but somehow we get the sense that it’s OK because the ships are out of sight and out of mind,” Kaltenstein said.
Fortunately, there are a number of solutions, one of which is explored thoroughly in the FoE’s study: shore power.
Shore power has ships use electrical grid power while docked instead of running its diesel-powered auxiliary engines, decreasing overall emissions substantially and nearly eliminating them at berth. “It’s like plugging them in, but on a much larger scale,” Kaltenstein said.
“Shore power is a common-sense way we
can protect our coastal communities from harmful air pollution,” said Riley Egger, the land, water and wildlife project manager at the Coastal Conservation League. “The [S.C. Ports Authority] strives to be the greenest in the Southeast, and equipping our ports with shore power connections is an economical way to achieve that goal. From cruise ships to cargo vessels, we would all benefit if ships connected directly to our power grid instead of relying on dirty fuel to power their ships while at S.C. ports.”
The South Carolina Ports Authority did not respond to requests for comment about the prospect of shore power at the agency’s growing portfolio of docks, mostly clustered in Charleston. But, previous statements show officials are skeptical when it comes to shore power use in Charleston.
“Shore power has really been rendered as a last-generation solution at most major ports,” S.C. Ports’ chief executive Jim Newsome told The Post and Courier in 2015. “I don’t think you’ll see any shore power installations.”
Newsome explained less-toxic fuel, which is mandatory for ships within the U.S., and scrubbers in ships’ smokestacks that can reduce emissions and trap soot have led to emissions reductions that he said render air quality improvements from shore power obsolete.
But, that was more than five years ago, and the report this month shows emissions still well above what advocates see as acceptable levels.
A recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report found shore power, on a per-call basis, would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 62.1-89.9% for certain types of frequently calling ships. Use of shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is expected to result in overall monetized health benefits of just under $9 million annually.
Federal legislation under President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan is also poised to make a dent in maritime emissions with the Smart Ports Act, which would invest in zero-emissions technology and infrastructure and address what has been called a source of environmental injustice.
“There’s so much opportunity we can really work with the ports on, and I think just one bit that’s important is that … while they may agree with some of these zero-emissions trucks, and plugging their ships shoreside, these options aren’t free,” Kaltenstein said. “The ports should be spending some of their revenue on these solutions as a sort of equitable arrangement, but it does help a lot if we are going through this transition as a society and the government can help subsidize that transition.
“I’m very hopeful for potential right now.”
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.