New report: Solutions to one sustainability problem often create another

Scrubbers clean sulfur emissions but pollute the seas. Antifouling paints reduce fuel consumption but can also spread toxic substances in the oceans. A new pre-study from Lighthouse and the Swedish Transport Administration takes a closer look at goal conflicts, examining how measures that solve one sustainability problem often create another—something decision-makers do not always consider.

Death, isolation, and economic decline, but also reduced climate emissions and better air quality. The lockdowns during the coronavirus pandemic also brought positive side effects. The same, absurdly enough, applies to the Ukraine war. Russia's invasion and aggressive stance have put Sweden in a completely new security policy situation, which not only prompted Swedish politicians to quickly seek NATO membership but also suddenly made them realize the importance of shipping for supplying Sweden in both peace and crisis times. This is something the shipping industry has tried to highlight for several years without success. It took a war to get politicians to talk about the need for reflagging and swiftly increase funding for maritime education at Chalmers and Linnaeus University.

Positive side effects are, of course, easy to talk about. But what about negative side effects, such as those that create new sources of emissions because others have been mitigated? Within the Lighthouse sphere, there has long been a discussion about this dilemma, and in a new preliminary study called Målkonflikter inom sjöfartsområdet (Goal Conflicts in the Shipping Sector), researchers from IVL and Chalmers document several such cases.

“It is important to capture and discuss negative side effects, especially for Lighthouse, which conducts research in collaboration with the industry. Shipping companies, for example, can be negatively impacted both in terms of image and financially if they invest in a new technology that eventually turns out to have a side effect that negatively affects the marine environment,” says Erik Fridell, professor and researcher at IVL.

A clear example of such a miscalculation in shipping concerns so-called scrubbers that have been installed on many ships to reduce air emissions of sulfur to meet the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) sulfur directive. However, the process in the scrubbers creates acidic wash water with toxic substances and particles that are often discharged directly into the marine environment. The original intention of the sulfur directive, for shipping to transition to cleaner fuel, was circumvented as ships could continue running on heavy fuel oil.

“It would certainly be better if all ships ran on low-sulfur fuel. Within the IMO, they didn’t sufficiently consider the negative consequences for the sea when they allowed scrubbers.”

Scrubber technology is the subject of one of six goal conflicts addressed in the preliminary study. Another involves antifouling paints used to reduce fouling on hulls, which leads to lower fuel consumption, lower emissions to air, and reduced risk of spreading invasive species. The problem is that many of these paints are toxic and release large amounts of harmful substances into the marine environment.

“There is, however, an opportunity here as new non-toxic paints are emerging,” says Erik Fridell.

A third goal conflict concerns the transfer of goods from road to sea. In Sweden, there are several measures to stimulate this, partly to reduce road congestion. In most cases, such a transfer leads to reduced fuel consumption while air pollution emissions generally increase, as does the impact on the sea.

“It is good to have measures that transfer transport from road to sea, but then it must be ensured that it is transferred to good ships with low air emissions. If society is to support a transfer, not just any old ships can be used. A tightening of the measures, I believe, would benefit shipowners as well.”

The purpose of the report is to create awareness that gets researchers, decision-makers, and others to reflect more on the problems of goal conflicts.

“One needs to think more critically about different solutions and technologies and try to highlight the side effects as early as possible, before measures are formulated or projects are started,” says Erik Fridell.

Other goal conflicts addressed in the report include nitrogen oxide cleaning, which can lead to increased fuel consumption, ballast water treatment, which reduces the risk of spreading invasive species but can lead to the spread of environmental toxins, and propellers that emit less underwater noise but consume more fuel.

The pre-study Målkonflikter inom sjöfartsområdet  has been conducted within the framework of the Swedish Transport Administration's industry program Sustainable Shipping and was authored by Erik Fridell (IVL), Tobias Gustavsson Binder (IVL), Jesper Hassellöv (Chalmers), Ida-Maja Hassellöv (Chalmers), and Erik Ytreberg (Chalmers).